Title: Congressman Assaults Student on Washington Sidewalk Source:
youtube URL Source:[None] Published:Jun 14, 2010 Author:. Post Date:2010-06-14 07:34:19 by James Deffenbach Keywords:None Views:1565 Comments:53
Had this been one of my congressmen, or senator, I would have knocked them on their ass for even thinking of touching me. How dare this asshole do this? He should not only be prosecuted for assault, but the kids father should go to this guy's office and dispense an asskicking.
What a pathetic loser this guy is for picking on a kid. Then again, that's what democrat bullies do.
Had this been one of my congressmen, or senator, I would have knocked them on their ass for even thinking of touching me.
Yes, the kid would have been within his rights to punch him right in the beak. Cameras rolling proved the congressman instigated the action through his inappropriate conduct.
Cameras rolling proved the congressman instigated the action through his inappropriate conduct.
I'm not so sure what happened in the beginning of the film. The LA Times says: It is unclear whether the video was edited. Etheridge represents the district of Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base and he opposed Bush's troop surge. But who are they and what is their project? Why is the alleged student's face obscured?
Did he oppose Bush's troop surge but then go along with Obama's? Obama has not made any effort at all to get out of that unconstitutional war. So any congressman who refuses to support something because it is proposed by someone with "the wrong letter after his name" but then goes along with someone else and the very same policy because he has "the right letter after his name" is a hypocrite and some other names that aren't very nice.
Did he oppose Bush's troop surge but then go along with Obama's? Obama has not made any effort at all to get out of that unconstitutional war. So any congressman who refuses to support something because it is proposed by someone with "the wrong letter after his name" but then goes along with someone else and the very same policy because he has "the right letter after his name" is a hypocrite and some other names that aren't very nice.
I don't know his entire voting record. I could be wrong but I don't think he opposed sending troops to Iraq under Republican Bush, just the surge instead of a diplomatic solution after 5 years of extended tours and repeat deployments there. Kucinich is a fellow Democrat who proposed a resolution to end the war in Aghanistan and he didn't vote with him. I wouldn't categorize him as a "dove", so again I could be wrong but I expect that he would have voted the same way on that and to send reinforcements there where our forces were far fewer from the onset, regardless of which party was acting as Commander in Chief. Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that he is a hypocrite like many in Congress. I'd still like to know if the film was edited, who the alleged students are, what their claimed project is, and why the face of one is obscured. He could have just kept on walking in silence but maybe he saw something that we haven't and hoped to draw the attention of witnesses. Maybe not but he didn't seem to be paranoid about walking unprotected down the street and speaking to the interviewer at first. If he had no right at all to defend himself against a suspected bodily threat of some kind, why the mystery about the supposed students is my question.
I'd still like to know if the film was edited, who the alleged students are, what their claimed project is, and why the face of one is obscured. He could have just kept on walking in silence but maybe he saw something that we haven't and hoped to draw the attention of witnesses. Maybe not but he didn't seem to be paranoid about walking unprotected down the street and speaking to the interviewer at first. If he had no right at all to defend himself against a suspected bodily threat of some kind, why the mystery about the supposed students is my question.
Who the students are shouldn't make any difference. They have every bit as much right to be on a public sidewalk as he does. They also have the right to ask him a question. He has the right to either answer their question or keep walking. He had no right to grab one of them. He should be glad he didn't grab someone who knew how to defend themselves and weren't afraid to do it.
Who the students are shouldn't make any difference. They have every bit as much right to be on a public sidewalk as he does. They also have the right to ask him a question. He has the right to either answer their question or keep walking. He had no right to grab one of them. He should be glad he didn't grab someone who knew how to defend themselves and weren't afraid to do it.
I don't know from the film if he had no right to self-defense at the time. He isn't defending his behavior on those grounds to speak of so he'll probably be out of office soon. I can't agree that who they are and what their project is shouldn't make any difference, even for the voters in his district. If they were Israeli "art" students on a mission to replace him with a neocon who has much less regard for the misuse and overuse of our Military, would it matter then? The definition of "Taliban" is "Students" and that's about all we know of them.
I don't know from the film if he had no right to self-defense at the time.
Everyone has the right to defend themselves, either verbally or physically. But unless the film was altered or edited he was not in any danger of any physical harm. Therefore, unless there is more than is apparent on the video he had no right to grab the student/young man. He had the right to keep walking if he didn't want to answer the question(s). He had the right to say no comment or even "I am busy, call my office for an appointment." He could have said any of that and kept going. But congressman/politicians should NEVER grab someone who is no threat to them. What if the student, assuming he was a student, had grabbed him? Do you think there would have been no consequences and repercussions?
Everyone has the right to defend themselves, either verbally or physically. But unless the film was altered or edited he was not in any danger of any physical harm. Therefore, unless there is more than is apparent on the video he had no right to grab the student/young man. He had the right to keep walking if he didn't want to answer the question(s). He had the right to say no comment or even "I am busy, call my office for an appointment." He could have said any of that and kept going. But congressman/politicians should NEVER grab someone who is no threat to them. What if the student, assuming he was a student, had grabbed him? Do you think there would have been no consequences and repercussions?
Yes, he had the right to remain silent or to brush them off verbally and keep on going. Because he didn't do that and keep on going is why I suspect there is more to it than is apparent on the video -- that and the secrecy surrounding said students and their mission/project, which seems to have been just a "Candid Camera" episode of Etheridge. No doubt there would have been consequences and repercussions if one of them had grabbed him and there are those for Etheridge to face, whether it was a self-defense reaction on his part or not. If all it costs him is a large measure of respect after decades of service and his seat, that would be a high price -- especially if it was a devious set-up of some sort by "Mystery School" punk-agents with a political defamation agenda. Sounds like a big stretch of the imagination, I'm sure, to people inclined to view them as hapless victims and heroic for alerting the public to a seeming "loose cannon" but here's why I don't think they warrant shielding by hiding out in the shadows, even if they are "journalistic heroes" and especially if they aren't really: Other people not directly involved might pay with their lives or very dearly for this unsightly "development" that looks like it could result punatively in an early retirement or recall of this Congressman. North Carolina's 2nd district is a heavily Military district and heavily populated with their families, loved ones, and friends. If all he ever managed to do to his credit in all his years in office was try to stand between them and death, injury, and grief due to a slimy termite in the White House who cared no more for our Constitution than flushable paper, let alone them, Ethridge should be given a kind of Congressional medal of honor, imo. At the very least, he should be thanked profusely and awarded a high measure of respect for his gallant effort.
If all he ever managed to do to his credit in all his years in office was try to stand between them and death, injury, and grief due to a slimy termite in the White House who cared no more for our Constitution than flushable paper, let alone them, Ethridge should be given a kind of Congressional medal of honor, imo. At the very least, he should be thanked profusely and awarded a high measure of respect for his gallant effort.
How he voted on Bush's wars doesn't tell me how he voted on Obama's continuation of them and the funding for them. If he voted against it solely because Bush had an R after his name and then voted for the same $#it for Obama he deserves nothing but scorn and contempt. At least that is how I see it.
How he voted on Bush's wars doesn't tell me how he voted on Obama's continuation of them and the funding for them. If he voted against it solely because Bush had an R after his name and then voted for the same $#it for Obama he deserves nothing but scorn and contempt. At least that is how I see it.
Partisanship is not how I see it and have tried to explain why at Post #44. Iraq and Afghanistan aren't exactly comparable as to troop levels, redeployments, extended tours, or funding either. NATO was also calling for more help in Afghanistan. I didn't address funding in that reply because I didn't think it was an issue in your comments, just the continuation of war as if party were Etheridge's main concern about it; which I believe there is cause to doubt. I believe withholding evidence about the camera crew and their "project" is a disservice to his district. Why there are so many people (with apparently no interest at all in the state of North Carolina, apart from this incident) who are so faithfully committed to questioning absolutely nothing whatsoever about those semi-"Invisible Men" who virtually materialized on the sidewalk -- out of nowhere we know of for sure -- is beyond me. Jesus scarcely gets such automatic devotion en masse and there's way more supporting evidence in His favor as good intentioned than theirs.
In closing, I don't mind asking those "Mystery Schoolers" myself, based on their own disappearing routine: "Who R U cowardly, skulking 'Cheshire Cats'?" And I'll also say that anyone calling for our troops at war to be jeopardized by de-funding their needs rather than bringing them home is, in my view, more than contemptible and deserving of scorn. I've seen no evidence to indicate that Etheridge is one of them or hypocritically driven by party. If you don't have anything that reasonably shows otherwise about him, it would be nice if you would quit tossing him suggestively into those junk piles. This is already a terribly difficult situation for his district without inventive charges against him that don't apply.