I believe if a complete stranger comes up to you on the street and sticks something in your face while refusing to identify himself, you have a right to bat it away, and if they persist in their behavior you have a right to restrain them from continuing to do it. The Congressman should have just walked away, but based on the kids' behavior, I wouldn't have just walked away either. In fact, my response would have been to assault the kid, which I don't think the Congressman did. He never seemed to make a move that was meant to injure, only to push the camera away, remove the camera, or restrain the kid from trying to get it back.

At any rate, I find it interesting that nobody here seems to think the kid's behavior played any role in how this unfolded. If this had been a liberal kid hounding a GOP'er, I believe a lot of you would be whistling a different tune.

Like hell we would. Or at least I would condemn any Republican that acted that way. As I said earlier he didn't even give the kid a chance to identify himself before grabbing his wrist and shoving the camera.

No congressman or woman Republican or Democrat has the right to grab someones wrist and start demanding answers before giving the person a fair chance to answer.

Etheridge was out of line.

I believe if a complete stranger comes up to you on the street and sticks something in your face while refusing to identify himself, you have a right to bat it away, and if they persist in their behavior you have a right to restrain them from continuing to do it.

Are you kidding me? Did you watch a different video than the rest of us?

The kid didn't stick the camera in his face. That simply isn't what happened. And why should they have to identify themselves to him? They aren't beholden to him, as a member of Congress he's beholden to them. They have the right (and as some might argue the duty) to ask him whatever question they wish.

If Etheridge didn't want to be interviewed all he had to do is walk away. He had no reason at all to walk up to these kids and assault them.

If somebody got that close to the POTUS and stuck something in his face, the Secret Service would have them down on the ground faster than you can say “who are you?”. There are proper ways to address elected officials in public, and ambushing them on a street corner with multiple cameras and vague questions is not the way to do it. Just because I am a constituent doesn't mean I have the right to my Congressman's undivided attention any time they are in public. If being a public servant means you have to put up with the same type of paparazzi bullshit that moviestars put up with, then don't be surprised when our politicians dont' have any more substance than our movie stars, because no sane person is willing to put up with that. Perhaps it is just that the internet is making everybody socially retrarded, but when we live in a society where this kid's actions don't merit at least SOME kind of social rebuke (even if you disagree with the Congressman's response), then we have gone far far off the tracks.

And you're right, MY reaction would have been much more severe, and quite probably illegal. However, I'm not sure this Congressman did anything that wouldn't hold up in court. He clearly was not attacking the kid, but trying to gain control of the camera that the kid was shoving in his face (which for all he knew could have been a can of mace) and then restraining the kid until he could determine what the situation was. I would have, at the very least, smashed his camera (while gladly accepting the legal consequences for doing so).

What I do agree with you guys about on this is that if it had been a Republican Congressman behaving this way, it would be all over the news all day every day.

Sam, here's a crazy idea: If you want to interview a politician for a school project, and you happen to see them walking down the street, maybe you walk up to them and say, “Hi, I'm Sam and I have a school project to interview a politician, can you spare 3 minutes to answer some questions and would you mind if I get it on video?”

Yes, the Congressman should have just kept on walking, but this kid should also have approached him in a completely different manner.

But he didn't, and that is sort of my point: He never asked for an interview. He started filming and asking a vague question before ever attempting to identify himself. For all we know, the Congressman might have been fearful somebody was about to gun him down on the street if he answered 'yes I support the Obama agenda', because he had ABSOLUTELY NO context for why that question was being presented to him. Perhaps that is why he didn't keep walking, because he didn't want to turn his back on somebody who might have been a threat. If the Congressman broke the law, he should face the consequences, but that doesn't change the fact that if this kid's parents had taught him anything about manners, the whole incident would have gone down differently.

” Lock yourself in your house for everyone, especially your own protect, and don't try to mingle with society”

Heh. You know, you may have a point there. I don't mingle with society much, especially in cities and the 'burbs, and then just for business. And even then my wife has to remind me to put on my 'city manners'.

If mingling with society means I'm expected to put up with this kid's behavior, you can have society. I'll stick to my little rural corner of the earth where this kid would get the snot knocked out of him for behaving like he did, and then get more of the same by his parents when they saw the video.

“Or he happens to be as paranoid as you and believes that since you already assaulted him and battered him you may kill him if he doesnt defend himself immediately and pulls a gun out and empties it in you?”

An armed society is a polite society. If that kid was carrying, and had been raised responsibly around guns, no way in hell would he act like he was acting.
If not, and he wanted to throw fists, well there's something to be said for a society where things get settled with fewer lawsuits and more fist fights. But here's the kicker: if we lived in such a society, this wouldn't be an issue in the first place, because that kid would know that behaving like he was would likely result in having to fight somebody. It's only because we live in a society that says having your wrist grabbed equates to being assaulted that the kid can get off acting like that in the first place.

But he didn't

Yes, he did. He said “Hi Congressman!” Where I come from saying “Hi!” signals intent to communicate. That, combined with the fact that he was holding one of them thar newfangled camera doohickeys, probably indicated that he was some sort of journalist.

For all we know, the Congressman might have been fearful somebody was about to gun him down on the street if he answered 'yes I support the Obama agenda'

Yeah right, because, y'know, that's such a common occurrence. Everybody knows you've gotta be careful talking to college students dressed in nice suits holding cameras. They might just gun you down in the street!

Friedman, I'm a police officer, and I can tell you, it is not illegal to approach someone with a camera on a public street. And it is not like they approached him out of the blue– they greeted him to establish a consensual contact, and he responded in kind. If you or anyone were to then assault and batter the holder of the camera, you would then be a criminal and subject to being arrest for just that– assault and battery. Sorry, but “officer, he had a camera”, or, later “but your Honor, he had a camera!” just won't cut it. The congressman also committed a form of abduction by illegally restraining the kid, which is a felony, as well as robbery– he snatched the camera away from the kid. In Virginia, snatching anything out of someone's hand like that is robbery, especially when coupled with illegal restraint.

Thanks for the clarification on the law. I thought in order for assault to be claimed, there had to be “injurious intent”, but I defer to your more informed position. I'll just say that if that kid's behavior is legal, I'm glad I live in a part of the country where it would be universally frowned upon, if not worse.

“Just because I am a constituent doesn't mean I have the right to my Congressman's undivided attention any time they are in public. If being a public servant means you have to put up with the same type of paparazzi bullshit that moviestars put up with, then don't be surprised when our politicians dont' have any more substance than our movie stars, because no sane person is willing to put up with that. Perhaps it is just that the internet is making everybody socially retrarded, but when we live in a society where this kid's actions don't merit at least SOME kind of social rebuke (even if you disagree with the Congressman's response), then we have gone far far off the tracks.”

I call bullshit on that PF the people are the ones that put this idiot in office. They do have the right to question him, he is not the same as the President, he is the representative that is supposed to speak for them.

If they can't take the heat they better damn well get out of the kitchen.

How many times have constituents tried to question them and they either say make an appointment or no comment or some such other bullshit excuse. He just didn't want to answer the question because his district is not that happy with him about supporting the Obama agenda.

He had no right to grab that kids wrist. He didn't even give the kid a chance to identify himself before doing so. He was absolutely out of line.

Before you can get in arms length of the president, protocol dictates you have passed security clearance, which includes providing your original birth certificate.
In other words, obama could not pass security clearance to conduct a personal interview of the POTUS, but the people who interview him, have.

The different tune would be whistled by the propaganda media, and the title of the tune would be, “The Republican Should Resign.” They always defend the democrats and condemn the republicans.

These morons claimed Sara Palin had no rights to privacy while they attacked her children. Fried just just a typical moron who is an absolute hypocrite.

I am one who wants our politicians to support, obey, and defend our Constitution. I also don't understand why some parents are so proud of their kid saying their first cuss word. I will leave it at that.

I call myself a neutralist because I don't see enough in any of the parties to want to join them. I call most of the republicans “republicrats” because they have taken on a lot of the democrat's ideals.

A friend mentioned that if I don't belong to a party I can't vote in its primaries for who will run for that party, so I joined the republican party just to be able to help decide who runs.

Shortly after I joined I got a fund raising call from them. I politely explained to the woman that I won't give to the party because they have already spent too much of my money, and that if I give, it will be to the individual politician. The republican party has finally out spent the democrats in pork barrel add-ons in the last budget.

You said you “disagreeing with the attitude and rhetoric of the conservative posters here….” Every protest I have gone to I have been amazed at the creativity of the conservative signs. I think I come up with great signs and wording, and get a lot of compliments on them, but there are always some that I would rate better than mine. I don't know what signs you don't like, but I have seen very few Tea Party signs that I didn't like.

I would like to see the conservative blogs have a contest, or at least a web page that people can submit their posters before a protest so we can pick the ones we want to show. There are ones I have seen that I would like to be shown at all of the rallies around the country.