http://definitions.uslegal.com/a/assault/ According to this legal definition, it is not assault. There was no intention to do bodily damage. But it is battery.
There was no intent to cause serious injury.
You prove it with every single post.
Rand Rover is a partisan hack because he comes waltzing into threads in which a democrat person or policy is under attack and makes extremely stupid and facially baseless arguments to *attack *such person or policy. His posts in this thread are my cite.
Well, that was easy.
You don’t defend Republicans- probably because you don’t consider yourself to be one. No, you just attack anything Liberal. You’re just as much a partisan hack- more so, because you admit that you do it to tweak Liberals.
Says the guy who signed up four months before Bush left office. I’m sure you have much to teach us about SDMB history. :rolleyes:
Quite. Anti-liberals are way, way, way more annoying than actual conservatives/libertarians.
Well, be honest. While there is a certain amount of exaggeration there he’s not too far off the mark.
I guess I fall in the “meh” camp on this video.
First, I suspect there is more video and the part we are seeing is edited to make it look as bad as possible.
The congressman was approached by two or three people (two cameras, one questioner?) in an unusual spot as he was walking down the street. The Congressman had every right to be suspicious.
Then he was asked a “baited” question and that got his attention (but not in a good way for the ‘students’).
He demanded to know who the people were and they were evasive, claiming to be students but unwilling to identify the school.
That’s three suspicious actions right there. I would have felt defensive, too.
I’m actually sorta impressed that the Congressman could manage that kid so quickly. He’s pretty spry for an older guy and spinning the kid around to get a face shot on their own camera is pretty smart.
So, why have these kids not been identified or identified themselves? Just because they are supposedly minors or are they hiding something? Where is the complete videos from both cameras?
I’m sure the congressman suspected “ambush journalism” and I think rightly so. Maybe these budding journalists will reconsider the risk of this type of work and choose to do things in a more adult way in the future.
Bite me.
I said “repeated,” and two is repeated. So is three. And he only let go of the guy’s arm after the second request in order to grab him somewhere else. That doesn’t constitute “letting go” in any meaningful sense of the word. “Letting go” of someone, in a case like this, means actually releasing the person, not dropping one part of their body so you can more easily grab another part.
And i love how you finish your description by saying that the kid is “instantly released” after the third request. I’m not sure in what universe “instantly” qualifies as a reasonable description of an action that requires three separate requests.
December '99er here, officer. I saw the whole thing.
Before I post anyhing here : Who are YOU?
A “certain amount of exaggeration”? :dubious:
Things Bush Was Blamed For On The SDMB, off the top of my head (I have marked with an asterisk those items for which I think he is entirely blameless, or for which he is entirely justified):
- Iraq War
- 9/11, failure to prevent
- Osama bin Laden, failure to catch
- Unknowingly presenting fabricated evidence to justify Iraq War
- Knowingly presenting fabricated evidence to justify Iraq War*
- Federal response to Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita (it was Rita, right?)
- Faith-based programming
- Ballooning federal deficit caused by tax cuts
- Ballooning federal deficit caused by additional spending
- Harriet Miers SCOTUS nomination
- Use of torture on terrorism suspects
- Making really fucking stupid speeches
- Afghanistan, failure to withdraw troops from*
- Stealing 2000 Presidential election*
- Using really dumb phrases like “axis of evil”, “War on Terror” and “compassionate conservatism”
- Creating expensive, pointless, poorly named and duplicative Department of Homeland Security
- USA PATRIOT Act, creation and passage of
- Innocent American citizens, warrantless wiretapping of
- Post-9/11 foreign goodwill, wasting of
- Talking about Jesus too much
- Abstinence only education, support for
- “Mission Accomplished” banner, insensitive and inaccurate display of
- Going AWOL during National Guard enlistment period*
- Collapse of global economy
- Valerie Plame/Scooter Libby outing
- Alberto Gonzales, hiring and SCOTUS nomination of
- Collapse of Enron*
- Commissioning/endorsement of energy plan consisting of increased use of oil and coal
- Support for numerous state and federal legislative plans restricting rights of same-sex couples
- Appointment of SCOTUS justices who came up with retarded Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling (“corporations are people too!”)
Now, you tell me what I’ve missed, and then we’ll see if any other bad things happened between 2000 and 2008. Then we can decide whether Bush got blamed for most of the bad things that happened during his Presidency. Fair?
Sure and then move on… “have a nice day”
…but it’s an edited Video, who know what was asked as well. And did they approche him before hand and pissed him off?
It still made for funny entertainment.
Lumping mhendo and SA together is a total fail, any way you look at it.
Thanks.
I’m sure that’s one thing that Starving Artist and i can actually agree on, although probably for rather different reasons.
Coincidentally, that’s about when I started my long lurk before deciding to share my wisdom with the undeserving.
Sorry, I’m not buying it. This site has a smaller conservative contingent than it used to, but that’s something that happened after the Iraq war started. And even, people who really did blame Bush for everything (like Reeder) were mostly laughed at. A lot of people disapproved of things Bush did and looked at his actions in the worst possible light, sure. Of course most of the rest of the country also concluded that he
I have trouble imagining you keep your mouth shut for so long. How could you possibly resist annoying everybody for years on end?
Aw, would you like some weasel food, Mr. Weasely McWeasel? While you’re eating it, I’ll remind you that one is less than two. One is the number of requests that were ignored. Two is the number of times I’ve already explained that in this thread. See the difference?
True enough. But if you’re going to insist on characterizing this stupid little scuffle as an “attack” because it technically fits the legal definition of battery, then by the same token you have to admit that technically Etheridge complied with the request to “let go of my arm.”
No, moron.
Responding to “Please let go of my arm” by letting go of the arm and grabbing the neck and shoulders does, in my book, constitute an effective ignoring of the request. If you say “Please stop punching me,” and someone stops using their fists and starts putting the boot in instead, they have not exactly complied with the intent of your request. Similarly, in this case, the request to let go of the arm was a request to let go altogether, not to simply transfer the location of the hold.
Actually, i have not rested a single one of my arguments in this thread on the “legal definition of battery.” Go back and have a look. I can wait while you read the words out loud to yourself.
My argument has simply been a moral and principled one: you don’t get to lay hands on someone without their consent, particularly not in response to nothing more than a low-level verbal provocation. Manhandling someone like the congressman did constitutes an attack on that person. No, it’s not a very serious attack, and i’ve never called for him to be thrown in jail or even arrested. I’ve simply been arguing that, no matter how trivial, it was a physical attack, and one that was unjustified by the circumstances.
The point is that all in all, Etheridge was requested to let go of the kid three times. If someone were accosting a woman on the street and she had to ask three times to be let go, would you be quibbling over whether he heard her first request? It is against the law to touch people in an aggressive manner and it’s against the law to restrain people against their will.
Your defense of Etheridge is silly on the face of it. You claim by virtue of falsely claiming only two requests that Etheridge immediately complied with both, thus implying that Etheridge was honoring the kid’s requests to be let go. So what was the point of honoring one (actually the second) request and then grabbing him a millisecond later around the neck? Is it okay in your mind to seize people an indefinite number of times so long you briefly release them each time they gain enough presense of mind to ask or demand that you release them?
It’s ridiculous the nonsensical lengths that people around here are going to in their attempts to defend this guy.
Some people, please. I know it’s so very hard for that impoverished prune you try to pass off as a brain, but do make an effort not to generalize the postings of a few as the totality of the SDMB GroupThink.