When CongressCritters Attack! [Archive]

leftysergeant

16th June 2010, 12:48 PM

Why is this not a felony? Unlawful restraint, assault and battery, damage to personal property. If the kid had punched the congressman, I suspect it might be a little different outcome.

You got bass ackwards. The teatrash were harrassing him. They had a right to identify themselves, ask his permiossion to record the conversation, or to take their camera and shove it where the sun don't shine. He was under no obligation to talk to the sociopathic little slimeballs. If anyone should face charges, it is the teatrash. It appears to me that they were not going to let him go about his business. He appears against different backgrounds (with no transition between shots) which suggests to me that the dirtbags were not going to just go away or allow him to go on about his business.

They had no particular defensible right to demand that he waste his time talking to idiots whjo cannot be trusted to tell the truth about what he said to the. End of discussion on that aspect.

The punk kids appear to be operating on a version of the Tom Metzger strategy to destroy the lives of political figures.

Olowkow

16th June 2010, 12:59 PM

You got bass ackwards. ....
The punk kids appear to be operating on a version of the Tom Metzger strategy to destroy the lives of political figures.

I don't think it works to get into what the politics of it might be. It does not matter what the punk's politics happen to be. If he had touched Etheridge, the guy would have been within his rights to coldcock the kid. But from the video, it looks like the guy was restraining the kid. If he had moved the kid, this comes pretty close to the definition of kidnapping.

(law) the unlawful act of capturing and carrying away a person against their will and holding them in false imprisonment

I think your politics and mine are pretty similar, but I still ask, "how is this not a felony?"

leftysergeant

16th June 2010, 01:06 PM

I think your politics and mine are pretty similar, but I still ask, "how is this not a felony?"

Can you prove that the teatrash were not blocking his way? If not, you have nothing.

Olowkow

16th June 2010, 01:14 PM

Can you prove that the teatrash were not blocking his way? If not, you have nothing.

No, can you prove they were? I'm surprised that this is not a bigger story than it is. Why aren't the repubs screaming outrage? I am simply going on what I saw on the video. It looks like a lot of other situations, like O'Reilly's minions bugging lawmakers, who simply walk away with a few insults. But to grab the kid by the arm and then knock the camera down. Wow, that's a crime to me.

Note that Etheridge has apologized. Why would he apologize if he were not in the wrong? I still ask, "Why is this not a crime?" Will the kid sue? If not, why not?

Ziggurat

16th June 2010, 01:19 PM

You got bass ackwards. The teatrash were harrassing him.

They asked him a question as he passed.

They had a right to identify themselves

Do you understand the difference between a right and an obligation?

ask his permiossion to record the conversation

They don't need his permission to openly record him in a public area.

He was under no obligation to talk to the sociopathic little slimeballs.

The fact that he didn't answer their question isn't the problem, lefty. Can you identify what the problem is?

If anyone should face charges, it is the teatrash.

... and... you have officially become a parody of yourself.

Not that you weren't before, but now it's official. Good call, Brainster (though I'm afraid this was too predictable to qualify for the million dollar prize).

It appears to me that they were not going to let him go about his business.

And how were they going to prevent him from going about his business? Were they going to take his things? Forcibly restrain him?

Oh... wait... that's what he did to them.

He appears against different backgrounds (with no transition between shots)

There were two cameras. In one of the posted videos, they cut from one camera to another because Etheridge seized the first one so you can't see anything from it. But full video from each camera is available separately. There's no "different backgrounds" involved. In all happened at one spot.

The funny thing about this, of course, is that even Etheridge himself knows he was in the wrong, and his own apology gives lie to the bizarre rationalizations lefty puts forward.

Ziggurat

16th June 2010, 01:22 PM

Can you prove that the teatrash were not blocking his way?

Yes: Etheridge got past them, so obviously he wasn't blocked. He was on the other side of them from the direction he came when he was holding onto that guy's wrist. The only thing that kept Etheridge from going on his merry way was his desire to restrain the student and demand his identity.

ANTPogo

16th June 2010, 01:26 PM

It's obvious that the photographers assaulted the congressman, who was just minding his own business.

(/leftysergeant mode)

You got bass ackwards. The teatrash were harrassing him. They had a right to identify themselves, ask his permiossion to record the conversation, or to take their camera and shove it where the sun don't shine. He was under no obligation to talk to the sociopathic little slimeballs. If anyone should face charges, it is the teatrash. It appears to me that they were not going to let him go about his business. He appears against different backgrounds (with no transition between shots) which suggests to me that the dirtbags were not going to just go away or allow him to go on about his business.

They had no particular defensible right to demand that he waste his time talking to idiots whjo cannot be trusted to tell the truth about what he said to the. End of discussion on that aspect.

The punk kids appear to be operating on a version of the Tom Metzger strategy to destroy the lives of political figures.

Okay, Brainster, that was just eerie.

Ziggurat

16th June 2010, 01:26 PM

I think your politics and mine are pretty similar

Oh, I doubt that. lefty is an authoritarian. I'm sure he'll object to the label, but it's an accurate description of what he believes.

Ziggurat

16th June 2010, 01:27 PM

Okay, Brainster, that was just eerie.

I think you mean easy. :D

ANTPogo

16th June 2010, 01:28 PM

I think you mean easy. :D

Touche!

leftysergeant

16th June 2010, 01:31 PM

Yes: Etheridge got past them, so obviously he wasn't blocked. He was on the other side of them from the direction he came when he was holding onto that guy's wrist. The only thing that kept Etheridge from going on his merry way was his desire to restrain the student and demand his identity.

The video is chopped. There is no proof that they did not try to get back in front of him. That's how paparrazi trash work. The slimeballs were not about to let him walk away, as far as i can see.

The punks are obviously not totally sane.

Olowkow

16th June 2010, 01:33 PM

Oh, I doubt that. lefty is an authoritarian. I'm sure he'll object to the label, but it's an accurate description of what he believes.

Well, I don't know Lefty, but I have no love lost for the "teatrash" as he calls them. I was going to start a thread on this, but did a search and wound up here. To my amazement, a "non teatrash" individual comes out in favor of essentially using force, felonious behavior, to deal with an irritating foe. We can't stoop to this, even when we are dealing with liars and unethical people.

dudalb

16th June 2010, 01:34 PM

I have a felling the lefty lives for the day when the "teatrash" will answer for their crimes in front of a Revolutionary People's Tribunal.

leftysergeant

16th June 2010, 01:39 PM

To my amazement, a "non teatrash" individual comes out in favor of essentially using force, felonious behavior, to deal with an irritating foe.

Were they just irritating, they would have a case against Etheridge. But they were intimidating. They lose.

Ziggurat

16th June 2010, 01:48 PM

The video is chopped. There is no proof that they did not try to get back in front of him.

Obviously they DID get it back from him at some point, or else they wouldn't have the video from that camera. Honestly, have you been paying any attention? And do you think that makes it OK for Etheridge to have taken the camera.

The slimeballs were not about to let him walk away, as far as i can see.

Once again, lefty: he was the one restraining them, not the other way around.

The punks are obviously not totally sane.

Well, someone isn't totally sane.

Ziggurat

16th June 2010, 01:50 PM

Were they just irritating, they would have a case against Etheridge. But they were intimidating. They lose.

How do you know they were intimidating? You've got no evidence of that. You're just making stuff up.

Seriously, given Etheridge's unequivocal apology, why are you trying to defend actions that he himself said had no justification?

Ziggurat

16th June 2010, 01:55 PM

Well, I don't know Lefty, but I have no love lost for the "teatrash" as he calls them. I was going to start a thread on this, but did a search and wound up here. To my amazement, a "non teatrash" individual comes out in favor of essentially using force, felonious behavior, to deal with an irritating foe.

Like I said, he's an authoritarian. The fact that he's a progressive and not a conservative doesn't make him any less authoritarian. The fact that you both consider the tea party to be opponents doesn't put him on your side. He isn't. The enemy of your enemy can still be your enemy.

leftysergeant

16th June 2010, 01:57 PM

How do you know they were intimidating? You've got no evidence of that. You're just making stuff up.

The way they worded their question is an indicator that they are political whackadoodles. That they did not identify themselves confirms that they are unconcerned about basic rules of civil discourse or law as it relates to journalism.

Teatrash characteristics written large.

Seriously, given Etheridge's unequivocal apology, why are you trying to defend actions that he himself said had no justification?

Meh. So he wasn't perfect. He still did nothing criminal. The punks still have their teeth.

And you still have not demonstrated that they did not interfere with his ability to just walk away and give them the respect they deserved. (Utterly none.)

And have those little slimeballs ever identified themselves? If not, screw 'em. They're teatrash.

Cleon

16th June 2010, 01:58 PM

You got bass ackwards. The teatrash were harrassing him. They had a right to identify themselves, ask his permiossion to record the conversation, or to take their camera and shove it where the sun don't shine. He was under no obligation to talk to the sociopathic little slimeballs. If anyone should face charges, it is the teatrash. It appears to me that they were not going to let him go about his business. He appears against different backgrounds (with no transition between shots) which suggests to me that the dirtbags were not going to just go away or allow him to go on about his business.

They had no particular defensible right to demand that he waste his time talking to idiots whjo cannot be trusted to tell the truth about what he said to the. End of discussion on that aspect.

The punk kids appear to be operating on a version of the Tom Metzger strategy to destroy the lives of political figures.

Oh, give it a rest. Seriously.

leftysergeant

16th June 2010, 02:16 PM

Oh, give it a rest. Seriously.

I will give it a rest when dangerous political whackjobs stop manufacturing scandals. They are pushing people to the limits of their tolerance hoping to start a fight so that they can kill them politcally. They learned that from things like Tom Metzger who taught his slime to use it as a way to justify murder.

Cleon

16th June 2010, 02:20 PM

I will give it a rest when dangerous political whackjobs stop manufacturing scandals. They are pushing people to the limits of their tolerance hoping to start a fight so that they can kill them politcally. They learned that from things like Tom Metzger who taught his slime to use it as a way to justify murder.

They didn't whack him with a crowbar and curb-stomp him. They asked him a question. Get a sense of perspective.

Ziggurat

16th June 2010, 02:21 PM

The way they worded their question is an indicator that they are political whackadoodles.

Oh, they asked a vague question. How... intimidating. Watch the violence that occurs when this question gets posed to other people:
iJh-mM1MGf0
Fast forward to 1:48 for my favorite bit.

That they did not identify themselves confirms that they are unconcerned about basic rules of civil discourse or law as it relates to journalism.

As a matter of law, you couldn't be more wrong. As a matter of "civil discourse", how is assault a solution to what you consider inappropriate anonymity?

Teatrash characteristics written large.

Etheridge himself recognizes that there are no excuses for his actions. Why don't you?

Meh. So he wasn't perfect. He still did nothing criminal. The punks still have their teeth.

So that's your threshold for acceptable behavior?

And you still have not demonstrated that they did not interfere with his ability to just walk away and give them the respect they deserved. (Utterly none.)

This isn't about not showing them respect. It's about him forcibly seizing their property and physically restraining them. As for them interfering with him, I think I made that point pretty damned clear, and it's rather obvious on the video that they didn't interfere with his ability to walk away. Everyone else can see it. Why can't you?

I guess that brings us back to the sanity question.

And have those little slimeballs ever identified themselves?

How is their identity at all relevant to the question of the appropriateness or legality of Etheridge's behavior? It isn't. But thanks for showing your true authoritarian sensibilities, ungrounded as they are in any actual US law.

If not, screw 'em. They're teatrash.

Line 'em up against a wall. Let their blood grease the wheels of revolution.

leftysergeant

16th June 2010, 02:40 PM

Oh, they asked a vague question. How... intimidating. Watch the violence that occurs when this question gets posed to other people:
iJh-mM1MGf0

The people in Chicago had no problem with talking to the obvious nutjob. Probably didn't have anything to lose. You say something to an anonymopus jerk with a camera in D.C., you have have no idea how the punk is going to distort it. The punks could have been operatives of Alex Jones.

As a matter of law, you couldn't be more wrong. As a matter of "civil discourse", how is assault a solution to what you consider inappropriate anonymity?

It is an appropriate response to someone who gives you reason to fear for your safety. A lunatic following you down the street and getting in your face canm be damned intimidating. The video was shot from more than one point. We do not know where the punks were at all times. Ergo, the video is worthless for any purpose other than to prove that they are intimidating teatrash.

Etheridge himself recognizes that there are no excuses for his actions. Why don't you?[/QUOTE]

Because I cannot see how it rises to the level of a criminal offense to react defensively to an intimidating lunatic following you on the street.

This isn't about not showing them respect. It's about him forcibly seizing their property and physically restraining them.

I don't see him using unreasonable force to make the teatrash stop harrassing him. Stalkers are by nature danggerous. They gave him reason to fear for his safety.

As for them interfering with him, I think I made that point pretty damned clear, and it's rather obvious on the video that they didn't interfere with his ability to walk away. Everyone else can see it. Why can't you?

Because the tape does not show all the action. Worthless for defense of the teatrash.

How is their identity at all relevant to the question of the appropriateness or legality of Etheridge's behavior? It isn't. But thanks for showing your true authoritarian sensibilities, ungrounded as they are in any actual US law.

When they refused to identify themselves, and Etheridge refused to grant them an interview, they had no further right to expect him to answer them. They had no right to further interfere with him. There is no proof that they did not further interfere.

Line 'em up against a wall. Let their blood grease the wheels of revolution.

We actually have teatrash suggesting that it is time to kill Democrats. Don't project the sins of your side onto those who oppose the teatrash.

Sword_Of_Truth

16th June 2010, 02:43 PM

The people in Chicago had no problem with talking to the obvious nutjob. Probably didn't have anything to lose. You say something to an anonymopus jerk with a camera in D.C., you have have no idea how the punk is going to distort it. The punks could have been operatives of Alex Jones.

It is an appropriate response to someone who gives you reason to fear for your safety. A lunatic following you down the street and getting in your face canm be damned intimidating. The video was shot from more than one point. We do not know where the punks were at all times. Ergo, the video is worthless for any purpose other than to prove that they are intimidating teatrash.

Etheridge himself recognizes that there are no excuses for his actions. Why don't you?

Because I cannot see how it rises to the level of a criminal offense to react defensively to an intimidating lunatic following you on the street.

I don't see him using unreasonable force to make the teatrash stop harrassing him. Stalkers are by nature danggerous. They gave him reason to fear for his safety.

Because the tape does not show all the action. Worthless for defense of the teatrash.

When they refused to identify themselves, and Etheridge refused to grant them an interview, they had no further right to expect him to answer them. They had no right to further interfere with him. There is no proof that they did not further interfere.

We actually have teatrash suggesting that it is time to kill Democrats. Don't project the sins of your side onto those who oppose the teatrash.

This is like reading a Galileo post about Ron Paul.

leftysergeant

16th June 2010, 02:49 PM

You mean I am supposed to tolerate shrieking monkeys getting in my face in an intimdating manner when i have other things to do? I am not entitled to feel intimidated if a Nazi wants to talk to me and I don't want to listen, and he won't let me leave.

Look at it this way. If you cause someone to fear you, you just signed for what you get.

Cleon

16th June 2010, 02:55 PM

You mean I am supposed to tolerate shrieking monkeys getting in my face in an intimdating manner when i have other things to do?

Intimidating? He asked a question. If you're intimidated to the point of violence by someone simply asking you a question, you are in serious need of anger management therapy.

I am not entitled to feel intimidated if a Nazi wants to talk to me and I don't want to listen, and he won't let me leave.

First - there are no Nazis involved. Again, perspective.
Second - Etheridge could have easily kept walking and ignored them. He chose not to.

The only person being intimidating here is Etheridge.

Ziggurat

16th June 2010, 02:57 PM

The people in Chicago had no problem with talking to the obvious nutjob. Probably didn't have anything to lose. You say something to an anonymopus jerk with a camera in D.C., you have have no idea how the punk is going to distort it. The punks could have been operatives of Alex Jones.

There's a rather easy solution to that conundrum, lefty: don't answer the question. Again, the problem is not that Etheridge didn't answer the question. Had he simply walked away, this wouldn't be a story. He chose not to simply walk away.

It is an appropriate response to someone who gives you reason to fear for your safety.

Etheridge feared for his safety? So he restrained the people he felt threatened by and seized their possessions?

Go on, pull the other one.

A lunatic following you down the street

They weren't following him down the street.

We do not know where the punks were at all times.

Evidently you think you do.

Because I cannot see how it rises to the level of a criminal offense to react defensively to an intimidating lunatic following you on the street.

Except that's not what happened. Etheridge intimidated them, not the other way around.

I don't see him using unreasonable force to make the teatrash stop harrassing him. Stalkers are by nature danggerous. They gave him reason to fear for his safety.

No they didn't. Which is why Etheridge doesn't try to make that argument in his own defense.

When they refused to identify themselves, and Etheridge refused to grant them an interview, they had no further right to expect him to answer them.

Again, that wasn't the problem.

They had no right to further interfere with him. There is no proof that they did not further interfere.

There's no proof that they weren't raping puppies either. Was Etheridge just trying to save puppies, lefty?

PS13

16th June 2010, 03:02 PM

Does leftysergeant actually believe what he writes?

It is clear, 100% clear from the video that Etheridge did in fact assault the kid. That's a fact & Etheridge even claimed he was sorry for the way he acted.

There's no way anyone can convince me that the way Etheridge acted was okay.

I really can't believe that lefty is saying that the students assaulted Ethridge. Wow.

Asking a public servant, Etheridge, a question on video in a public area is NOT a crime. However, laying your hands on someone in the way Etheridge did to the student is in fact a crime.

leftysergeant

16th June 2010, 03:07 PM

Intimidating? He asked a question. If you're intimidated to the point of violence by someone simply asking you a question, you are in serious need of anger management therapy.

They didn't seem that intimidating until they refused to identify themselves. Then it became clear that they were obvious whackjobs. That is intimidating.

First - there are no Nazis involved.

How do you know that? They do have some of the style of Nazis.

Again, perspective.
Second - Etheridge could have easily kept walking and ignored them. He chose not to.

How do you know that? There is every reason to believe, unless and until Etheridge tells us otherwise, that the teatrash were not allowing him to go about his business.

applecorped

16th June 2010, 03:07 PM

applecorped

16th June 2010, 03:09 PM

Then it became clear that they were obvious whackjobs. That is intimidating.

If that's all it takes to be intimidating then I retract my previous statement.

kevinquinnyo

16th June 2010, 03:09 PM

Hey Lefty,

Earlier today, this old woman in a wheelchair was in my path, asking me all these simple questions, (it was obvious that she was a teatrash whackadoodle) so I punched her in the face.

I felt intimidated by the questions.

High Five!

leftysergeant

16th June 2010, 03:09 PM

Asking a public servant, Etheridge, a question on video in a public area is NOT a crime. However, laying your hands on someone in the way Etheridge did to the student is in fact a crime.

It is not a crime to lay hands on or take other restraining action agaisnt someone who causes you fear for your safety. End of story. No charges possible.

applecorped

16th June 2010, 03:11 PM

If your in fear of someone why grab them?

leftysergeant

16th June 2010, 03:20 PM

If your in fear of someone why grab them?

To communicate that the offensive little snot has crossed a line that you do not tolerate his crosing.

I only recommend such a course to persons capable of doing physical harm going mano-a-mano with the threatening person.

That's why I pack.

applecorped

16th June 2010, 03:22 PM

So if some asks you a question you don't like you are prepared to use a gun?

leftysergeant

16th June 2010, 03:25 PM

Earlier today, this old woman in a wheelchair was in my path, asking me all these simple questions, (it was obvious that she was a teatrash whackadoodle) so I punched her in the face.

Stupid analogy. Granny is not capable of harming you and is not likely recording your words so that she can distort them and use them to libel you later.

Teatrash kill people on occassion. They lie a lot. They give aid and comfort to other lunatics. They are a threat to people who do not endorse their ideas of good government.

As "whackadoodle" as some tea party idiots are, I think your views are even dumber.

Stupid and delusional people with guns are a threat to civilization.

Kthulhut Fhtagn

16th June 2010, 03:25 PM

*sigh* Lefty, this one is pretty damn indefensible. He does not have the right to get in this kids face, grab his arm, and demand to know who he is. The appropriate response is to continue walking on and ignore them, that is all.

applecorped

16th June 2010, 03:26 PM

Stupid and delusional people with guns are a threat to civilization.

I agree.

leftysergeant

16th June 2010, 03:26 PM

So if some asks you a question you don't like you are prepared to use a gun?

No. I'm not nuts.

Ziggurat

16th June 2010, 03:27 PM

They didn't seem that intimidating until they refused to identify themselves. Then it became clear that they were obvious whackjobs. That is intimidating.

What's your real name, leftysergeant?

How do you know that? There is every reason to believe, unless and until Etheridge tells us otherwise, that the teatrash were not allowing him to go about his business.

No, there's no reason to believe that (and video evidence indicating the exact opposite), except your desperate desire to create an excuse for his actions, actions which he himself has stated have no excuse.

BTW, for those interested, you can find separate video from the two cameras here:
g5wxCr6ZRps
o9RXyCVfeEI

Ziggurat

16th June 2010, 03:29 PM

To communicate that the offensive little snot has crossed a line that you do not tolerate his crosing.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_11924c19504af36e7.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=20189)

applecorped

16th June 2010, 03:32 PM

No. I'm not nuts.

I believe you.

leftysergeant

16th June 2010, 03:39 PM

What's your real name, leftysergeant?

You have no legal right to require it of me, since my participation in the foruim, under the membership rules does not require it. Etheridge did not have an obligation to answer the teatrash's questions if they did not identify themselves. End of discussion of THAT aspect.

But, it seems there is more to it than meets the eye.

The title of this video indicates that this was outside a Nancy Pelosi fundraiser. It appears that Etheridge was about to enter a building.

Punk boy shoves a camera in his face. Punk bopy was interfering with Etheridge's movement.

Busted.
o9RXyCVfeEI[/QUOTE]

Kthulhut Fhtagn

16th June 2010, 03:42 PM

Punk boy shoves a camera in his face. Punk bopy was interfering with Etheridge's movement.

Even then, the appropriate response was to move past him. From the looks of the video Etheridge didn't even attempt that before getting physical.

Ziggurat

16th June 2010, 03:46 PM

You have no legal right to require it of me

But your refusal demonstrates that you're an obvious whackjob.

And Etheridge claimed he had a legal right to require it of them, even though he didn't.

Etheridge did not have an obligation to answer the teatrash's questions if they did not identify themselves.

Nobody is upset that he didn't answer their questions.

The title of this video indicates that this was outside a Nancy Pelosi fundraiser. It appears that Etheridge was about to enter a building.

Nope. It was after the event, not before it.

Punk boy shoves a camera in his face. Punk bopy was interfering with Etheridge's movement.

To the extent that anyone standing in my way interferes with my movement. Etheridge had no problem walking around them. In fact, he DID.

Busted.

Yeah, not so much.

kevinquinnyo

16th June 2010, 03:48 PM

[...]

The title of this video indicates that this was outside a Nancy Pelosi fundraiser. It appears that Etheridge was about to enter a building.

Punk boy shoves a camera in his face. Punk bopy was interfering with Etheridge's movement.

Busted.

So the next time a Jehovah's witness or salesperson or homeless person is in my way, asking me questions, I have a right to grab them by the neck and hold on to their wrist, not letting them move, as long as I'm walking towards a building?

leftysergeant

16th June 2010, 04:01 PM

But your refusal demonstrates that you're an obvious whackjob.

You have no legal right to require it as a condition of my participation here. And, by posting, you consent to be quoted, as do I.

And Etheridge claimed he had a legal right to require it of them, even though he didn't.

He has the legal right to require that of the punk before he answers a question on the record. End of discussion.

To the extent that anyone standing in my way interferes with my movement. Etheridge had no problem walking around them. In fact, he DID.

When Etheridge grabbed the punk, he was thrusting the camera right in Etheridge's face. Totally wrong and intimidating. No excuses. You put something right in my face, you're going to lose it and the law will do nothing to me.

applecorped

16th June 2010, 04:21 PM

He has the legal right to require that of the punk before he answers a question on the record. End of discussion.

Which legal right would that be?

leftysergeant

16th June 2010, 04:35 PM

Which legal right would that be?

He has the right not to speak to someone who does not meet the requirement of identifying himself. Nobody, outside of a court of law, may require that he answer a question.

kevinquinnyo

16th June 2010, 04:35 PM

He has the legal right to require that of the punk before he answers a question on the record. End of discussion.

He also has the legal right to request a ham sandwich or a 2 headed dog on a tricycle before he answers any questions. So what? No one cares whether he answers the question or not.

When Etheridge grabbed the punk, he was thrusting the camera right in Etheridge's face. Totally wrong and intimidating. No excuses. You put something right in my face, you're going to lose it and the law will do nothing to me.

Lose what? The camera? We're talking about physical assault here. And you are justifying it on the fact that the kid was a snot-nose, irritating little jerk.

leftysergeant

16th June 2010, 04:38 PM

He also has the legal right to request a ham sandwich or a 2 headed dog on a tricycle before he answers any questions. So what?

So that was where the interaction between them should have ended. The slimeballs chose to continue contact in a hostile manner.

Lose what? The camera? We're talking about physical assault here. And you are justifying it on the fact that the kid was a snot-nose, irritating little jerk.

I do not see an assault. I see a man stopping a punk from a threatening act.

thaiboxerken

16th June 2010, 04:42 PM

The college kid asks him a question. So he gives the guy a hug while asking "who are you?" You guys call this assault and battery?

thaiboxerken

16th June 2010, 04:53 PM

Then you're blind or stupid. He held the kid by his neck and grabbed him by the wrist against his will.

Was it a big deal? No. Who cares. Is it assault? Yes it is.

I didn't hear the kids say "let go of me" or even struggle to stop the guy from hugging him.

Olowkow

16th June 2010, 05:23 PM

The college kid asks him a question. So he gives the guy a hug while asking "who are you?" You guys call this assault and battery?

Er, yes, when the kid is saying "let me go".

thaiboxerken

16th June 2010, 05:26 PM

Er, yes, when the kid is saying "let me go".

I didn't hear the kid say that. Plus, it's easy enough to get a person's grip off of your wrist. It's easy to stop someone from grabbing your neck as well.

Olowkow

16th June 2010, 05:32 PM

I didn't hear the kid say that. Plus, it's easy enough to get a person's grip off of your wrist. It's easy to stop someone from grabbing your neck as well.

I heard something like "Let me go please" at one point. The point is not how easy it is to stop someone from grabbing you. Just look up the meanings of "assault" and "battery". This was not "aggravated", but there was definitely an assault and a battery. If anyone doubts this, you risk being arrested if you get too animated with someone who does not appreciate your grabbing him.

I don't believe the kid even needs to file charges. "Spouse" abuse of any kind results in an arrest, even if the wife pleads with cops not to arrest the hubby.

The video clearly shows the commission of a felony. Why is this congressman not in jail? Get beyond the politics of it. It was a crime!

ETA: OK I'll do it.
assault legal definition

In criminal and tort law, an act, usually consisting of a threat or attempt to inflict bodily injury upon another person, coupled with the apparent present ability to succeed in carrying out the threat or the attempt if not prevented, that causes the person to have a reasonable fear or apprehension of immediate harmful or offensive contact. No intent to cause battery or the fear or apprehension is required so long as the victim is placed in reasonable apprehension or fear. No actual physical injury is needed to establish an assault, but if there is any physical contact, the act constitutes both an assault and a battery.

thaiboxerken

16th June 2010, 05:33 PM

Assault..maybe. Battery, no. There was no striking or injuries.

Olowkow

16th June 2010, 05:37 PM

No need for injury. He moved the kid. This is close to kidnapping, and is obviously unlawful restraint. This is very surprising that anyone is defending these actions.

No actual physical injury is needed to establish an assault, but if there is any physical contact, the act constitutes both an assault and a battery.No offense meant, but some folks just don't know the law.
http://www.yourdictionary.com/law/assault

rwguinn

16th June 2010, 06:04 PM

No need for injury. He moved the kid. This is close to kidnapping, and is obviously unlawful restraint. This is very surprising that anyone is defending these actions.

No offense meant, but some folks just don't know the law.
http://www.yourdictionary.com/law/assault
Have you not heard? Cameras are deadly weapons. Shoving one is someone's face is assault.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6031673#post6031673

leftysergeant

16th June 2010, 06:46 PM

The video clearly shows the commission of a felony. Why is this congressman not in jail?

Because the teatrash made the first physical contact.

Get beyond the politics of it. It was a crime!

Back at you.

kevinquinnyo

16th June 2010, 07:00 PM

I didn't hear the kid say that.

Watch it again then. He clearly says "please let go of me sir..."

Plus, it's easy enough to get a person's grip off of your wrist. It's easy to stop someone from grabbing your neck as well.

It's also "easy" to not be a victim of identity theft. Does that mean it's okay to steal identities?

kevinquinnyo

16th June 2010, 07:02 PM

Because the teatrash made the first physical contact.

Wrong, again.

kevinquinnyo

16th June 2010, 07:07 PM

I do have to admit that I love the term "teatrash."

You do have a poetic way of speaking, even if you're illogical and wrong all the time.

Flanger

16th June 2010, 07:12 PM

It's plain to see what happened. Those two kids where in truth, Shape Shifting Reptilians!!!
He must have saw there eye's shift for a sec, thus the reason he kept asking "Who are you"
As everyone knows Reptilians are always teabaggers and republicans. so he was just trying to expose those evil and malicious aliens for what they are:rolleyes:

thaiboxerken

16th June 2010, 07:14 PM

applecorped

16th June 2010, 07:16 PM

Reprimanded? Bad Rep.! Get down!

thaiboxerken

16th June 2010, 07:19 PM

So you've never been pulled over for speeding, but let off with just a warning?

Olowkow

16th June 2010, 07:27 PM

If that is the law, then the guy should be reprimanded by law enforcement. I think being charged with a felony is a bit harsh since there was no harm or injury, or even an attempt to injure. Doesn't assault and battery have to have intent to injure?

Ken, why is it so difficult to understand? Why is this guy not in jail? Assault can be a mere verbal threat, "I'm going to kick your butt". When you touch the guy,it becomes assault and battery. Nowhere does it say, as long as the guy is an asshat or a republican, you get to grab him and threaten him.

I don't want to be a part of any group that claims the right to violence unless some sort of self defense is involved. This kid looked about 120 lbs, a scared non violent twerp. If he had been a 250 lb body builder, he could have legally wiped up the street with Etheridge.

Quote:
assault legal definition

In criminal and tort law, an act, usually consisting of a threat or attempt to inflict bodily injury upon another person, coupled with the apparent present ability to succeed in carrying out the threat or the attempt if not prevented, that causes the person to have a reasonable fear or apprehension of immediate harmful or offensive contact. No intent to cause battery or the fear or apprehension is required so long as the victim is placed in reasonable apprehension or fear. No actual physical injury is needed to establish an assault, but if there is any physical contact, the act constitutes both an assault and a battery.

Olowkow

16th June 2010, 07:34 PM

So you've never been pulled over for speeding, but let off with just a warning?

Speeding is not a felony, until you try to outrun the cops. A cop would be fired if he gave a warning for a felony.

I just thought of something when I saw your name "thaiboxer-ken"
A good drinking buddy in college used to make a sport of luring some big guy out of bar and letting him have the first punch...''go ahead tough guy, give me your best shot". Usually to the face, bloodied his nose. My friend, a black belt in something like karate as I recall, just took great pleasure in turning around, as if he was crying, then proceeded to break the guy's jaw with one kick. Game over. My friend was a real nut, but legally, he was using self defense.

Olowkow

16th June 2010, 08:37 PM

Originally Posted by Olowkow http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=6041435#post6041435)
The video clearly shows the commission of a felony. Why is this congressman not in jail?

Olowkow: Get beyond the politics of it. It was a crime!
Leftysergeant: Back at you. OK, my first reaction when I saw the video was to Google Etheridge to see where he was from, and I admit, to kind of verify that it must be another freaking republican. I saw that he was a democrat, and my heart sank. Bummer, we don't need idiots like him on our side. He had that hateful odd dead look in his eyes like Boehner or Allen, the "macaca" guy, and some other right wing nutcases. I flirted with the idea of somehow finding a defense for him for about 2 seconds, and then felt outrage. Why can a congressman do this but if I did it, I'd be in jail?

OH, and in case you need more bona fides, I voted for Obama, used to donate to NPR until they got too conservative, I'm an aging left wing skeptical atheist existentialist hippy type who bristles at the antics of jerky politicians... no matter what their affiliation. I eat meat too.

ETA: I have no clue as to the political beliefs of this Ethridge dude.

Meadmaker

16th June 2010, 09:00 PM

It's hard to have any sympathy for anyone in the video. On the one hand, Etheridge strikes me as about half crazy and moderately dangerous. On the other hand, the two students are sufficiently full of themselves that they feel it's perfectly appropriate to stick a camera in the face of someone on a public sidewalk. Why do they think they are so important?

I feel sorry for celebrities and politicians in our society.

Ziggurat

16th June 2010, 10:18 PM

You have no legal right to require it as a condition of my participation here.

And Etheridge had no legal right to require it at all.

He has the legal right to require that of the punk before he answers a question on the record.

Nobody disputes that Etheridge had the right to refuse to answer a question for any reason at all. Everyone knows that. That was never the problem. Your continued insistence on an irrelevant point no one debates is an indication of the weakness of your position.

When Etheridge grabbed the punk, he was thrusting the camera right in Etheridge's face. Totally wrong and intimidating.

Boo friggin hoo. So tell me again why Etheridge, being so intimidated by these guys, decided to assault them rather than walk away?

No excuses. You put something right in my face, you're going to lose it and the law will do nothing to me.

Nobody here takes your opinion of the law seriously. Your grasp of the obvious is tenuous enough.

Meadmaker

16th June 2010, 10:24 PM

Boo friggin hoo. So tell me again why Etheridge, being so intimidated by these guys, decided to assault them rather than walk away?

People can get a little bit goofy when their personal space is violated. I would expect better from a Congressman, but I can see someone getting a bit bent out of shape by the way the students were acting. There's a natural, rather primitive, reaction when a person's hand rapidly approaches another person's face. It isn't odd that it triggered a brief "fight or flight" response. The weird thing was that he didn't calm down right away and went on with his "Who are you?" schtick. It kind of gave me the creeps.

ravdin

16th June 2010, 10:38 PM

People can get a little bit goofy when their personal space is violated. I would expect better from a Congressman, but I can see someone getting a bit bent out of shape by the way the students were acting. There's a natural, rather primitive, reaction when a person's hand rapidly approaches another person's face. It isn't odd that it triggered a brief "fight or flight" response. The weird thing was that he didn't calm down right away and went on with his "Who are you?" schtick. It kind of gave me the creeps.

My theory is that Etheridge was drunk. These members of Congress really are a menace when they're out in public.

thaiboxerken

17th June 2010, 12:31 AM

Ken, why is it so difficult to understand? Why is this guy not in jail?

I can imagine just how much more crowded the prisons would be if you had your way.

Ziggurat

17th June 2010, 01:03 AM

People can get a little bit goofy when their personal space is violated. I would expect better from a Congressman

I demand better from my congressman.

The weird thing was that he didn't calm down right away and went on with his "Who are you?" schtick. It kind of gave me the creeps.

That and the whole "I have a right to know" bit. What powers does he think he has? And why are we trusting government to people who think they have such powers? It's very creepy.

Lefty doesn't mind, though, because he's an authoritarian at heart. So long as it's a democrat, of course.

Meadmaker

17th June 2010, 03:59 AM

My theory is that Etheridge was drunk.

I think you are right.

leftysergeant

17th June 2010, 05:41 AM

Freddy

17th June 2010, 07:17 AM

I thought that this incident had a familiar stench about it, and it seems I was right. It seems to have come out of Breitbart's lower torso. Those aint students, people. They're thugs from the same stable that gave us pimp boy and the ho.

http://abc.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/local&id=7496362

And take a closer look at what is recorded by which camera. It is pretty clear to me that the Breitbart maggot closest to Etheridge had to have come into contact with the congressman just before the camera was grabbed.

Busted.

As stupid as the question was, the Congressman's reaction was stupider. It doesn't matter if the questioner is a neo-nazi, you don't initiate physical contact when asked a simple (albeit stupid) question. I see that you now realize that, although I'm disappointed that your reaction is to claim that if you squint really hard, it looks like maybe the Congressman did not initiate contact. Sorry, but he obviously did.

NoZed Avenger

17th June 2010, 07:33 AM

I didn't hear the kid say that. Plus, it's easy enough to get a person's grip off of your wrist. It's easy to stop someone from grabbing your neck as well.

I'm a little unclear why this would matter, even assuming the kid should have been prepared to fight off a Congressman.

leftysergeant

17th June 2010, 07:50 AM

As stupid as the question was, the Congressman's reaction was stupider. It doesn't matter if the questioner is a neo-nazi, you don't initiate physical contact when asked a simple (albeit stupid) question.

Did you read the article I linked to? They were not there to ask him questions. A gang of the monkeys had been harrassing Democrats on the scene for some time prior to this incident. Typical teatrash tactic. They want to play the victim, like Metzger's murderers.

I see that you now realize that, although I'm disappointed that your reaction is to claim that if you squint really hard, it looks like maybe the Congressman did not initiate contact. Sorry, but he obviously did.

The dirtbaggers were not trying to interview him, they were trying to set him up. That's why they have two cameras with NO continuous streaming of the chain of events. Take another look at how the camera focuses (or fails to focus) on Etheridge's face. I see no way that the thug could have NOT come into contact with Etheridge before he grabbed the camera.

Even making a motion that looks like an attempt to poke a person in the face can be considered an assault in some jurisdicitons. It was a physical action intended to cause fear of harm. Busted.

leftysergeant

17th June 2010, 07:53 AM

I'm a little unclear why this would matter, even assuming the kid should have been prepared to fight off a Congressman.

Give it a rest. He was there to harrass the congressman, he should expect to have to defend his worthless self.

Have you people given any thought to why these little snots have their faces blurred out? Do you know their names? Think about it, people. This is just Breitbart trying to manufacture more pointless rubbish for nefarious purposes.

Nova Land

17th June 2010, 07:58 AM

Those who are calling for Etheridge to be arrested and charged with assault for this incident might also wish to alert the authorities to another politician who committed a similar offense and is still running free: senator John Cornyn of Texas.

In October 2009 Mike Stark approached Cornyn, with camera, to ask him a question about one of his votes. Stark asks the question in a polite tone of voice (as can be heard on a brief video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GyT-6cgmiE&feature=player_embedded)) and in what appears to be a non-threatening way. Cornyn gets huffy, indicates Stark has no right to be approaching him or asking questions, and attempts to slap the camera away. Failing to slap the camera out of Stark's hands, Cornyn then tries to grab the camera away. (The video is not clear on Cornyn's actions, because the camera taking the picture is the one being slapped, but Stark's account seems straightforward and, as far as I know, has not been disputed by Cornyn.)

Even though Cornyn's act of assault occurred in public and was witnessed by a security guard, no action was taken against him. Today, Cornyn is still walking around, a free man, free to commit similar acts of assault against others. Those who are sincerely upset about the one incident -- and not simply engaging in gotcha politics -- should be upset about the other as well. *

edited to add: Oops. In writing this post, and then removing some unnecessary stuff I'd written, I accidentally also edited out several links to accounts of this incident:

1. Phillip Martin's at Burnt Orange Report: "John Cornyn Punches At 'Reporter" Who Asks Him About His Vote to Protect Companies Who Ignore Rape" (http://www.burntorangereport.com/diary/9515/john-cornyn-punches-reporter-who-asks-him-about-his-vote-to-protect-companies-who-ignore-rape)
2. Mike Stark at The Crooked Dope: "Senator Cornyn physically assaulted me today (http://www.thecrookeddope.com/2009/10/20/senator-cornyn-physically-assaulted-me-today/)"
3. Mike Stark at Daily Kos ("John Cornyn physically assaults me (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/10/20/795416/-John-Cornyn-physically-assaults-me)"

(And the same thing for those who are sincerely unconcerned about either one.)

Nova Land

17th June 2010, 08:00 AM

From October 2009, here is Stark's account of the incident (http://www.starkreports.com/2009/10/20/senator-cornyn-physically-assaulted-me-today/):

Certainly not a beat-down, or anything like it, but if I had behaved toward him the way he did to me, I woulda been spread-eagle on the floor with guns trained on me.

He got off the Hart Senate office building subway, just like any number of Senators before him. I pointed the flip cam at him and began walking with him, asking him about the Franken amendment. He tried to slap the camera out of my hand and then tried to grab it from me. Fortunately I was filming the whole time.

I’m wondering how to play it. It was clear that I didn’t want to be touched, and if I remember correctly, any unwanted touching constitutes assault. I’m making the video public and demanding an apology. Without one, I will file a criminal complaint against the Senator.

And from earlier this week, here is Stark's explanation of why there was no prosection of Cornyn (http://www.balloon-juice.com/2010/06/15/assault-charges-for-etheridge/):

No charges because:

1) not all assaults are prosecuted; most minor assaults are ignored. If we prosecuted every push and shove, we’d have pretty long lines at the court house, wouldn’t we?

2) happened on Capitol grounds where, believe it or not, Senators and Representatives are above the rule of law; it doesn’t reach them. Instead they are held accountable by the House and Senate Sergeant at Arms according to rules they set for themselves. When John Cornyn did something similar to me, I tried to file a complaint with Capitol Police. I was told that I couldn’t...

And regarding a separate incident, at a campaign rally, in which Stark as blogger-journalist was assaulted (but not by a senator or congressional rep):

4) the prosecutor in Charlottesville declined prosecution of the gentlemen that assaulted me at the George Allen event. And it was within his discretion to do so. It’s always been the law that you cannot compel a prosecutor to embark on any prosecution...

Establishing some ground rules on ambush journalism would be good. Generally politicians do not assault reporters who have set up appointments for interviews. But there are a number of incidents where people have reacted hostilely when someone attempts to film or interview them unexpectedly. As I recall, for example, Bill O'Reilly, reacted with extreme hostility when he was approached in this way, and roundly denounced such action on the air. What are the rights of people interested in asking questions of public figures as far as approaching them, and what are the rights of public figures as far as avoiding such encounters? We need some consistent principles -- not simply it's okay to do it if I agree with the people asking the questions and not okay if I don't.

Nova Land

17th June 2010, 08:04 AM

And, having looked up Mike Stark to get details of the October 2009 incident, I was pleased to find he has a good post on his site commenting on the Etheridge incident: Etheridge and my experience as a free-lance reporter on the Hill (http://www.starkreports.com/2010/06/15/etheridge-and-my-experience-as-a-free-lance-reporter-on-the-hill/).

Let’s dispense with the obvious: Etheridge assaulted the kid. Assaults like this happen every day in any number of contexts and are very rarely prosecuted, so I’m not willing to go so far as Glenn Greenwald and say that Etheridge should be arrested and tried. Moreover, I’m fairly certain this happened on Capitol Grounds which is a kind of magical area for Senators and Members of Congress in which they are virtually immune from arrest. This is a murky area of law; so far as I understand the Constitution gives Congress the power to make their own rules and they are responsible for policing themselves...

Etheridge is not a lonely perp when it comes to lawmakers somehow believing they have the right to lay hands on people they consider to be disagreeable. Recall my incident with John Cornyn – a former Attorney General! I learned that the Capitol Police cannot take a complaint against a Senator or Member of Congress. Any compliant must be filed with the Sergeant at Arms.

There have been several other minor assaults that I haven’t reported (including one by another former prosecutor, now a Representative). Innumerable staff have laid unwanted hands upon me. I’ve stopped reporting these incidents for several inter-related reasons.

The first is that they are invariably trivial; nobody is punching me in the face or tackling me or engaging in any real violence. Instead it’s been staff deliberately walking into me to separate me from the principal they are protecting (most common) or aggressive touching to either block the camera or turn me around so that I’m not pointing the camera at them... In short, the behaviors are obnoxious and annoying (and inexcusable), but not truly threatening or fear-inducing.

Stark also has a very good section explaining that he is no longer as inclined to press charges because he is better now at seeing this kind of incident from the other person's point of view. While Cornyn's response to his actions was not good, Stark understands now that his own inexperience and bad assumptions contributed a great deal to the problem. It would be nice if the two "students" involved in the Etheridge incident some day reach this level of maturity.

Stark's post is very well-thought out, and the section on seeing things through from other people's perspectives is especially well-written. I strongly recommend clicking the link and reading the entire post. But for those of you without the time or inclination to do so, here's an excerpt from this section which I hope conveys the gist:

It turns out that, for the most part, these folks will give you a few minutes. Not all of them do – Bernie Sanders, for example, hasn’t given me diddly, even as he tells progressives that we need a progressive press to counter the right’s noise machine – but a sizable majority are willing to spend a couple of minutes speaking with me when I’ve got something to ask. Ultimately, I’ve learned that the Rachel Maddow approach is much better than that of Jason Mattera or the two kids that approached Etheridge. So now I introduce myself, ask if they’d take a few questions on video (or audio if they prefer), accept their answer (if it’s “no” I give them my card and tell them that I hope they’ll find time in the future) and establish with them that I’m not an *******, I’m a journalist. I suspect that if I had taken that approach with Senator Cornyn, he’d be willing to talk with me from time to time.

Nova Land

17th June 2010, 08:17 AM

Two more points that Stark raises seem worth mentioning (although if people want to discuss these, perhaps they should be spun off to a split thread).

One concerns how common it is for [citizen-journalists] / [blogger-journalists] / [ambush journalists] / [whatever-we-call-them] to encounter problems which people in the traditional media are spared. And the answer is, fairly common. When Cornyn assaulted Stark, it was Stark who was detained. And that isn't by any means the only time Stark has been detained:

There are cameras everywhere in DC that capture every square inch, both inside the buildings and outside. Every movement is recorded, if not observed. When Cornyn assaulted me (it was an assault), a cop was standing less than 15 feet away. I had followed every rule and been completely within my legal rights (even if my actions were less than optimally social). But I was the one detained. For about 30 minutes.

That was far from the only time I’ve been detained for being a journalist and asking unwelcome questions. Virginia Foxx alone has reported me to the Capitol Police on at least five occasions. Each time they detain me for 15-20 minutes while they run a check for warrants and establish that I’ve done nothing wrong. all in all, I’ve been through the experience at least 25 times.

What's uncommon, then, is not for these new journalists to be treated in ways that might cause concern. It's for stories about this treatment to get serious attention in the major media outlets.

So, despite the fuss being made about the treatment of the two "students" in the Etheridge incident, and how their mistreatment is being ignored or dismissed, it seems just the opposite is happening: they are receiving more attention, and being treated more seriously, than others to whom similar things have happened.

...one last point on the Etheridge video. Compare it to the Cornyn video. Any difference is superficial, at best. The Etheridge video has been seen far and wide; Politico did an entire story on it and it was splayed across our tv sets all day yesterday. The Cornyn video was mentioned in passing in a Politico story about an entirely different subject (the Republican objection to being asked questions about the Franken Amendment), but was otherwise not seen anywhere except DailyKos and starkReports (the two places I posted it). If you doubt the existence of a Republican noise-machine, let this be a lesson.

Nova Land

17th June 2010, 09:07 AM

Digby, at Hullabaloo, has a post in which she writes (http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2010/06/watch-what-you-say-assaulting.html):

This idea that politicians, regardless of party affiliation, are allowed to assault citizens who ask them questions is beyond the pale, no matter who the questioner is. It's a tough gig, I know, but they chose it and they have to be answerable to the people. Even if one of them is an Andrew Breitbart stooge (which this kid probably wasn't, btw.)

But it should be noted that this kind of thing is hardly unprecedented and it never gets prosecuted. Recall Mike Stark questioning George Allen?

Included is this video of the incident in which Stark is assaulted by Allen staffers for attempting to ask questions the senator did not want to answer. And this is much more clearly an assault than what happened to the two "students" in the Etheridge incident; one can see in the video Stark being roughly grabbed, held, dragged, and thrown on the floor. (The video is 2 1/2 minutes, but the relevant portion, showing Stark being manhandled, is from the 35 to 50 second mark.)

The story was reported at the time -- as should be obvious from it's inclusion in this local tv news segment -- but primarily as simply an incident that occurred at a campaign stop. I do not recall widespread calls for prosecution of the staffers involved.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/btMbyDmzs_Q&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/btMbyDmzs_Q&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Meadmaker

17th June 2010, 09:36 AM

To paraphrase a movie...*

Lefty's right.....Psychotic, but right.

If these guys were not two students on a project, but actually people who had been harassing other Congressmen and others as part of some sort of Breitbart activity, then I would lose whatever sympathy I had for them.

I had the impression that they were just two kids who, typically of kids throughout the ages but especially in the last few decades, thought that they were entitled to harass people as they tried to go about their business.

If they were put up to this by some other person or organization, to heck with 'em. They're liars. Etheridge still gave me the creeps, and I still think he may have been drunk, but I have no sympathy for ambush mobs of pseudo-journalists.

As for the legality of Etheridge's actions, any time there is unwanted physical contact between two people, there's the potential for criminal charges, but no ordinary citizen would ever be charged in a similar incident, unless of course the local cops had an axe to grind for some other reason.

====================
*Animal House, for you youngsters.

The Central Scrutinizer

17th June 2010, 09:44 AM

Haven't seen a thread here 'bout Battlin' Bob Etheridge.

Hope no-one's missed out.

http://biggovernment.com/mikeflynn/2010/06/14/long-hot-summer-begins-congressman-attacks-student/

I have to wonder what kind of "man" this guy is? Not the congressman, but the skirtboy asking the questions. I mean, if someone grabs my wrist like that, they'll soon find themselves staring at the clouds, if they are lucky. Or in dreamland if they are not.

Ziggurat

17th June 2010, 09:55 AM

To paraphrase a movie...*

Lefty's right.....Psychotic, but right.

If these guys were not two students on a project, but actually people who had been harassing other Congressmen and others as part of some sort of Breitbart activity, then I would lose whatever sympathy I had for them.

This isn't about sympathy for the students. It's about what kind of behavior is acceptable for our elected officials. And this was way over the line of acceptable. It doesn't matter what you think those two students deserved. If prison guards started sodomizing Charles Manson with broom handles, is that OK? Of course not. Whether or not he "deserves" it, whether or not you "sympathize" with him, it's not OK for them to do.

Same thing here: it doesn't matter how much of an annoying prick these kids were, a congressman has no right to assault them (and it was assault), he has no right to demand their identities, and the sense of entitlement he displayed ("I have a right to know") is deeply troubling. And we should be outraged by his behavior: not for their sake, but for ours.

Ziggurat

17th June 2010, 09:57 AM

I have to wonder what kind of "man" this guy is? Not the congressman, but the skirtboy asking the questions. I mean, if someone grabs my wrist like that, they'll soon find themselves staring at the clouds, if they are lucky. Or in dreamland if they are not.

Then you're a fool. If you punch a congressman in DC, it won't matter if the congressman started it by grabbing you: the cops are going to bust YOUR ass.

LashL

17th June 2010, 10:07 AM

Several posts have been moved to AAH and a couple of infractions have been issued. Please keep it civil, refrain from name-calling, and stick to the topic of the thread - which is not each other. Thanks in advance.

The Central Scrutinizer

17th June 2010, 10:15 AM

Then you're a fool. If you punch a congressman in DC, it won't matter if the congressman started it by grabbing you: the cops are going to bust YOUR ass.

Wrong.

Ziggurat

17th June 2010, 10:24 AM

Wrong.

Your position, that you can punch a congressman in the face for grabbing you and the cops won't arrest you, is simply not credible. Of course they will. It's DC. Who the hell do you think signs their paychecks? Of course they're going to show some deference to a congressman, especially in the proposed situation, since grabbing (while it does constitute assault) is much milder behavior than punching.

leftysergeant

17th June 2010, 04:31 PM

thaiboxerken

17th June 2010, 04:45 PM

Your position, that you can punch a congressman in the face for grabbing you and the cops won't arrest you, is simply not credible.

Do you have evidence to support this position? You seem to imply that Congressmen are above the law.

Sword_Of_Truth

17th June 2010, 04:46 PM

Etheridge is down by 2 points against his Republican opponent. (http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/230012/bob-etheridge-now-trailing)

leftysergeant

17th June 2010, 04:53 PM

Etheridge is down by 2 points against his Republican opponent. (http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/230012/bob-etheridge-now-trailing)

That's what the teatrash punks were there for. They needed to create the illusion that Etheridge is a bigger thug than their master If word gets out who they are and who they were working for, the rednecks will all be applauding Etheridge for sorting out the little punk who was filming up his nose.

kevinquinnyo

17th June 2010, 04:58 PM

The Cornyn disturbance is significant here. Look at how far the camera is from Cornyn's face at all times. There is no way that Stark made copntact with Cornyn.

In some of the video from the teatrash, you can almost see up the inside of Etheridge's nose. There is no way you stand that close to a walking man without coming into contact with him. The little punks would lose in court. (Have they even identified themselves yet?)

1. Optical Zoom

2. That's just you making an assumption that they came into contact with him first.

But yeah you're probably right. I believe you, Lefty.

They probably kicked Etheridge in the junk just out of camera shot too, since they're little teatrash punk whackadoodles. They're also probably murderers too.

Throw them in jail for having opposing political views from Lefty , I mean, for being manhandled by a Congressman who's salary they help pay for in taxes,, er, help me finish this sentence Lefty. I know we should be blaming these kids, I just can't figure out how...

Meadmaker

17th June 2010, 05:07 PM

This isn't about sympathy for the students. It's about what kind of behavior is acceptable for our elected officials. And this was way over the line of acceptable. It doesn't matter what you think those two students deserved.

I think that the premise above is that elected officials are held to a very high standard, while the behavior of private citizens doesn't really matter.

I don't buy it.

For example, the prevailing attitude of people on JREF is that the private lives of politicians are just not very important. Oh, sure, this attitude is held more strongly when our guy does something embarassing, but, generally, we don't care. Bill Clinton has an affair? Yawn. Mark Sanford "walks the Appalachian Trail". Whatever. (Did I get his name right? That story is so last week.)

What we have here is a sort of grey area between private and public, in my opinion. It isn't exactly private, because he was in a public place, and the "students" were interacting with him on a matter related to his office, but on the other hand he was also an ordinary citizen walking down the street. Let us imagine that you, personally, were walking down the street and someone stuck a camera in your face and started asking you questions. If you were a perfect person, you would simply ignore the annoying cameraperson and just get on with your business. However, if you had had a bad day, and maybe a few drinks, and you took a swipe at the camera, and grabbed the wrist of the cameraman, I would say that you really shouldn't have done that, but that your actions were totally understandable.

I think that it's important to hold everyone, not just elected officials, to a reasonable standard of behavior, and shoving a camera in someone's face just because you can doesn't meet my standards. Shoving a camera in someone's face as part of an effort to gather embarassing moments to be used against them in an election doesn't even come close. I'm not willing to give those two guys with cameras a total pass on their behavior just because they are unknown, and likely to stay that way.

leftysergeant

17th June 2010, 05:15 PM

Throw them in jail for having opposing political views from Lefty , I mean, for being manhandled by a Congressman who's salary they help pay for in taxes,, er, help me finish this sentence Lefty. I know we should be blaming these kids, I just can't figure out how...

Simple assault.

kevinquinnyo

17th June 2010, 05:20 PM

Simple assault.

That's the assault that you assume must have happened, despite no evidence of?

Just want to make sure we're on the same page..

leftysergeant

17th June 2010, 06:02 PM

That's the assault that you assume must have happened, despite no evidence of?

The position of the camera at some points is evidence that the teatrash made physical contact. That the perps edited the video is, in itself, evidence that there werer things they meant us not to see.

The teatrash did deliberately make the congressman feel threatened. That is close enough to assault that any distinction ceases to matter.

Rogue1stclass

17th June 2010, 06:56 PM

Simple assault.

It's not assault unless there is a threat of violence. It has to be a reasonable threat, too, not just "they were teatrash wackos".

These kids did absolutely nothing illegal. Annoying others with your stupid political ******** is one of the most sacred American rights there is. Sure, it's infuriating as hell, but as long as they aren't on private property and don't continue to follow you, there really isn't anything you can do about it. If you could, then someone would have beat the collective pants off of PETA decades ago.

leftysergeant

17th June 2010, 07:35 PM

Sure, it's infuriating as hell, but as long as they aren't on private property and don't continue to follow you, there really isn't anything you can do about it. If you could, then someone would have beat the collective pants off of PETA decades ago.

They were continuing to follow him and probably made physical contact. That they are obviously deranged just makes them that much more threatening. They intended to make the congressman feel threatened. That's simple assauilt. End of story.

Ziggurat

17th June 2010, 11:04 PM

I think that the premise above is that elected officials are held to a very high standard, while the behavior of private citizens doesn't really matter.

I don't buy it.

For example, the prevailing attitude of people on JREF is that the private lives of politicians are just not very important.

This has nothing to do with private behavior. This was public behavior. And it isn't about holding separate standards either (though that too is justified). It doesn't matter much if two random dudes are acting like ***hats. It matters quite a bit more if a congressman thinks he has a right to assault people on the street. One action is distasteful. The other is a crime.

What we have here is a sort of grey area between private and public, in my opinion.

It happened on a public street, between people with no personal relationship. There's nothing private about it.

Let us imagine that you, personally, were walking down the street and someone stuck a camera in your face and started asking you questions. If you were a perfect person, you would simply ignore the annoying cameraperson and just get on with your business. However, if you had had a bad day, and maybe a few drinks, and you took a swipe at the camera, and grabbed the wrist of the cameraman, I would say that you really shouldn't have done that, but that your actions were totally understandable.

I don't care if the action is "understandable", it's not acceptable, and it's not legal. You don't have to be a perfect person to refrain from assaulting someone in this situation.

I think that it's important to hold everyone, not just elected officials, to a reasonable standard of behavior, and shoving a camera in someone's face just because you can doesn't meet my standards.

I'm not asking you to approve of their behavior. But their behavior doesn't excuse his. And he's the one who holds real power. He's the one who can directly affect your life and mine. He's the one who will stand for election. So think whatever you want to about them, it doesn't matter. What matters is what you think about Etheridge. And so far, it looks like you're trying to make excuses for what Etheridge himself understands was not excusable.

Ziggurat

17th June 2010, 11:06 PM

They were continuing to follow him and probably made physical contact.

Your need to invent fictitious histories to justify your position is amusing.

Rogue1stclass

18th June 2010, 02:45 AM

They were continuing to follow him and probably made physical contact. That they are obviously deranged just makes them that much more threatening. They intended to make the congressman feel threatened. That's simple assauilt. End of story.

No. It's not.

Physical contact doesn't matter. Feeling "threatened" doesn't either. For it to be assault, there has to be a threat of physical violence that meets the "reasonable man" standard. That is, the average person on the street, when put in a similar situation, would feel that physical violence is emminent. A couple of kids being obnoxious with cameras and questions does not meet that standard.

If they did continue to follow him down the street for some distance, then that is still not assault but may be harassment. Even so, the congressman's actions were still not justified. Understandable, maybe, but not justified. At the absolute best, he broke the law too. No matter how you cut it, he still escalated a perhaps hostile but not violent situation and could be charged with a host of crimes, including a couple of felonies.

leftysergeant

18th June 2010, 04:42 AM

Physical contact doesn't matter.

Utter rubbish. That is a part of the definition of A&B. I know first hand from having been through two BCD Special Courts-martial, once as the chief complaining witness and once as a defendant. Physical contact was the ONLY thing they had against me. Feeling "threatened" doesn't either.
Rubbish. That was my (successful) defense.

For it to be assault, there has to be a threat of physical violence that meets the "reasonable man" standard. That is, the average person on the street, when put in a similar situation, would feel that physical violence is emminent.They were part of a group that was harrassing Democrats attending the function. Teatrash, to all appearances, and that means that they are mentally unstable, thus a threat to public officals, and doubly so if the officials happen to be Democrats. A couple of kids being obnoxious with cameras and questions does not meet that standard. Turns out they were not even students. They are Breitbart slimeballs out to create an illusion, like most of the jerks surrounding that sorry excuse for a journalist.

If they did continue to follow him down the street for some distance, then that is still not assault but may be harassment.

They blocked his way. Look at the lower part of the screen. The only way around the dirtbag shoving a camera in his face would have been toi step out into traffic. The punk was standing inches to his right where he had to either make a right turn or cross the street and it does not look like he had any reason to cross there. At the absolute best, he broke the law too. No matter how you cut it, he still escalated a perhaps hostile but not violent situation and could be charged with a host of crimes, including a couple of felonies.

Bull flops. He showed tremendous restraint in only using enough force to showe the punk that he was not going to take any more of their threats to his safety. He let go as soon as he had the punk pointed in the direction he expected him to go.

Alareth

18th June 2010, 07:30 AM

I'm seeing all the signs of Bush/Obama/Tea party Derangement Syndrome

leftysergeant

18th June 2010, 07:46 AM

I'm seeing all the signs of Bush/Obama/Tea party Derangement SyndromeThere is actual evidence that the teatrash are dangerous sociopaths. That idiot Angle out in Nevada is a good example. She is suggesting that there might be a good reason to kill Harry Ried if he wins the election. She's a bad American.

Drysdale

18th June 2010, 07:56 AM

There is actual evidence that the teatrash are dangerous sociopaths. That idiot Angle out in Nevada is a good example. She is suggesting that there might be a good reason to kill Harry Ried if he wins the election. She's a bad American.

Really? I have'nt seen that and certainly would'nt condone that kind of talk but...

Have you not suggested someone should be killed on this very board before?

leftysergeant

18th June 2010, 08:04 AM

Have you not suggested someone should be killed on this very board before?

Only in self-defense or to suppress an insurrection.

If Angle puts together a militia to go hunting for Reid, it is open season on teatrash.

Brainster

18th June 2010, 09:01 AM

Only in self-defense or to suppress an insurrection.

If Angle puts together a militia to go hunting for Reid, it is open season on teatrash.

"Open season"?

Oh, the irony!
:rolleyes:

Sword_Of_Truth

18th June 2010, 09:33 AM

I'm seeing all the signs of Bush/Obama/Tea party Derangement Syndrome

It's more than just Lefty who suffers from it.

leftysergeant

18th June 2010, 10:37 AM

"Open season"?

Oh, the irony!

It is partly because of creeps like Angle that we have a pool of domestic terrorists recruiting new members at a record clip. She needs to be put down in one way or another if she is serious about this.

She has no right, even by Supreme Court precedent, to suggest murdering Reid. She has no business being involved in government in any way.

bynmdsue

18th June 2010, 11:19 AM

Where exactly can we find this suggestion to murder Reid?

Rogue1stclass

18th June 2010, 11:46 AM

Only in self-defense or to suppress an insurrection.

If Angle puts together a militia to go hunting for Reid, it is open season on teatrash.

You have just openly stated your intention to commit premeditated murder on a public forum.

Nice.

leftysergeant

18th June 2010, 11:51 AM

You have just openly stated your intention to commit premeditated murder on a public forum.

Nice.

You obviously have no concept of what the law says.

You are not entitled to call for the killing of your opponent should you lose an election. His winning would mean that the people realized that idiot girl Angle is a bad American.

I am a soldier, even if I no longer have to meet formations, and am obliged to defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.

The private militias and those who would try to turn them against elected officials are domestic enemies, and are to be put down by any means neccessary.

When the militias rise, it is my obligation to fight them. End of story.

GeeMack

18th June 2010, 01:02 PM

End of story.

You keep saying that, but you keep writing more anyway. :rolleyes:

leftysergeant

18th June 2010, 01:06 PM

You keep saying that, but you keep writing more anyway. :rolleyes:Because people who know nothing about the threat that the militias represent keep piping up to say that they and nutbars like Angle are not a threat to civilization.

The Painter

18th June 2010, 01:06 PM

I think someone is off their medication. I'm just sayin'.

leftysergeant

18th June 2010, 01:23 PM

I think someone is off their medication. I'm just sayin'.

No. She is too freaking crazy to realize that she needs to see the shrink.

Rogue1stclass

18th June 2010, 01:38 PM

You obviously have no concept of what the law says.

I have over a hundred hours of classes on the civilian use of force under my belt, and briefly considered applying for the license to teach them. This is what I did, professionally, for years.

You, on the other hand, seem to think that the use of force is an excuse to kill people you don't like.

I think it's pretty clear who doesn't understand the law.

You are not entitled to call for the killing of your opponent should you lose an election. His winning would mean that the people realized that idiot girl Angle is a bad American.

This is true, but it is also a matter for law enforcement and the voters to decide.

I am a soldier, even if I no longer have to meet formations, and am obliged to defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.

Are you currently serving in the armed forces in an active capacity? If not, then you are a civilian, and the rules apply to you. If you are, then you subject to the orders of your superiors and the rules of engagement.

You can't just go off on your own and attempt to put down what you see as sedition. This is still a nation of laws, and trying that kind of crap will put you on the wrong side of them.

The private militias and those who would try to turn them against elected officials are domestic enemies, and are to be put down by any means neccessary.

So, your answer is to raise your own militia and go after them, without regard to law or the rights they are still subject to under their state and Federal governments? Do you understand how this is a Bad Idea?

When the militias rise, it is my obligation to fight them. End of story.

First of all, no, that obligation belongs, as I've said before, to law enforcement.

Second, how do you think that's gonna work, exactly?

The Painter

18th June 2010, 02:19 PM

No. She is too freaking crazy to realize that she needs to see the shrink.

Do you see the irony here when you say that?

leftysergeant

18th June 2010, 02:21 PM

Do you see the irony here when you say that?

She wants a violent revolution if she does not win. She's a bad American and not fit to hold office.

The Painter

18th June 2010, 02:28 PM

She wants a violent revolution if she does not win. She's a bad American and not fit to hold office.

lets see some real evidence for that

ps I thought this thread was about Bob Etheridge? Nice derail

leftysergeant

18th June 2010, 03:04 PM

Unless the voices in his head have access to a cessna and a molotov cocktail, he's going to see about as much "action" as the high school AV club.

If the nightmare scenario that bat-crap-crazy Angle is pushing comes to pass, I would probably not get recalled to duty, but would be obligated to go hunting for dirtbags like the Oath Keepers and any idiot calling himself The Washington State Militia, or whatever BS name they take, killing as many of them, as possible, maybe distributing ammo and weapons tro more physically fit neighbors who feel the need to kill militia.

These idiots running around the woods calling themsel;ves militia aren't, really. They are, at best, useful idiots to the white nationalists.

Meadmaker

18th June 2010, 04:35 PM

Lefty,
The link you posted yesterday about the Breitbart connection didn't work for me. Could you post a corrected link, or a different link to a similar story?

kevinquinnyo

18th June 2010, 04:59 PM

Lefty,

Just out of curiosity, would you feel equally obligated by duty to fight off a violent progressive/liberal militia, had it occurred during the Bush era?

edit: not that it's actually occurring now..

Rogue1stclass

18th June 2010, 05:24 PM

If the nightmare scenario that bat-crap-crazy Angle is pushing comes to pass, I would probably not get recalled to duty, but would be obligated to go hunting for dirtbags like the Oath Keepers and any idiot calling himself The Washington State Militia, or whatever BS name they take, killing as many of them, as possible, maybe distributing ammo and weapons tro more physically fit neighbors who feel the need to kill militia.

These idiots running around the woods calling themsel;ves militia aren't, really. They are, at best, useful idiots to the white nationalists.

Ok, so you hear on the news tomorrow that a group calling itself The Nevada Militia has kidnapped and murdered Harry Reid. So your response is to go and randomly start killing people.

What's gonna be your plan for dealing with the white supremists in prison, where you will spending the rest of your life?

Nova Land

18th June 2010, 08:09 PM

Lefty,
The link you posted yesterday about the Breitbart connection didn't work for me. Could you post a corrected link, or a different link to a similar story?

I believe the story lefty was trying to link to (back in post # 85) is "Etheridge apologizes for on-camera confrontation" (http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/local&id=7496362). (Somehow "abclocal" in the link got shortened to simply "abc", causing the problem.)

It's a 6 minute local news segment, showing the confrontation between Etheridge and the two "students". I haven't watched it all, but from the text accompanying it I don't think there's any smoking gun in the segment connecting the "students" to Breitbart.

Here's some of the text accompanying the video. I've bolded parts which relate to the question whether this was part of a planned harassment effort connected to Breitbart:

North Carolina Congressman Bob Etheridge (D-Lillington) apologized repeatedly Monday after a conservative blogger posted video on YouTube showing him in a confrontation with men carrying cameras on a Washington D.C. street.

The story by Breitbart.com contributor Mike Flynn says the men were students. In the video, they ask the congressman if he supports the Obama agenda...

In the edited video, the photographer's faces are blurred and their identities aren't given. They never identify themselves to the congressman other than to say they're students working on a project...

Asked if there was any creative editing in the video or if there was any material not seen, Etheridge refused to address the subject, saying he only wanted to apologize and wasn't interested in making excuses...
He also said he would apologize personally to the photographers in the video, but he still didn't know who they were.

But fellow Democrat Brad Miller (D-Raleigh) told ABC 11 that the man in the video with the blurred face was not an innocent college student.

"It's absolutely a partisan effort. The kid who had the camera was part of a whole group," he said. "It was obviously a contrived effort to irritate members and try to get them to show some annoyance."

Miller said the group was jeering Democrats, hazing them as they walked into a hotel.

"The same student tried to talk to me or tried to do the same thing," he offered.

I'm not sure how much weight to give to Miller's statement. Miller says that this was a contrived effort designed to harass and irritate people such as Etheridge, and it may well have been -- but I'd need to hear more specific details from Miller, explaining exactly what it was he saw or experienced these folks doing, before accepting as valid his conclusion that this was a contrived effort. What is this "same thing" that was done to him, for example?

I think, if I read lefty's post correctly, that a key reason he posted the link (and what he is referring to in the video) is the extreme close-up of Etheridge's face which appears in the video just as Etheridge begins getting angry -- implying that the "students" may not have simply been walking politely alongside Etheridge but may have stuck the camera right in his face. I don't know enough about camera work to know if that's so. It would be useful in understanding the incident if Etheridge were to explain what exactly it was that got him so riled, but that doesn't sound like anything he'll be talking about soon.

Sword_Of_Truth

18th June 2010, 10:50 PM

Dennis Miller unloads on Etheridge:

FzjrMLkswB8

leftysergeant

19th June 2010, 05:45 AM

So, your answer is to raise your own militia and go after them, without regard to law or the rights they are still subject to under their state and Federal governments? Do you understand how this is a Bad Idea?

Do you understand that it is illegal to raise a private militia and that a prtivate militia acting as a police force is fair game for anyone they threaten? Do you honestly think slime like John Trochmann are just patriots preparing for the worst? Get a grip.

Privately organized militias are illegal and idiot girl Angle is trying to convince us that they are a good idea. She needs to shut her mouth and the militia whackadoodles need to disband before someone convinces them to do something that gets them shot.

Angle is a nasty little Brown Shirt wannabe and a useless twit.

GeeMack

19th June 2010, 01:03 PM

Privately organized militias are illegal and idiot girl Angle is trying to convince us that they are a good idea. She needs to shut her mouth and the militia whackadoodles need to disband before someone convinces them to do something that gets them shot.

A few days ago you were all gung-ho about shooting those mean old militia people yourself, and now you're being all compassionate and caring and hoping they don't do something to get themselves shot. Why can't you make up your mind? :D

leftysergeant

19th June 2010, 02:47 PM

A few days ago you were all gung-ho about shooting those mean old militia people yourself, and now you're being all compassionate and caring and hoping they don't do something to get themselves shot. Why can't you make up your mind? :DIt would bother me to shoot someone who thought he was being a patriot, but, if the intentionally evil leaders of the movement cause them to rise up, it might have to be done in order to get to their leaders.

Idiot girl is doing an evil thing in suggesting that Harry Reid needs to be taken out at the same time that she describes firearms as part of a solution to the "problem" that she has confabulated.

She is, herself, the problem.

applecorped

19th June 2010, 02:53 PM

It would bother me to shoot someone who thought he was being a patriot, but, ......

:rolleyes:

leftysergeant

19th June 2010, 03:21 PM

:rolleyes:

We have the 2nd Ammendment so that insurrections may be put down. Angle is trying to raise one. The privately-organized militias are criminal enterprises and need to be put down like rabid dogs if they rise up. That simple.

applecorped

19th June 2010, 03:25 PM

Simple, yes.

leftysergeant

19th June 2010, 03:35 PM

Simple, yes.

Here is how simple it is. Private militias have no right to exist. Private militias have no right to assume police power. Citizens whose rights are violated by armed private militias are within their right to resist with deadly force.

Angle hates the rights of rational citizens.

Sword_Of_Truth

19th June 2010, 03:49 PM

Angle is trying to raise one.

Evidence*, please.

*Calling her a bitch, slut and/or whore 20 times over isn't evidence.

thaiboxerken

19th June 2010, 03:56 PM

Evidence*, please.

*Calling her a bitch, slut and/or whore 20 times over isn't evidence.

Maybe not raise one, but be a part of one. Ever heard of the Oath Keepers?

Rogue1stclass

19th June 2010, 05:13 PM

Do you understand that it is illegal to raise a private militia and that a prtivate militia acting as a police force is fair game for anyone they threaten? Do you honestly think slime like John Trochmann are just patriots preparing for the worst? Get a grip.

You...you do realize that this is exactly what you have been ranting about across two threads now, going out as private citizen and enforcing your own version of the law, right?

GeeMack

19th June 2010, 06:55 PM

Here is how simple it is. Private militias have no right to exist. Private militias have no right to assume police power. Citizens whose rights are violated by armed private militias are within their right to resist with deadly force.

You keep babbling about rights such as in your comment above, but whenever anyone asks you to point out where those rights are spelled out, you totally pussy out. Why's that?

thaiboxerken

19th June 2010, 06:56 PM

Perhaps, GeeMack, you could find where there is a right to raise a private militia, you could shut Lefty up.

applecorped

19th June 2010, 06:58 PM

No one can shut him up. Nor should they.

leftysergeant

19th June 2010, 07:07 PM

applecorped

19th June 2010, 07:13 PM

Citizens also have the right to resist their government .

leftysergeant

19th June 2010, 07:26 PM

Citizens also have the right to resist their government .

No.

GeeMack

19th June 2010, 07:28 PM

You keep babbling about rights such as in your comment above, but whenever anyone asks you to point out where those rights are spelled out, you totally pussy out. Why's that?
The right of self-defense. Nobody has the right to raise a private militia to overthrow the government. It is pretty much accepted that citizens have the right to resist occupation by an enemy force. A privately-organized militia assuming any power in the USA is an occupying enmy force.

But... but... you pussied out again. The question was, why are you evading the question about where those rights are spelled out? You do realize that your simple assertion that something is true does not make it true, don't you?

Here is how simple it is. Private militias have no right to exist.

Nobody has the right to raise a private militia to overthrow the government.

Moving the goalposts is dishonest. How about you let us know when you finally get them where you want them.

leftysergeant

19th June 2010, 07:36 PM

Are you saying that if a privately-organized militia starts acting like they are a legitimate armed force, and attempt to overthrow our government, we have no right to resist?

applecorped

19th June 2010, 07:39 PM

No.

By what logic?

leftysergeant

19th June 2010, 07:40 PM

By what logic?

There is no right to overturn the results of an election by armed force, which, as far as I can tell, is what idiot girl Angle is suggesting.

applecorped

19th June 2010, 07:42 PM

When armed rights are the least of your issues.

GeeMack

19th June 2010, 07:43 PM

Are you saying that if a privately-organized militia starts acting like they are a legitimate armed force, and attempt to overthrow our government, we have no right to resist?

I'm saying you claimed flat out and simply...

Private militias have no right to exist.

... and you've been asked to support that claim. Are you going to put up or shut up?

Oh, and again your dishonest goalpost shifting is noted.

thaiboxerken

19th June 2010, 07:52 PM

Citizens also have the right to resist their government .

But not by any means they feel. A person resisting the gov't with a nuclear warhead is not in the "right."

thaiboxerken

19th June 2010, 07:54 PM

... and you've been asked to support that claim. Are you going to put up or shut up?

Can you outline anywhere in the USA constitution where it says people have the right to raise a private militia? If you did that, then I would side with you against Lefty.

GeeMack

19th June 2010, 08:15 PM

Can you outline anywhere in the USA constitution where it says people have the right to raise a private militia? If you did that, then I would side with you against Lefty.

The constitution doesn't say people have a right to peaceably assemble specifically to teach and learn and practice Thai boxing. But right up to the point where they go out into the world and start kicking people's asses and otherwise violating the laws of the land, peaceably assembling in general is their right. And no, I can't outline where the constitution says people have a right to raise a private militia, but I also don't know where it says they have no right to do so. That's why I keep asking Lefty to substantiate his claim that...

Private militias have no right to exist.

thaiboxerken

19th June 2010, 08:21 PM

The constitution doesn't say people have a right to peaceably assemble specifically to teach and learn and practice Thai boxing.

This is true. However, neither does it defend this "right." I would consider the practice of peaceful assembly and trianing Muay Thai as a 1st Ammendment right, though.

But right up to the point where they go out into the world and start kicking people's asses and otherwise violating the laws of the land, peaceably assembling in general is their right.

I agree.

And no, I can't outline where the constitution says people have a right to raise a private militia, but I also don't know where it says they have no right to do so. That's why I keep asking Lefty to substantiate his claim that...

What reasons are there to raise a private militia, besides revolution?

GeeMack

19th June 2010, 08:47 PM

What reasons are there to raise a private militia, besides revolution?

Some might want to organize a private military style defense organization, a militia, in order to protect themselves and their community in case, however unlikely you and I might see it, the government becomes oppressive to the point of eliminating what we currently consider our rights. Some might want to be a member of a militia out of concern for their own safety and that of their communities because of a perceived threat they feel exists because of other militias. Hell, some people might just get off on wearing camo clothing and trouncing around in the woods playing army games. Since we can't read their minds, it can be pretty difficult to guess why people want to do so many of the things they do.

But right up to the point where they go out into the world and start kicking people's asses and otherwise violating the laws of the land, peaceably assembling in general is their right.

You agree.

Meadmaker

19th June 2010, 08:55 PM

I believe the story lefty was trying to link to (back in post # 85) is "Etheridge apologizes for on-camera confrontation" (http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/local&id=7496362). (Somehow "abclocal" in the link got shortened to simply "abc", causing the problem.)

Thanks.

thaiboxerken

19th June 2010, 08:56 PM

Some might want to organize a private military style defense organization, a militia, in order to protect themselves and their community in case, however unlikely you and I might see it, the government becomes oppressive to the point of eliminating what we currently consider our rights.

So is it a right to own a nuclear weapon for the same reason?

leftysergeant

19th June 2010, 09:00 PM

And no, I can't outline where the constitution says people have a right to raise a private militia, but I also don't know where it says they have no right to do so.

Bull flops/ The states raise and equip and train the militia according to federal standards. Dirtbags like John Trochmann and idiot girl Angle are not in that loop unless they are the Adjutants general of their particular states. End of that part.

That's why I keep asking Lefty to substantiate his claim that...

As far as i know, all states forbid it. In Washington State, it is a misdemeanor just to assemble one.

RCW 38.40.120

Meadmaker

19th June 2010, 09:19 PM

This has nothing to do with private behavior. This was public behavior. And it isn't about holding separate standards either (though that too is justified). It doesn't matter much if two random dudes are acting like ***hats. It matters quite a bit more if a congressman thinks he has a right to assault people on the street. One action is distasteful. The other is a crime.

It happened on a public street, between people with no personal relationship. There's nothing private about it.

I don't care if the action is "understandable", it's not acceptable, and it's not legal. You don't have to be a perfect person to refrain from assaulting someone in this situation.

I'm not asking you to approve of their behavior. But their behavior doesn't excuse his. And he's the one who holds real power. He's the one who can directly affect your life and mine. He's the one who will stand for election. So think whatever you want to about them, it doesn't matter. What matters is what you think about Etheridge. And so far, it looks like you're trying to make excuses for what Etheridge himself understands was not excusable.

I must admit that my initial reaction was the same. I thought Etheridge's behavior was "creepy", and when someone suggested that he was drunk, that made sense to me, and still does. I don't know if there is any way to determine if he was actually drinking, but he acts at least a little bit drunk.

However, the more I thought of it, the less I liked it.

There's several things about your post which could be held to be true, but which make me very uncomofortable. For starters. there is the allegation that Etheridge's behavior is a crime. Yes, I understand that assault does not have to involve throwing a punch, but if these were ordinary citizens, no one here would be prosecuted. It's hard for me to call something criminal if no prosecutor or judge would do the same.

Second, there is the suggestion that " It doesn't matter much if two random dudes are acting like ***hats. " I'm not sure. I think it does. It's true that it doesn't really matter about their behavior for its own sake. However, I don't think you would say, "It doesn't matter if two random dudes are interfering with a Congressman when he is walking down the street." If their behavior is acceptable, it would be unsafe for Congressmen to ever appear in public without security guards. If the behavior of these "students" became commonplace, Congressmen simply couldn't safely walk down the street.

Then there's the assertion that, "It happened on a public street, between people with no personal relationship. There's nothing private about it." I'm not sure I can accept that, either. I drive to work every weekday morning. Is everything I do from the moment I leave my house to the moment I return a matter of public record. In some sense, I suppose it is, and yet the full implications of that are disturbing to me. Is it really the case that I have no reasonable expectation of privacy in any dealings I have with any individual with whom I have no personal relationship? Is every single thing I do "fair game" for the media? Thats scary to contemplate. Certainly, more of what a Congressman does is a matter of public interest, but does that mean he is subject to scrutiny every minute of every day unless he is in his own home? There has to be a line somewhere.

Finally, there's the assertion that "He's the one who can directly affect your life and mine." Maybe that's true, but apparently I have the right to directly affect his life by sticking a camera in his face as he walks down the street.

Yes, his behavior is unacceptable. He said so himself, and apologized for it. After considering this incident, I'm willing to accept his apology and say it's no big deal. He lost his cool in a stressful situation. That's not good, but it's not all that bad, either.

jsfisher

20th June 2010, 08:14 AM

Can you outline anywhere in the USA constitution where it says people have the right to raise a private militia? If you did that, then I would side with you against Lefty.

The Tenth Amendment pretty well covers it.

thaiboxerken

20th June 2010, 08:53 AM

The Tenth Amendment pretty well covers it.

I don't see it in there. Neither can I interpret it to say that a person can raise a private military.

leftysergeant

20th June 2010, 09:50 AM

The Tenth Amendment pretty well covers it.The 10th specifies that those rights not specificly assigned to the union or the states devolve to the people. Calling out the militia is assigned in the constitution to the states and congress.

FAIL.

Brainster

20th June 2010, 10:51 AM

Can you outline anywhere in the USA constitution where it says people have the right to raise a private militia? If you did that, then I would side with you against Lefty.

Can you outline anywhere in the USA constitution where it says people have a right to get married? I can't see it anywhere.

jsfisher

20th June 2010, 11:10 AM

The 10th specifies that those rights not specificly assigned to the union or the states devolve to the people. Calling out the militia is assigned in the constitution to the states and congress.

FAIL.

If it is such a big fail, why do approximately half the states bother with specific laws to regulate private militia?

The US Constitution gives Congress and the states powers over the Militia -- that being a proper noun, the name for a specific government recognized armed force. It does not in any way exclude other militia from existing.

The fail is yours.

leftysergeant

20th June 2010, 11:14 AM

It does not in any way exclude other militia from existing.

Yes it does. To do otherwise would be to give dirtbags like David Duke and John Trochmann and idiot girl Angle the right to overturn the results of an election that they do not like.

The fail is yours.

jsfisher

20th June 2010, 11:30 AM

Yes it does.

And yet, the existence of private militia within the US borders proves you wrong. Laws within about half the states regulating them proves you wrong.

leftysergeant

20th June 2010, 11:34 AM

And yet, the existence of private militia within the US borders proves you wrong. Laws within about half the states regulating them proves you wrong.Show me a state law that allows them or sign for this super tanker load of fail.

jsfisher

20th June 2010, 12:10 PM

Show me a state law that allows them or sign for this super tanker load of fail.

States wouldn't have laws allowing private militia; they'd have laws disallowing them. Washington State, for example, does have laws limiting private militia activities; Michigan, on the other hand, has laws limiting paramilitary training; and Alaska has neither.

But this brings us full circle back to the original requests for you to support your claim. You claimed private militia were illegal in the US. Evidence, please. Stop trying to push the burden of proof on others. Your claim; you support it.

leftysergeant

20th June 2010, 12:16 PM

States wouldn't have laws allowing private militia; they'd have laws disallowing them. Washington State, for example, does have laws limiting private militia activities; Michigan, on the other hand, has laws limiting paramilitary training; and Alaska has neither.

That's the difference between a state that is based on rational discourse and a state that tries to get away with outrageous violations of the constitution.

Evidence, please. Stop trying to push the burden of proof on others. Your claim; you support it.

It's in the constitution. The government raises the militia.

jsfisher

20th June 2010, 12:40 PM

That's the difference between a state that is based on rational discourse and a state that tries to get away with outrageous violations of the constitution.

That which you cannot defeat with evidence and reason you attack with ridicule and insult?

Well, I'm convinced.

It's in the constitution. The government raises the militia.

Your opinion on this has support in case law and the courts, does it?

leftysergeant

20th June 2010, 12:56 PM

Your opinion on this has support in case law and the courts, does it?

As far as I know, yes. There has never, to my knowledge, been a court ruling supporting the right of anti-government whackadoodles to form a militia.

jsfisher

20th June 2010, 01:00 PM

As far as I know, yes. There has never, to my knowledge, been a court ruling supporting the right of anti-government whackadoodles to form a militia.

Evasion noted. Substitute of insult for substance noted.

leftysergeant

20th June 2010, 01:14 PM

Evasion noted. Substitute of insult for substance noted.

The constitution gives the organization of the militia to the congress and the states. There are laws in severall states prohibitting private militias. Some states are populated by self-centered whackjobs who would shriek like raped apes if the state actually inacted and inforced such prohibitions. The absence of a state law does not legallize a private act which confflicts with federal law.

The whackjob militias are illegal.

Sword_Of_Truth

20th June 2010, 01:20 PM

I predict that Lefty's position on the legality and morality of militias (anti-government or benign) will come about 180 degrees on or slightly before President Palin starts her second term.

ETA:
The whackjob militias are illegal.

I see Lefty's already given himself an escape hatch. Whackjob militias are bad, but The Proletariats Revolutionary Action Front of Tacoma will be okay... since he's not a whackjob. :rolleyes:

leftysergeant

20th June 2010, 01:32 PM

I predict that Lefty's position on the legality and morality of militias (anti-government or benign) will come about 180 degrees on or slightly before President Palin starts her second term.

ETA:

I see Lefty's already given himself an escape hatch. Whackjob militias are bad, but The Proletariats Revolutionary Action Front of Tacoma will be okay... since he's not a whackjob. :rolleyes:

Every private militia unit of ehich I have been made aware is headed by a whackjob.

jsfisher

20th June 2010, 02:49 PM

The constitution gives the organization of the militia to the congress and the states.

So you have claimed, but your opinion isn't backed by case law nor court decisions. So, it stands as only your opinion that the Constitution prohibits private militias.

There are laws in severall states prohibitting private militias.

So, by implication, you admit private militias are permitted in other states. We have progress!

Some states are populated by self-centered whackjobs who would shriek like raped apes if the state actually inacted and inforced such prohibitions.

Tough to argue with a statement like this. No substance to it whatsoever, only hatred.

The absence of a state law does not legallize a private act which confflicts with federal law.

The whackjob militias are illegal.

You have been asked several times to point out where in the US Code that would be. You haven't done that. Repetition of your claim is no substitute for proof.

jsfisher

20th June 2010, 02:55 PM

Rogue1stclass

20th June 2010, 05:16 PM

Can someone give a definition of "private militia" that doesn't include things like private security companies and hobbyist groups or violate anyone's 1st Amendment rights?

Oh, and I think that militias being legal is pretty self-evident by the fact that they exist. Even in Washington State.

leftysergeant

20th June 2010, 05:24 PM

Oh, and I think that militias being legal is pretty self-evident by the fact that they exist. Even in Washington State.

They exist here, but are as illegal as hell. RCW 38.40.120.

And their leaders are occassionally arrested on criminal charges.

They need to be rounded up and disarmed again.

Outlaw militias are just lynch mobs with an organized structure.

The Painter

21st June 2010, 03:08 AM

Not only do we have a Militia in New York, we also have a Naval Militia.

leftysergeant

21st June 2010, 03:56 AM

Not only do we have a Militia in New York, we also have a Naval Militia.If their commander's commission is from the state, they are legal. If not, they are a domestic enemy of trhe constitution of the United States.

I will have tto go back and look at this by state, but I believe there is an organized militia within the Military Department or its equivallent in New York. I know that there is one in Ohio.

There is also a Washignton State Guard, which falls within the Military Department of the state. The "Militia of Washington" (if that is the right name, they haven't existed since they were busted under their old name IIRC) was a criminal organization.

Ziggurat

21st June 2010, 08:00 AM

There's several things about your post which could be held to be true, but which make me very uncomofortable. For starters. there is the allegation that Etheridge's behavior is a crime. Yes, I understand that assault does not have to involve throwing a punch, but if these were ordinary citizens, no one here would be prosecuted. It's hard for me to call something criminal if no prosecutor or judge would do the same.

But that's actually two different claims: that it's not a crime, and that it wouldn't be prosecuted. There's a difference between them. I agree that it's not likely to be prosecuted, even for lowly citizens. But that's a matter of priorities for prosecutors (ie, they have better things to do), not a matter of actual criminal standing.

Second, there is the suggestion that " It doesn't matter much if two random dudes are acting like ***hats. " I'm not sure. I think it does. It's true that it doesn't really matter about their behavior for its own sake. However, I don't think you would say, "It doesn't matter if two random dudes are interfering with a Congressman when he is walking down the street." If their behavior is acceptable, it would be unsafe for Congressmen to ever appear in public without security guards. If the behavior of these "students" became commonplace, Congressmen simply couldn't safely walk down the street.

No. They did not endanger Etheridge in any way. The most that could be said is that they annoyed him. Being at continual risk of annoyance is not the same as being unsafe.

Then there's the assertion that, "It happened on a public street, between people with no personal relationship. There's nothing private about it." I'm not sure I can accept that, either. I drive to work every weekday morning. Is everything I do from the moment I leave my house to the moment I return a matter of public record. In some sense, I suppose it is, and yet the full implications of that are disturbing to me.

Be disturbed all you want to, that's reality.

Is it really the case that I have no reasonable expectation of privacy in any dealings I have with any individual with whom I have no personal relationship?

When they happen in a public place, where your dealings are observable by others? Yes, of course. You were kidding yourself if you ever thought otherwise.

Is every single thing I do "fair game" for the media?

Oh, but THAT is a completely separate question, because much of what you do is not done in public.

Certainly, more of what a Congressman does is a matter of public interest, but does that mean he is subject to scrutiny every minute of every day unless he is in his own home?

Home is not the only non-public place. His office is not public, for example. Lots of places are non-public locations. But the sidewalk? That's public. Obviously so.

There has to be a line somewhere.

There is: the line between public and private. And he was clearly on the public side of the line. You may be uncomfortable with how large the public sphere is, but that's still reality, and it's not new either.

Finally, there's the assertion that "He's the one who can directly affect your life and mine." Maybe that's true, but apparently I have the right to directly affect his life by sticking a camera in his face as he walks down the street.

Welcome to the wonderful world of journalism. The only difference between this and countless other examples is that these guys were amateurs, and Etheridge thought he could get away with treating them in a manner that he would never have treated a TV crew. But why should Etheridge be allowed to treat them any differently? Journalists are not a constitutionally privileged class.

Yes, his behavior is unacceptable. He said so himself, and apologized for it. After considering this incident, I'm willing to accept his apology and say it's no big deal. He lost his cool in a stressful situation. That's not good, but it's not all that bad, either.

It's not a big deal in the sense of the harm that was done. But I think it's a very big deal in terms of what it reveals about his character. It reveals an arrogance, an assumption of power and privilege, that is unhealthy in a government official.

Neally

21st June 2010, 08:19 AM

They exist here, but are as illegal as hell. RCW 38.40.120.
Something illegal in one state doesn't make it illegal in every state. Further, if it were illegal/unconstitutional on a federal level, there wouldn't be much need for it to be illegal on a state level as well. Wouldn't want the state encroaching on something regulated on the federal level, like immigration, for example, oh wait...

Meadmaker

21st June 2010, 08:45 AM

It's not a big deal in the sense of the harm that was done. But I think it's a very big deal in terms of what it reveals about his character. It reveals an arrogance, an assumption of power and privilege, that is unhealthy in a government official.

Part of what I concluded about his behavior was that this did not reveal a contempt by a Congressman for ordinary citizens, but rather contempt of an old man for presumptuous youth. If these "students" had been a few years older, I suspect his interractions with them would have been different.

I'm much more willing to forgive that sort of contempt.

As for the public versus private nature of his interaction with these people, I again decided that I should ignore the fact that he is a Congressman when considering his actions. He is a person who, while walking down the street, was harassed by people he did not know.

At some point, I realized I had much more empathy for the Congressman than for these two annoying individuals. I could not picture myself being in the position of the "students", because I can't picture myself engaging in that level of incivility. I could picture myself reacting to it the way the Congressman reacted. While that camera did not represent a credible threat that could make Mr. Etheridge fear for his safety, they really did jam that thing in his face. That sort of gesture is a very intimidating one. On a very primitive level it's a territorial challenge that informs the confronted individual that he is on enemy turf. It isn't surprising that it provoked a primitive reaction that was a very ill disguised dominance ritual. The silverback considered that his territory was challenged by a pair of young rivals.

So, in other words, Etheridge was behaving like an ape. That's not exactly commendable, but it is quite natural. Bad boy. Apologize now. Act submissive. And go eat your bananas.

ETA: I didn't respond to several specific elements from our recent dialog. I really hate it when people ignore what I think are great points, and I want to see how they respond, so if there is anything specific you would like to see an answer for, let me know.

Rogue1stclass

21st June 2010, 08:53 AM

They exist here, but are as illegal as hell. RCW 38.40.120.

And their leaders are occassionally arrested on criminal charges.

They need to be rounded up and disarmed again.

Outlaw militias are just lynch mobs with an organized structure.

Well, I don't know that a misdemeanor can be called "illegal as hell".

Now, I am not a lawyer, and I have no idea how the courts have interpreted this law, but in context the intent seems to be prevent fruadulent or unauthorized military groups from claiming the benefits laid out in the rest of this section of code, not to prevent private armies or whatever.

From what I've been able to find, when the leaders of militia groups are arrested in Washington state, it tends to be on things like illegal weapons and assault on law enforcement.

leftysergeant

21st June 2010, 04:49 PM

Whether it is a felony or a misdemeanor, they are illegal and a threat to civilization. It would be a good idea right about now to put the dame effort into stamping out the militias that we do busting pot gorwers.

Is your attention span so short that you have already forgotten the Huttarree incident?

jsfisher

21st June 2010, 05:03 PM

leftysergeant

21st June 2010, 05:13 PM

Umm, the crime was conspiracy to commit murder, not membership in a militia.

It still poi9nts out why they are illegal and need to stay that way, and why it might even be a good idea to revise the existing laws by striking one word and inserting another. misdemeanorfelony

That's all it would take to revise RCW 38.40.120 to adequatrely protect the public interest.

Bear in mind, people, that the KuKluxKrap started as a rival "militia."

jsfisher

21st June 2010, 05:32 PM

Now, I am not a lawyer, and I have no idea how the courts have interpreted this law, but in context the intent seems to be prevent fruadulent or unauthorized military groups from claiming the benefits laid out in the rest of this section of code, not to prevent private armies or whatever.

I quite agree. Here is the actual text (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=38.40.120) of the section:

No organized body other than the recognized militia organizations of this state, armed forces of the United States, students of educational institutions where military science is a prescribed part of the course of instruction or bona fide veterans organizations shall associate themselves together as a military company or organize or parade in public with firearms: PROVIDED, That nothing herein shall be construed to prevent authorized parades by the organized militia of another state or armed forces of foreign countries. Any person participating in any such unauthorized organization shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

Bolding added to emphasize what is actually prohibited. Washington State disallows an organized body from associating itself as a "military company", or to organize or parade in public with firearms. Ok, you can't show up at the town park en masse, packin'. Fair enough.

And you can't form a "military company." This doesn't appear anywhere as a defined term in any Washington State Code, so it should be interpreted in its common meaning, namely as a private business to provide soldiers.*

So, even in the home state of our resident left-of-leftist, private militias are not outlawed as long as the members do not collectively engage as soldier-for-hire and do not collectively gather in public with their firearms.

*A "military company" can also mean a group of 4 or so platoons, but that meaning doesn't make sense in context.

jsfisher

21st June 2010, 05:37 PM

It still poi9nts out why they are illegal

You keep saying that, but provide no evidence.

...and need to stay that way, and why it might even be a good idea to revise the existing laws by striking one word and inserting another. misdemeanorfelony

That's all it would take to revise RCW 38.40.120 to adequatrely protect the public interest.

Bear in mind, people, that the KuKluxKrap started as a rival "militia."

Wow! There's no generalization that's beneath you, is there?

leftysergeant

21st June 2010, 05:44 PM

Bolding added to emphasize what is actually prohibited. Washington State disallows an organized body from associating itself as a "military company", or to organize or parade in public with firearms. Ok, you can't show up at the town park en masse, packin'. Fair enough.

And you can't form a "military company." This doesn't appear anywhere as a defined term in any Washington State Code, so it should be interpreted in its common meaning, namely as a private business to provide soldiers.

Such mental gymnastics. Careful you don't pull a muscle and get a brain cramp. It seems obvious to anyone who knows anything about the military or small-cell terrorist organizations that each cell could be construed as a "military company" in that they are part of an operational unit. These laws were enacted specificly to eliminate groups like the KKK and vigilantes who go off half-cocked thinking they are being patriots. They in no way resemble the original militia of English common law or the American colonies.

jsfisher

21st June 2010, 05:52 PM

Such mental gymnastics. Careful you don't pull a muscle and get a brain cramp. It seems obvious to anyone who knows anything about the military or small-cell terrorist organizations that each cell could be construed as a "military company" in that they are part of an operational unit. These laws were enacted specificly to eliminate groups like the KKK and vigilantes who go off half-cocked thinking they are being patriots. They in no way resemble the original militia of English common law or the American colonies.

Evidence, please.

ETA:
By the way, just to compare mental gymnastics and who of the two of us is mostly likely for a brain cramp, a simple google search for "military company" (with quotes) pulls up my two usages as the first two hits.

How does yours fare? I must admit, I didn't see it on the first couple of pages, but it's there somewhere, right?