MAybe he decided that keeping any controversy going was not in his best interest. I apologize ,…and move on. He probably feels stupid for allowing himself to be provoked.
Well, let me ask what you knew about Bob Etheridge before this story hit the press. Because this is far from normal behavior for him. And that’s from someone he’s represented for 11 years, and who’s kept casual tabs on him.
I mean, we all know you’re the eternal student who thinks that he deserves a free ride, lifetime college tuition paid for by the taxpayer, while bemoaning that anybody else gets a dime from the Bad Old Gummint, ‘cause things aren’t like they were in the Good Ol’ Days when people knew their proper place, sure as tootin!
And however wrong that characterization may be, it’s founded on a HELL of a lot more evidence than your character assassination of Etheridge.
I think he was wrong to have grabbed the college kid. I suspect he was provoked. I think he saw an unconditional apology was th right thing to do, and did it. He did say he was stressed from a long and tiring day and reacted badly to a confrontation.
Shoe’s in your court, SA – care to show you have as much class as a Congressman?
I figure that’s the most likely answer. He decided not making an issue of it is the best way to let it blow over. Won’t matter, this will be all over Fox this week.
The shoe’s in my court?
This is a game with which I am not familiar. 
I knew nothing about him beforehand. But experience has taught me that people don’t suddenly acquire personality traits that are completely foreign to them simply because they are under stress or “having a bad day”. Everything about his behavior in this incident indicates to me that he was not behaving in a way that completely unfamilar to him. It was apparent that even though he was behaving in a way that most of us would consider to be out of control, he actually was in control quite a bit. He held the kid’s wrist just enough to keep him where he wanted him; he kept his voice under control, repeating his questions firmly and rapidly enough to try to keep the kid off guard but never crossed over the line into screaming or ranting; he grabbed the kid by the neck and turned/shoved him around and grasped his shoulder, he only did it enough to accomplish what he wanted, which was apparently to get the kid’s face into the video, and it was only after that that he seemed visibly to realize he was going too far and then let the kid go and walked away.
All of this tells me he was behaving in a way that he was familiar with, and that he was familiar with it because he has acted that way before and on a certain level thinks that behavior will get him what he wants…which in this case was to put the questioner on the defensive and intimidate him.
I disagree. I can’t think of a single time that I’ve posted anything that would support any of those allegations.
Then I’ll ask you the same thing I asked Sampiro (and which he hasn’t answered ;)), which is where exactly do you think the provocation occurred? The video was uninterrupted from the time that Etheridge approached the students to the time that he smacked the camera, insisting to know from the first question who the kid was. When the video resumes, everyone is in the same position and Etheridge is continuing his “Who are you/Tell me who you are!” mantra. He is holding the kid’s wrist for a full 30 seconds and ignores repeated entreaties to to release it, and then grabs the kid by the neck and pulls/shoves him into the position he wants him to be in and holds him there by physical force. At no time during any of this is there anything in the video itself or in Etheridge’s demeanor to indicate that some unusual or extraordinary provocation has taken place.
Now, you say you’ve known of him for 11 years but have kept tabs on him only casually. I would interpret that to mean that you don’t know how he conducts himself outside of public view. If you were to tell me that you worked for him in his office and had seen him under stress many times before and that never once had he acted this way, I’d be surprised but I’d believe you and then be somewhat inclined to give him a pass on this one instance.
But you don’t know what he’s like in his private life and everything about his behavior in this video tells me that when the chips are down, he regards bullying and intimidation as his friend. And, given that people rarely try to bully or intimidate people they regard as their superiors or equals, I’d say that he tends to have an arrogant sense of superiority to those he subjects to those kinds of tactics.
So as you can see, I had certain specific reasons for characterizing him as I did, and unfortunately I’ve read nothing in your post that leads me to believe those characterizations were wrong. I will concede that I could be wrong - Etheridge might be the sweetest, most caring, generous and good-hearted guy in the world and this could have been a one-off that has never happened before and will never happen again - but I’d be very surprised if that was the case in reality. My own take is that he’s probably a guy who is considered to be a pretty good guy by most of those who know him and probably is for the most part, but that he’s also a guy who nevertheless is fairly quick to play the bully/intimidation card whenever he feels it’s necessary.
True enough on the uninterrupted part, but there are hiccups in the tape long enough to remove a word and Etheridge is very close to them when the video begins. It’s very possible that their first words to him are not on the tape or that there is some type of sign or logo that isn’t seen on tape. As I mentioned I don’t know anything about Etheridge, but does it seem not at all odd to you that a 67 year old man with no history of irrational confrontation and who has surely been interviewed before irrationally confronts two people for asking him a question?
And as I mentioned above I believe whatever happened he behaved foolishly, but I don’t think we know the full story.
And again, what class project do you suppose they were working on?
So how many strangers would you imagine he has grabbed in his decade in D.C. before he got caught?
So in other words he used only enough force to control without harming and the “kid” had nothing to be concerned about, save that he might not ever be able to bear children due to the trauma.
In case you’ve never been to D.C., video cameras aren’t that uncommon. People asking you questions on the street- also not that uncommon, especially if you’re a Congressman. People opposed to Obama- not that uncommon. In the thirteen years he’s been there I would wager my left kidney that Etheridge has been asked questions on camera at some point and in the last 2 years has probably clocked that there are people who don’t like Obama out there.
Why did this person with a camera set him off do you suppose? Do you figure that somehow Obama’s deep seated hatred of white people is contagious perhaps?
You really need to become a psychiatrist. With a one minute video you know more about that guy than his proctologist and hairdresser combined. I’d much rather send you a 1 minute video than pay for years and years and years of 50 minute therapy sessions.
And he’d have gotten away with it too if it weren’t for those meddling kids. He’s been a bully but it wasn’ t until he was 67 that he got caught at- he’s one of those closet latent bullies perhaps. (Ooh- maybe bullying is to Democrats what gayness is to Republicans- something they rarely do but often think about and when they do decide to do it like as not there’s a camera or other witnesses around.)
The next time you insult someone here, can we infer that you’re always a jerk?
I’m glad to see the response this post got. It seems the consensus is that Etheridge acted like a jerk with the exception of a few apologists who are looking to blame the students, or the other dopers.
Why do you think the students are ashamed? Might I suggest that there is another reason the student wanted his identity disguised. Perhaps he’s afraid of reprisals. Just look at the vitriolic minority above. Or consider the most recent case of outing a leftist as an asshole:
and:
OTOH, when I put that statement and this thread into my prototype Infinite Improbability Drive, it powered right up. 
Reprisals, my ass. They just don’t want to have answer questions from cops or cough up any raw footage.
What is your evidence that any of the trolling posts on that website are from lefties, by the way?
Shoes for Industry! Shoes for the dead! Shoes for Industry!
Yeesh. Dio, what sort of sick sexual gratification do you get from having your ass handed to you in every single debate you enter into? That must be the reason you decide to take up the loser side of every cause you run across (that and your natural affinity for loserness).
The actions depicted in the video absolutely were assault in both the tort and criminal senses and both under the common law and under any statute I’ve ever seen.
You are an idiot. You are a partisan hack who tries to cover your tracks by saying that you actually don’t like the Dems because they aren’t liberal enough for you. Doesn’t stop you from licking their scrotums every chance you get. What a sack of shit. Go bathe some more grannies.
Yes, those are obviously all from leftists. :dubious:
It burns. IT BURNS!
I am not sure it reaches assault, but it was at least battery. It was an inexcusable error by the congressman.
Some people are pretty casual in their acceptance of people physically attacking another. The politician was absolutely wrong.
Stupid people need representation too.
Hell, I could do it in mime! It would be “Man Walking Against The Wind in a Glass Box With His Head Up His Ass”.
So let’s see it, tough guy.
And thus was the first time that “mime” and “tough guy” were ever used consecutively.
Now “please demonstrate how” Diogenes is “a partisan hack” so that the standards of proof are the same.