If there is anyone left who has not seen this video which is flying across the internet, I have posted the video of North Carolina Congressman Bob Etheridge assaulting a student on a street in Washington D.C. for asking him whether he supports the Obama agenda.
Ehtheridge displays the sort of thin-skinned reaction to a minor intrusion that resulted in a long prison term for a man I called Guido in the next post below. Etheridge didn’t go get a gun and threaten to kill the object of his anger as Guido did, but the instant outrage over a minor annoyance is nevertheless the same sort of overblown conduct that we have come to expect from members of a street gang.
The Congressman has committed a battery on the student by grabbing his arm and he may have turned it into something much worse by grabbing him around the throat. A battery merely requires an intentional offensive or harmful contact to another person without their consent, with defenses for normal and unavoidable jostling that naturally occurs in public places. Putting his hand on the student’s neck is potentially a much worse sort of crime because many jurisdictions have adopted “choking statutes” which make it a felony to attempt to choke another person (I have no idea whether Washington D.C. has such a law). The thing is, merely placing one’s hands around the neck of another person in the typical choking type of hold completes the crime in the statutes that I have seen. It may require both hands be placed on the neck and it appears the Congressman had a one-hand hold on the students neck, but if that is not technically choking it is certainly an aggravated form of simple battery.
It is gangster type behavior, which is what I suppose we should expect from the type of gangster government that Democrats has given us.
The Congressman has given the following apology:
“I have seen the video posted on several blogs. I deeply and profoundly regret my reaction and I apologize to all involved. Throughout my many years of service to the people of North Carolina, I have always tried to treat people from all viewpoints with respect. No matter how intrusive and partisan our politics can become, this does not justify a poor response. I have and I will always work to promote a civil public discourse.”
When criminals say they are sorry for some despicable act they have committed that usually means they are sorry they got caught. Etheridge’s apology here should be taken to mean he regrets that his action was recorded on a video camera and posted on the internet.
The liberal media’s defense of Etheridge takes them to new lows of depravity. To The Washington Post, like Etheridge himself, the only problem here is that there was a video camera to record the action,
Time and time again, politicians, who should know better, seem to commit gaffes based on a belief that what they are saying will never get broadcast to the wider world. The Etheridge controversy is more evidence that such an idea is entirely antiquated.
When a politician opens his or her mouth is this age of journalism — and activism — they must assume that anything they say will be made public at some point. Any other approach borders on political folly.
Others have tried to claim Etheridge was defending himself or that the student is at fault for not telling Etheridge his name. This argument is that when a criminal demands you tell him your name you better speak up quickly or the criminal is within his rights to beat you up. These lame and lamebrain attempts to defend Etheridge will serve to bring even more unwanted attention to this episode so I hope they keep it up.