Congressman Assaults Student on Washington Sidewalk - Page 4

saltwn · #31 (**permalink**) 06-15-2010, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infidel Dog

Cool. So we're all agreed then. Etheridge is a dick. Something should be done about him.

One good thing happened as a result of this. All of a sudden everybody knows Renee Ellmers is the opposition to Etheridge in November. She's all over the media the last couple of days doing interviews. She's well spoken, and comes off well. So here's the general perception. Etheridge is a dick. Ellmers is nice. Pack your bags Etheridge.

Renee Elmers

You belong to a party that condones sending children out to lie and attack congressmen for a reaction so they can distort the truth? So you can get a candidate elected?
This makes me so want to
return to the Republican party.

off the porch · #32 (**permalink**) 06-15-2010, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by off the porch

My question is - did the young men expect trouble? Did they expect that they would need a 2nd camera so they could provoke the congressman by putting one camera 4 inches from the congressman's face, then catch his (unacceptable) response?

Anyone?

Why have 2 cameras?

And no one can seem to find the students that tried to do this interview....Ms. Elmers' relatives, perhaps?

saltwn · #33 (**permalink**) 06-15-2010, 03:23 PM

Excerpt from a News Busters article:

Quote:

In the 3PM ET hour on MSNBC, anchor Chris Jansing spoke with NBC correspondent Luke Russert about the altercation and explained to viewers: "...in spite of the fact of what we see on camera and his apology, there are Democrats, right Luke, who frankly say they think that we need to look beyond what might seem obvious." Russert replied: "...nobody knows who these, quote, 'students' are" and cited Democratic Party spokesman Brad Woodhouse claiming they were actually Republican Party operatives. He concluded: "So a lot of Democrats are saying wait, hold on, this was a set up. This guy was intentionally put out to do this by the Republican Party."

Quote:

Russert admitted: "We obviously don't know if that's true or not," but quickly added, "it's quite interesting that we do not know who the folks that actually took this video are, this late in the process. You'd think they'd want some notoriety, especially if they are perpetuating this cause against the Obama agenda."

Quote:

After noting that Etheridge's House seat was "fairly safe," Russert made the obvious observation that "...at the end of the day, everyone agrees, it's never a good idea to physically assault somebody who's trying to videotape you, especially in the YouTube age."

faithful_servant · #34 (**permalink**) 06-15-2010, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saltwn

You belong to a party that condones sending children out to lie and attack congressmen for a reaction so they can distort the truth? So you can get a candidate elected?
This makes me so want to
return to the Republican party.

There it is again, attacking the victims. These students had every legal right to do what they did and you support the criminal actions of the Congressman for no other reason than because he's a Dem. No one has shown ANY connection between these students and the lady running against Etheridge, yet you'll try to create one out of thin air. The students didn't lie, they asked a question (which the congresscritter was unwilling to answer) and got assaulted for it. Your support of this is sickening.

faithful_servant · #35 (**permalink**) 06-15-2010, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by off the porch

Anyone?

Why have 2 cameras?

And no one can seem to find the students that tried to do this interview....Ms. Elmers' relatives, perhaps?

Why not have two cameras?? Anyone with more than two connected neurons knows that whenever possible you have backups. It's a simple commonsense thing that most likely escaped you because you're looking for ways to make the victims the criminal and the criminal the victim because of their politics and nothing else. If this was a Rep. congresscritter and a couple of liberal students, you'd be screaming for the congresscritter's blood.

Gordon Shumway · #36 (**permalink**) 06-15-2010, 03:31 PM

Why does this congressman feel it's within his rights to know who these people are but it's not within the rights of Arizona law enforcement to know who's in their state; legally or illegally?

- - - - -

Two cameras?
I believe we saw why two cameras were necessary.

- - - - -

Blurred face?
He's a student (possibly under age) & the congressman "hugged" him --- might be a case of inappropriate touching of a minor.

- - - - -

Interesting that someone would claim; as an apparent excuse; that the folks with the cameras were there to provoke.
We get cries of the need for anger management when Tony Stewart pushes a camera out of his face after he wrecks his car & the interviewer wants to know how he feels.
Or, Tommy Lee shoves a cameraman for putting a camera in his face while he's out with his wife & more cries for anger management can be heard from coast to coast.
Yet a congressman, who should be held to a higher standard than rock-n-roll drummer or a race car driver, is given a pass because he was "provoked."
Just incredible.

faithful_servant · #37 (**permalink**) 06-15-2010, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saltwn

Excerpt from a News Busters article:

Quote:

In the 3PM ET hour on MSNBC, anchor Chris Jansing spoke with NBC correspondent Luke Russert about the altercation and explained to viewers: "...in spite of the fact of what we see on camera and his apology, there are Democrats, right Luke, who frankly say they think that we need to look beyond what might seem obvious." Russert replied: "...nobody knows who these, quote, 'students' are" and cited Democratic Party spokesman Brad Woodhouse claiming they were actually Republican Party operatives. He concluded: "So a lot of Democrats are saying wait, hold on, this was a set up. This guy was intentionally put out to do this by the Republican Party."

Quote:

Russert admitted: "We obviously don't know if that's true or not," but quickly added, "it's quite interesting that we do not know who the folks that actually took this video are, this late in the process. You'd think they'd want some notoriety, especially if they are perpetuating this cause against the Obama agenda."

Quote:

After noting that Etheridge's House seat was "fairly safe," Russert made the obvious observation that "...at the end of the day, everyone agrees, it's never a good idea to physically assault somebody who's trying to videotape you, especially in the YouTube age."

In your opinion, were Congressman Etheridge's actions criminal in nature or not???

Here's a little background info for you:
Criminal Law: The Elements of Simple Assault in Washington, DC | Koehler Law

Infidel Dog · #38 (**permalink**) 06-15-2010, 03:39 PM

Thanks for the link Saltwn. I'll tell you what. Seeing as you're not opposed to investigating even right wing sites, such as Newsbusters, in your pursuit of truth involving the background of this story I think I can help you out.

The story first appeared on BigGovernment.com. A BG.c contributor explains how the process works.

Quote:

Additionally, as someone who has written for both Big Government and Big Journalism, the editors of the sites get the posts edit and decide which posts go up and when.

MSM Reporting of Congressman Etheridge Video Shows Much About Media Bias - Big Journalism

The vid was sent to an editor at BigGovernment. He decided to post it.

In the interview below Right Wight wing commentator Sean Hannity talks with what appears to be the editor who approved the video for BigGovernment's use.

YouTube - Flynn

Infidel Dog · #39 (**permalink**) 06-15-2010, 03:43 PM

off the porch · #40 (**permalink**) 06-15-2010, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gordon Shumway

1)Two cameras?
I believe we saw why two cameras were necessary.

2)Blurred face?
He's a student (possibly under age) & the congressman "hugged" him --- might be a case of inappropriate touching of a minor.

3)Interesting that someone would claim; as an apparent excuse; that the folks with the cameras were there to provoke.

4)Yet a congressman, who should be held to a higher standard than rock-n-roll drummer or a race car driver, is given a pass because he was "provoked."
Just incredible.

1)Yes, I believe we did see the reason. The students were planning to provoke and hoped the congressperson would perhaps push the camera out of his face. Turns out the students got a more negative than they could have hoped for. They anticipated how the provocation might turn out - hence 2 cameras. *disclaimer - all of this is merely my own supposition and I might be wrong, and we may not ever know the whole story or who these students really were or their motives.

2)As for the blurred face - did the congressperson ask the face to be blurred? Or was the "unedited" video blurred by the video-takers?

3)They did provoke...and the congressman responded with very bad behavior.

4)Not giving him a pass. He should think about talking to a professional. At least he did apologize.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to saltwn For This Useful Post:
DownSouth, off the porch

The Following User Says Thank You to faithful_servant For This Useful Post:
MrLiberty

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Gordon Shumway For This Useful Post:
alan, Infidel Dog, MrLiberty