As usual, you ignore facts you find inconvenient. Like the fact that Etheridge put his hands on another human being in a hostile fashion, without provocation. You can’t do that. Had he done it to someone closer to his own size, he may well have gotten his ass kicked.
That kid could have easily pulled away. He wanted to be grabbed. In soccer terms, the kid was “diving.”
Of course we would, and that’s why it’s absolutely imperative not to lose your cool.
The problem is, had there been something that wasn’t shown on film, he could have defended himself rather than apologize without reservation. If this was the 131st time they ambushed him, I’d be considering harassment charges.
Once again, Dio arrives to show the board what a joke of a partisan hack he is, and to drag the thread out for 9 pages. Say goodbye to any hope of reasonable dialogue.
On the news last night his opponent in the upcoming election (whose name escapes me at the moment) was quoted as saying that it’s possible that footage from this video will be used in campaign ads.
And he probably fucked Etheridge’s mom, too, and was gloating about it.
It’s easy to make shit up and assert it as fact.
Please. You actually believe your own horsehit, don’t you?
He grabbed the little bitch’s arm to try to get him on camera. It was nothing. It was easily resistable. It wasn’t an assault or a battery, and it wasn’t without provocation. The kids were not in danger, were not attacked and didn’t get anything they didn’t want.
Is anyone else secretly hoping that it turns out that the kid somehow is revealed to be a liberal and the politician to be a Republican? (I know, it makes no sense but I just want to see Dio get whiplash as he strains to switch positions.)
I’m not making anything up, just describing what’s on the tape. It’s other people that keep projecting this absurd “assault” scenario onto it.
So, who is Bob Etheridge and what is he involved in that would make him a specific target of these ‘students’?
Well, yes, that is sort of absurd, since the relevant offense is battery.
Diogenes the Cynic, are you not aware of the neck grab, or are you ignoring it because it doesn’t fit the defense you’ve decided to use?
Fuck you, I don’t care what the parties are. I’d say exactly the same thing either way. I hate manufactured scandals regardless of party.
I think you’d probably see Fox News turning this guy into a hero protecting himself from street thugs if he’d been a Republican, though (especially if the kids were black).
How on earth do you get “the kid could have pulled away any time he wanted” from the tape? Maybe he could, maybe he couldn’t. It looked like a strong grip Etheridge had, but there’s no way to know without actually being in the twerp’s position.
Even if they were provoking him, and even if they could have easily resisted being grabbed, it’s still assault to grab them. You’re not allowed to grab somebody on the street, even if they’re annoying you; even if they’re trying to set you up.
You admit the guy did, in fact, make actual physical contact with the kid in the video. Said contact was not permissive. The contactee offered verbal protest. Then Etheridge escalated the physical contact, by going behind the kid’s head, pulling him in closer. That conduct is not appropriate, not polite, and might support charges for simple assault.
He’s a largely uninteresting and unimportant Congressman from North Carolina. He’s on the House Buget and Ways and Means committees, which are important.
If you mean the part when he hooks his arm around the kid trying to get him to face the camera, I’d say it’s a hell of a reach to try to spin that as some kind of real attempt a a battery.
It would not support assault charges.
Yeah, he made contact with them, but I disagree that it wasn’t permissive. They totally wanted it. If they didn’t want it, they could have easily skipped away from the guy.