Tuesday, June 15, 2010

Should Bob Etheridge be charged with assault?


Perhaps you've already seen this now-notorious clip of Rep. Bob Etheridge (D-NC) confronted by a student-reporter (and a cameraman) and responding, well, let's just say, inappropriately:


Glenn Greenwald thinks that it's a clear-cut case of assault -- or at least that Etheridge should be arrested and charged with assault (I assume that Glenn does not presume guilt, which would be for a jury to decide). Glenn is backed up by John Amato and John Cole, among others.

And the evidence is fairly compelling. For while the whole thing may have been a right-wing set-up, Etheridge does act violently, if not all that aggressively, knocking the camera out of the cameraman's hands and grabbing the reporter by the wrist and then briefly by the back of the neck (and then putting his arm around him). He is clearly irritated, visibly upset by the encounter, and he repeatedly asks the reporter who he is.

The thing is, context matters here, and I don't think it's right to jump to conclusions based on a short clip. No, I don't mean to defend Etheridge, and I certainly don't want to suggest that there is a double standard here. I would like to think that my views would be same if a Republican had acted in a similar manner. Just because the reporter and cameramen may have been part of some right-wing set-up, that shouldn't excuse Etheridge.

But part of the problem here has to do with the very idea of such confrontational "journalism." Etheridge is a public figure, but being accosted on the sidewalk is hardly the sort of "reporting" he or any other public figure should be subjected to. He was right to ask who they were, and he was right to be persistent, and it must be noted that they didn't answer. A legitimate reporter would have stated his name and organization. Etheridge must have suspected foul play, of sorts, and that surely explains, at least to a great extent, the severity of his reaction (again, without necessarily excusing it).

In other words: context matters here. It was likely a set-up -- and note how the reporter's face is blurred. And I just don't see much in the way of assault, or at least not enough (and, admittedly, I say this without being an expert on criminal law) to warrant an assault charge. Indeed, I tend to agree with Jon Chait:

It's probably true that the law is going to get enforced more harshly and literally if the victim is a member of Congress. I think the proper remedy is to treat Congressmen like everybody else, not to start treating everybody like a Congressman. If you were walking down a random street and started firing questions at some random person, and they grab your wrist for a few seconds and demand to know who you are, they're probably not going to be arrested and charged with assault and battery. Normally such an encounter would stay clear of the legal system, even if a cop was standing right there. I could see how the notion of prosecuting this kind of scenario would appeal to a lawyer like Greenwald, but Greenwald's beau ideal of society is probably a lot more legalistic than mine.

The whole thing seems wildly overblown to me, and it's telling that the "victim" isn't pushing this. (Do we even know who he is?) Etheridge has rightly apologized. He should pay for any damages to the camera but should face charges only if local prosecutors determine that it was assault given the context in which it occurred (and to determine that requires more than a short clip).

Don't misunderstand me. I'm not excusing what Etheridge did. He should not have responded even to such an unpleasant confrontation with physical violence of any kind. As a public figure, as a politician, he should have known better. He could have asked who they were and, not getting anywhere, simply walked away. After all, why give the opposition any ammunition? But I just can't get too worked up about this, not given the context, and I don't think it's fair to rush to judgement. The clip doesn't tell us everything we need to know about what happened.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share

7 Comments:

  • Watching the video, it sounded as if the "reporter" was holding back laughter when asking the questions. I can't help but imagine a big grin on this person's face as they antagonized Etheridge.

    Etheridge was wrong to become physical, grabbing the wrist and back of the neck, pulling the person beside him, but at the same time, the person asking the questions wasn't exactly forthcoming with the publication of the video, and so one can only assume that it was posted with an agenda...

    I was also somewhat disappointed with the quick apology. If I were him, I would have given a half-apology, pushing for the disclosure of information from the "reporter."

    By Blogger Kevin, at 11:00 PM  

  • wow. you managed to get ALL the democratic talking points in AND you couched those talking points in no less than 3 requisite qualifiers saying that you are in no way excusing etheridge (which is exactly what you're doing). How can you call yourself a liberal and yet call for a society in which people have to identify themselves to people in power just because they ask for it? What's next, "show me your papers"? They had no obligation to tell him who they are, and they had every right to exercise their constitutionally protected right to express themselves by asking him a question. And he had every right to walk right past them and pretend they weren't even there. You people who play politics like sports, and support whatever anyone does as long as they're on our team have destroyed the Democratic Party. Your lack of principles and moral compass would make Karl Rove proud.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:18 AM  

  • A few points:

    -- What I'm saying here is that context matters. No, I do not excuse Etheridge, but I understand what he did given the context. Meanwhile, while I do not excuse him, I do not necessarily think he should be charged.

    -- Very funny to pull out the "show me your papers" line, as if we're talking about immigration in Arizona. He asked who they were. A legitimate reporter would identify himself/herself. A jackass looking for trouble wouldn't. I certainly do not deny them their constitutional rights, but they obviously weren't serious about what they were doing.

    -- Yes, he should have ignored them and walked on. He acted stupidly. I do not deny that.

    -- This isn't about partisanship. As I wrote, I don't think that I would have treated a reverse situation differently. How does that make me like Rove, who is all about doing what benefits the GOP?

    By Blogger Michael J.W. Stickings, at 12:57 AM  

  • "You people who play politics like sports, and support whatever anyone does as long as they're on our team have destroyed the Democratic Party. Your lack of principles and moral compass would make Karl Rove proud."

    Nice bit of boiler plate, but it really doesn't fit the boiler in question. If there has been any "destruction" of either party I think it has more to do with "you people" and not those who read what was written and observe what has happened with any degree of objectivity. If this were part of a Turing test, I'd say I was listening to a device, not a person.

    By Blogger Capt. Fogg, at 7:53 AM  

  • "Legitimate" reporters can only spout the party line, or as MSNBC does, literally put the party talking points memo on the f@#$ing teleprompter.

    Only anonymous reporting will find and speak truth. If they gave their names government officials would harrass them the rest of their lives.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:22 AM  

  • If the reporter defended himself and struck Etheridge who would have been charged?
    This man had no right whatsoever to touch that student. His path was not blocked and they were not aggressive.
    Etheridge just diplays he is a lousy human being.

    By Anonymous Greg T, at 11:23 AM  

  • "as MSNBC does, literally put the party talking points memo on the f@#$ing teleprompter."

    Yes, that's right MSNBC is terrible biased, or so it must seem to someone with a 96 IQ and his head up his ass. It's a bit like Bernie Madoff yelling about being short changed at a hot dog stand.

    We have Republican candidates pushing for armed overthrow of the government and the murder of congressmen -- we have Fox News telling us that making BP pay for BP's disaster is COMMUNISM and you're hear dishing out this moronic crap about MSNBC? Who the hell do you think you're talking to, you pompous liar?

    Get the fuck out of my country.

    By Blogger Capt. Fogg, at 9:06 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home