My “defense” of Etheridge is nonexistent. I never said his behavior was acceptable or appropriate; rather, I described his actions as “crazy” and suggested he had a “screw loose.” All I did was point out that the whiny hysteria about attacks, assault, and battery are as grotesque an overreaction to the event as Etheridge’s behavior was to the initial provocation.
Did the distinguished Congresslooney from Bedlam ever explain why he thought he had the right to demand identification from anyone who asked him a question on the street? Or did his tinfoil beret just spring a leak?
Regards,
Shodan
Are you suggesting that he did not have that right?
It’s customary for people from the Press to identify themselves. The Congressman did, in fact, have a right to refuse to answer their questions or participate in letting them film him if they wouldn’t identify themselves, and that’s really all that he meant.
If someone came up to me on the street with cameras rolling, I’d sure as hell want to know who they were before the conversation went any further. Can’t see why a Congresscritter should feel any differently.
Sure, and he had every right to tell them to pound sand and keep walking, although as a US Representative he does have an obligation to answer to his constituents so he could just as easily answered the question and been done with it.
Nothing gives him the right to grab anybody, though. I know that you’re not arguing that it does (for once we’re on the same page), but others are arguing that somehow it’s OK. It’s not.
“Some people” is exactly who I was talking about. Like, you know, the ones who’ve been defending Etheridge in this thread and/or making excuses for him. Why on earth would I be attributing defense of Etheridge to the posters here who’ve been condemning him?
Your complaint, made in a hasty and foolish attempt to hop on the mhendo “Starvey is teh stupit…hur, hur” bandwagon, is even more stupid than it is baseless and all you’ve managed to do is show your own ass.
Obviously he didn’t have the legal right to physically attack anyone.
Equally obviously, this isn’t a case where he did any kind of physical harm to anyone. This is, in my opinion, the sort of de minimis conduct that the law ought to avoid dealing with: technically a battery; realistically a brief and undamaging physical contact.
Technically he didn’t have a legal “right,” to grab the kid, but so what? Who gives a shit? What’s the big fucking deal? He didn’t hurt the little gaywad, and the kid fucking wanted it anyway.
I don’t hear the kids themselves complaining, so why do so many other people have red rimmed eyes from cying about them three days later?
There are a lot worse things going on the world than a cranky old man grabbing some punk’s arm. Why do we have to be so PC all the time?
It’s not.
But neither is it particularly serious.
That’s what I think too. He shouldn’t have grabbed the kid, shouldn’t have taken th bait, should have walked away, but in practical terms, it was a non-event as far as any actual damage, and it would never be prosecuted (and upthread suggestions that it’s tortiable are laughable).
Rand Rover once admitted here that that was a lie. Whether he was lying about the “I lurked here for years” part or the “I never posted here before” part has been left unsaid.
Of course, RR has also openly admitted to trolling this board. I know he’s been reported for that (even I’ve reported him, and I think I’ve only reported one other person here in ten years), and yet he hasn’t even been officially reprimanded for that. So here’s a guy who comes in here, immediately starts whining about everybody here, is given more rope than a Mt. Everest Brand Bungee Cord, and still whines about how nobody understands him and everyone hates him.
Well, he’s half right.
If this happened between John Doe and Richard Roe, the odds of it resulting in a criminal conviction are tiny.
If Doe sued Roe, I supposed he’d have a chance of winning, but what damages might he claim? As a jury member, I’d have to vote to hold Roe liable, but I’d award $1 in damages. And because that’s the reality, it would cost more to bring the suit than the damages would be… hell, it would cost more to file the complaint than the damages are.
Because Roe in this case is a public figure, we probably have the additional calculus that the “damages” sought are not the financial award the court might give, but the negative publicity associated with the event. So I’m not as sanguine as you are that it’s laughably tortious, but only because the usual cost-benefit analysis for lawsuits is skewed by the publicity factor.
How would he know whether a single word of what he said would get back to his constituents, without his knowing who his questioners were?
How about if it happened with on-duty police officers witnessing the event? If I, John Doe, was confronted by Richard Roe and friend with a camera in the same exact way and in the same exact way as the Congressman I continued to hold onto Richard’s wrist and then grabbed him across his throat, what do you think the police officers would do about it? Let’s assume the officers don’t reach me until I let go and begin to walk away.
This particular drop-out from Anger Management class kept saying 'Ah have a rot to knaow hoo yu ur". That’s what I am asking - does he think he has police powers over random strangers who ask him questions on the street, or is he batshit insane?
The two are not exclusive, of course.
Regards,
Shodan
If the cops witnessed this exact incident (and this is the only incident that’s relevant. No need for hypotheticals), they would break it up and tell everybody to move on. Cops break up little mini-scuffles all the time without making arrests. They’re not going to haul in an old man for grabbing some college kid’s arm and trying to spin him around to face a camera.
I would assume that the police had witnessed the whole exchange and weren’t agents of the person who says he was attacked, right?
Try again.
You do know “If you’re going to expect me to answer any of your questions,” was implied, right?
Right?