Still going with the tired “insanity” meme as directed, I see. You are such a good little puppy when it comes to doing what you are told, aren’t you?
We are still waiting.
Czarcasm, you’re an idiot.
Regards,
Shodan
One person assaulting another is not how I’d define scuffle.
It’s useless trying to discuss this with someone that continuously lies about the series of events. Ya know, like not mentioning grabbing the kid by the throat?
Try again? How would you like me to rephrase? I already said the officers witnessed the event. Agents of the person that said he was attacked?
Again with that “insanity” schtick, I see. [My Name]Stick to what you know, I guess, because it certainly works.[/My Name]
Do you have a cite where this Congressman said this about people asking him questions on the street, or are you just making things up? boy
What I am asking for is a link where he asked some cameraman to identify himself, or where people who approach him on the street are legally obligated to show ID before asking him anything.
Got anything like that? I don’t recall him saying so in his apology.
Regards,
Shodan
Now you’re changing your argument. Before, you argued that he had no right to ask people who they were. Now you’re trying to argue that people MUST identify themselves. How strong you must be, like bull, to move those goal posts so far all by yourself like that.
Yup, it’s really too bad we didn’t have officers there, because things certainly would have been different. The whole exchange would have been witnessed, and those two “students” wouldn’t be anonymous, would they? Y’see, there’s the rub concerning your “Police Scenario”-For the police to do anything, those two “victims” would have to stick around and give statements, which would totally screw up their plan to anonymously smear the congressman. My guess is that the two would have refused to press charges.
First of all, I didn’t write that Dowd article (here’s a hint, have you Mom read it to you: My last name is not Dowd.). Whatever Dowd is reaching for in her comments are considerably open to interpretation.
Beside wondering what he said in his apology has to do with this question, I have to ask you: you’ve heard of clearly identifiable context, right?
Right?
Give you a stern talking-yo and let you walk away. If your target insisted on pressing charges, they would probably do their best to talk him out of it.
And if he continued to insist, even if a warrant for battery was sworn out and you were arrested, the prosecutors would likely decline to prosecute.
It’s not the worst thing in the world but it’s still wrong.
I don’t get why people seem to think it’s OK for people to physically grab or manhandle others. It’s reminding me of another thread we had about abortion protesters where another poster thought it was no big deal for a woman going into a clinic to get grabbed a little. Maybe I’m an oversensitive crying pussy (or, um, “gaywad,” to put it more eloquently), but I don’t care who you are–you don’t have the right to touch me and I’m going to make a really big deal out of it if you do it without my permission.
Well, if the Congressman was aware there were police officers witnessing the event, yeah, things would have probably went down differently as he most likely wouldn’t have assaulted someone. But we’re not talking about the Congressman in Bricker’s scenario so I have no idea why you asked me to “try again”.
What’s with the quotes around students? They certainly look young enough to be students; what’s with the disbelief that they are?
Irrelevant to the scenario that Bricker brought up. But why do you think this was a plan to smear the congressman? Do you think they knew asking that question with a camera present was going to give them this sort of nationwide publicity?
Who is arguing it’s not wrong?
I’m saying it’s de minimis. It’s tiny. It’s technically illegal, but a trifle, something the law should not need to get involved in.
I am in complete agreement with friend Bricker on this issue. Wait, Bricker is in complete agreement with me on this issue. That’s not so scary.
That’s the impression I’m getting from Dio.
There is a considerable amount of room between “not OK” and “worth giving a shit about.”
I doubt police officers would witness someone grabbing someone like this for several seconds by the wrist and then by the throat and then let him walk away unless the victim “insisted” on pressing charges.
“by the throat”? Here, have a nice cuppa chill. Take it easy. Put your feet up.
I just watched it again and see I’ve remembered it incorrectly. Change that to “by the back of the neck.”
If the cops were there, the kids would never have tried to harass the Congresman in the first place, but, for the sake of argument, if the cops had witnessed the incidently going down exactly as on the video (which is still edited and incomplete, so not really acceptable as evidence, but just to humor the hyothetical…), theey would have told the kids to fuck off down the road, ask the Congressman if he was ok, and that would have been the end of it.
It is not a fact in evidnce that they were students. We don’t have the slightest idea what they were. For all we know they were sexual predators with a yen for old Congressmen.
They probably hope.
If their intent was anything serious or legitimate, they would have identified themselves and explained what they were doing. There wasn’t any “project.” There isn’t any college “project” that requires students to go around baiting politicians with stupid questions and refusing to explain themselves. Any college project involving filmaking or interviews always requires the studnts to clearly explain the project and get permission from the subjects.
Those kids may or may not have been students, but they most definitely were not working on any kind of assigned “project.”