Congressman Bob Etheridge (D-NC)

[Andy9o8 3]

Quote

Quote

That camera is dropped when the kid gets slapped, but it sure doesn't look like the congressman knocked it out of his hands. It just looks like the kid dropped it.

??????????

If I slap a guy and then that guy drops something... It is not a gigantic stretch to conclude that he dropped it due to being slapped.

Like it or not, hitting and grabbing someone is assault. Videoing and asking questions is not.

Quote

I will say that if anybody ever approached me on the street, shoved a camera that close to my face and started acting as rudely as these kids did, I'd be tempted to knock the camera out of the way.

And you could... But you would also be guilty of assault.

I half agree, and half disagree with you. I disagree that slapping-away the camera (only) is necessarily and assault (and/or battery).

The reasonableness of self-defensive acts is not strictly black or white; there is a grey area, and courts have recognized this. Members of Congress, by virtue of their relatively high office and public visibility, have potentially more personal security concerns while walking down a public street than the average person does. If a complete stranger suddenly intrudes upon a person's - especially a public person's - immediate bubble of personal space by shoving a camera right into the person's face, it's not an unreasonable act to defend one's personal space from intrusion - and potential physical attack for all one momentarily knows - by slapping the camera away. So my own professional opinion is that for THAT ACT ONLY (slapping the camera away), I think the Congressman has a very viable defense against a charge of battery and/or assault.

At that point, the Congressman could have and should have walked away. Viewing the video, it appears to me that his acts of grabbing the guy's wrist, then his neck and forcibly turning him around and holding him there to face the 2nd camera, were motivated mainly by anger, and not self-defense. I imagine his lawyer would probably have to argue that he feared physical attack if he simply walked away, and so he did it to preempt a potential physical attack; but that's more of a crap-shoot.

[Bolas 5]

An unedited picture of the "reporter" has been released.

Clicky

Based on this new evidence, the congressman was fully justified in his action.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

The reasonableness of self-defensive acts is not strictly black or white; there is a grey area, and courts have recognized this. Members of Congress, by virtue of their relatively high office and public visibility, have potentially more personal security concerns while walking down a public street than the average person does

And they also have less right to privacy than the average person walking down the street due to their relatively high office and public visibility.

[skyrider 0]

The asshole is a public figure, he should expect cameras everywhere when he is in public!

He first slaps the guys camera away...(border line assault)

the grabs the guy by the arm, (full Blown Assault)

[email]refusing to let him go, (imprisonment), another crime)

Then grabs him by the neck, Second assault!

he should be charged like the common street scum he acted like!

one thing does strike me odd...when the tape was first released, the young mans face was clear...Now it has been fogged out..."Why"?

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

And some people presume too much, like, others approving of the unrestricted use of the tactic. But then again, I guess some people just read what they want to read.

Like I said... Some people approve of it when it suits their political leanings and are afraid to just admit it

[Andy9o8 3]

Quote

Quote

The reasonableness of self-defensive acts is not strictly black or white; there is a grey area, and courts have recognized this. Members of Congress, by virtue of their relatively high office and public visibility, have potentially more personal security concerns while walking down a public street than the average person does

And they also have less right to privacy than the average person walking down the street due to their relatively high office and public visibility.

Assuming that's true, so where do we draw the line? I'd draw the line at whether the paparazzo crossed into the "bubble" of the Congressman's personal space. A public person might have to tolerate the annoyance of his photo being taken from a couple feet away. But he probably does retain the right to not have a camera shoved right up into his face.

Indeed, when public figures sometimes go to court to get an injunction to stop being bothered by a paparazzo, judges often balance the factors in their orders, e.g., "You (the paparazzo) may photograph the plaintiff when he is in a public place, but you must stay at least X number of feet away from him."

It's all about balance, Grasshopper.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

The asshole is a public figure, he should expect cameras everywhere when he is in public!

He first slaps the guys camera away...(border line assault)

the grabs the guy by the arm, (full Blown Assault)

[email]refusing to let him go, (imprisonment), another crime)

Then grabs him by the neck, Second assault!

he should be charged like the common street scum he acted like!

one thing does strike me odd...when the tape was first released, the young mans face was clear...Now it has been fogged out..."Why"?

Quote

The talking point memo speaks to what they want to do to these two
I would blank my face out too (now that I have read that memo)

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[sundevil777 102]

It can be very deceiving how close the camera might appear to be "in his face".

You just keep trying to make excuses for him, even when the guy himself isn't trying to - why?

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[Andy9o8 3]

Quote

It can be very deceiving how close the camera might appear to be "in his face".

You just keep trying to make excuses for him, even when the guy himself isn't trying to - why?

Nonsense. I'm analyzing this from the perspective of a lawyer, not from the perspective of a Democrat. Whether you believe that or not is meaningless.

[Dewhast 0]

But how would he have known with out wearing the glasses?

[Bolas 5]

Quote

But how would he have known with out wearing the glasses?

Contact lenses.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Quote

Quote

But how would he have known with out wearing the glasses?

Contact lenses.

The contacts are more advanced and give fewer headaches

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Assuming that's true, so where do we draw the line? I'd draw the line at whether the paparazzo crossed into the "bubble" of the Congressman's personal space. A public person might have to tolerate the annoyance of his photo being taken from a couple feet away. But he probably does retain the right to not have a camera shoved right up into his face.

Then you have to define the "bubble". It seems pretty clear from the 2nd video that he was not THAT close. And anyone with a cell phone camera knows the distance it needs to be held. Also, Etheridge then grabbed the man and then grabbed him by the neck (to ME looks more like a "I was just messing with you" grasp after he realized he was on another video).

It is about balance.... Grabbing a guy is not balance. If you are afraid of someone, you get away or take them down. He grabbed and questioned this "reporter". That is not fear but anger, IMO.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

But then again, I guess some people just read what they want to read.

Indeed

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

But then again, I guess some people just read what they want to read.

Indeed

Make no mistake Mike, I never wanted to read you calling Obama a "boy."

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Andy9o8 3]

Quote

Quote

Assuming that's true, so where do we draw the line? I'd draw the line at whether the paparazzo crossed into the "bubble" of the Congressman's personal space. A public person might have to tolerate the annoyance of his photo being taken from a couple feet away. But he probably does retain the right to not have a camera shoved right up into his face.

Then you have to define the "bubble". It seems pretty clear from the 2nd video that he was not THAT close.

It would be defined by a trial judge on a case-by-case basis. It's unlikely that most judges would set a universally-applicable rule of, for example, "X inches". A judge would much more likely use some manner of verbal threshhold that has some degree of situational flexibility.

As I said up-thread, this is mainly applicable to the initial slapping-away of the first camera; while a defense to the subsequent grabbing, etc. would be a lot more tenuous.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

But then again, I guess some people just read what they want to read.

Indeed

Make no mistake Mike, I never wanted to read you calling Obama a "boy."

I see you're still fulfilling your quote above and 'reading what you want to read'.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

But then again, I guess some people just read what they want to read.

Indeed

Make no mistake Mike, I never wanted to read you calling Obama a "boy."

I see you're still fulfilling your quote above and 'reading what you want to read'.

You're not denying you wrote the word "boy" in reference to Obama are you? I mean, you're the one that wrote it and you're the one that just brought it up again by linking it. How can you possibly say I'm reading something that isn't there? You used the word "boy."

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

But then again, I guess some people just read what they want to read.

Indeed

Make no mistake Mike, I never wanted to read you calling Obama a "boy."

I see you're still fulfilling your quote above and 'reading what you want to read'.

You're not denying you wrote the word "boy" in reference to Obama are you? I mean, you're the one that wrote it and you're the one that just brought it up again by linking it. How can you possibly say I'm reading something that isn't there? You used the word "boy."

Actually, it was JohnDeere, and the WHOLE phrase was "your boy" - a commonly used slang term, nowadays. That was explained to you at the time, but then (as now) you ignore it.

Maybe you should join the present like the rest of us - or at least read the WHOLE quote instead of just one word so you can get your self-righteous outrage on.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

But then again, I guess some people just read what they want to read.

Indeed

Make no mistake Mike, I never wanted to read you calling Obama a "boy."

I see you're still fulfilling your quote above and 'reading what you want to read'.

You're not denying you wrote the word "boy" in reference to Obama are you? I mean, you're the one that wrote it and you're the one that just brought it up again by linking it. How can you possibly say I'm reading something that isn't there? You used the word "boy."

And you have used this same word 3 times in the last two posts on this thread!!!!! Are you a racists?

Whoood a thunk it

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

But then again, I guess some people just read what they want to read.

Indeed

Make no mistake Mike, I never wanted to read you calling Obama a "boy."

I see you're still fulfilling your quote above and 'reading what you want to read'.

You're not denying you wrote the word "boy" in reference to Obama are you? I mean, you're the one that wrote it and you're the one that just brought it up again by linking it. How can you possibly say I'm reading something that isn't there? You used the word "boy."

Actually, it was JohnDeere, and the WHOLE phrase was "your boy" - a commonly used slang term, nowadays. That was explained to you at the time, but then (as now) you ignore it.

Maybe you should join the present like the rest of us - or at least read the WHOLE quote instead of just one word so you can get your self-righteous outrage on.

And I believe he was bitchin about clipped quotes and context in a thread not to long ago?

Reminds me of a famous Forest Gump quote

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

boy in reference to Obama

Using your logic..... You just called the President boy!!!!!!