Cite that the police have the video.
So your defense has moved from “what physical actions?” to ‘okay, he grabbed the kid by the wrist and the neck, but they could’ve gotten away.’ I don’t know why you’re bothering with this crap. It’s far from attempted murder and it’s possible the guys were jerks, but there’s no defense for this. Barring some kind of really surprising revalation, Etheridge is still in the wrong here.
Maybe. If we’re speculating we might as well make up something juicier, though. 
It’s possible the students (if they were students) were being very annoying. That justifies Etheridge saying ‘no comment’ and walking away, not grabbing them and trying to wrestle one of them. If they insulted his mama maybe I can see putting a hand on the camera lens before he leaves. If someone puts a camera too close to you, you don’t grab them and get belligerent.
I doubt it.
Everybody has the video. It’s all over the internet.
I’m not saying he should have, just that he had the right to, and that the Congressman is probably lucky that the kid decided not to exercise it. Even a 20 year old kid in mediocre shape could probably give a 68 year old Congressman a rough time of it.
Police can’t just use video pulled from the internet. They have to show some sort of chain of custody about who took the video and where and when.
Would require an unedited version, would it not? Does anyone share my doubts that whomsoever possess said version is unlikely to make it available?
- It matters. I’m pissed off that a wanna-be O’Keefe decided to try his hand at fucking with another Democrat. I’m even more pissed off that said Democrat gave him exactly what he wanted.
- I can totally accept that he understands that he acted hotly and without provocation and that he regrets it. He shouldn’t have done it, and he knows it. But what I accept doesn’t matter. There’s far, far too many people who won’t care and will gladly use this as leverage against him. Nobody looks past the video clip these days. He’s just as finished as ACORN, and I lament that fact.
This isn’t going to the police, because the “students” would have to expose what their motives were, and this is the last thing they want, which is evident by their reluctance to reveal their faces on screen. It isn’t too hard to believe that this was shot for the specific purpose of negative campaigning by his opponent.
But you yourself have already concluded just from watching the video on the internet that the video “clearly shows” the commission of a physical battery “at the very least.”
Are you now saying that a video on the internet is NOT enough evidence to support such a confident assertion?
Either what’s on the internet is good enough for both you and the cops to make that determination, or it’s not enough for anybody to make it.
I’ll answer, if i may.
As most who know me around here realize, i consider myself a leftist social democrat type, a progressive in some people’s parlance. Maybe even a liberal, or at least, the good parts of liberalism. In terms of party politics, i tend to dislike both sides and feel that they are too similar in many ways, but given a choice, i’ll take a Democrat over a Republican in almost every case.
Question 1:
For me, if the subject of this conversation is the congressman’s actions, it doesn’t matter if it was a set-up. Whatever the reason for goading him with needling questions, the fact is that you shouldn’t lay hands on a person who is doing nothing more than speaking to you, unless that speech implies a direct and immediate physical threat to your person.
If someone is merely asking you a question about politics on a public street, then it is never appropriate to respond with physical force. It doesn’t matter if the question itself is motivated by partisan politics, or a desire to make you look bad. If you think the question is unfair, or badly worded, or backed by nefarious motives, then say so, or refuse to answer it, or call the questioner a malicious little asswipe, and move on. Don’t grab him, don’t hold him, don’t even touch him. Period.
Question 2:
As for the issue of the apology, my answer to this has less to do with my political position than with my weariness with a particular cultural phenomenon in the United States: the cult of the public apology.
Yes, it’s all very nice if someone really regrets what they’ve done and offers a genuine apology. But the whole thing has been elevated to such a ritual in American political life that i can barely take any public apology seriously anymore.
The American people are, themselves, largely to blame for this, along with the media. Millions of brain-dead chuckle-heads are apparently willing to give anyone a pass on anything, as long as they perform a public self-abasement. I don’t know if all this is just a love of spectacle, or a reflection of deep-seated religious beliefs about penitence and forgiveness, but it’s fucking lame, and i’ve become very cynical about it. And this goes double for politicians, who make a career out of telling brain-dead chuckle-heads what they think they want to hear.
Because crimes of this type don’t get prosecuted unless the victim files a complaint. You know that as well as I do.
And what makes you think there is an unedited version. They shot it, they they edited it, and the edited parts were permanently deleted because to do otherwise is absolutely stupid.
Well then, if the “victims” don’t feel they were assaulted, I guess that’s the end of it. There was no crime.
Definitely worth a parent’s while to drum this idea in.
No reason in the world.
Not true. Many victims of domestic abuse don’t press charges for a variety of reasons–does it mean no crime happened?
That does seem to settle the matter. If they don’t think they were assaulted, and the police won’t press charges, then by golly he is free and clear, right?
Whether they were motivated to press charges is a whole 'nother thing than whether actions were committed that would have constituted assault and battery in a court of law.
And that failure to press charges doesn’t affect in the least the reprehensibility of Etheridge’s actions.
As far as actual criminal conviction, certainly. Are you under the impression that criminal conviction is the only thing at stake here?
I disagree with that people give passes after apologies, at least not when it comes to politics. The American people are so bifurcated politically, that all they care about is what is politically good or bad for their own side.
The like to DEMAND apologies (especially the media) as a grandstanding political tactic, but they don’t actually care about contrition or acknowledge if they get it. Conservative demagogues in the media and elsewhere are not going to just accept Etheridge’s apology and drop it. They are going to exploit it just as hard as they can. The apology is irerelevant. The only thing political apologies accomplish is to stop demagogues from clamoring for them.
I just wish we had some liberals who were sneaky and weaselly enough to fabricate these kids of scandals. They’re too idealistic and nice, though. It would never occur to them to provoke an old man into taking a swing at them, and getting it on camera.
As you well know, the state must meet higher standards of proof than individual citizens.
I am not in law enforcement or justice. I can draw my own conclusions without regard to the state’s burden of proof. I say that the video clearly shows a crime. I have not said that the congressman should be tried in a court of law, nor have I said that he could be convicted.
It’s interesting that you, Diogenes the Cynic, are quick to judge for some crimes (statutory rape), but not others (battery, assualt, etc). What would you be saying if that was your child being forcibly restrained? Would her rude actions leading up to that point blind you to the fact that she was then physically attacked?