and just calmly say:  "Let him ask, I have nothing to hide."  And then calmly answer the question.

BTW, if you look at the video closely, you will see a caption "Stomping for Votes."  Did I read it wrong?  Not stumping, but stomping.

That looked a lot more like ASSAULT to me!!!

Someone get that guy a LAWYER!

but that looked kind of like Mike Stark.

Story on Daily Kos

Allen doesn't seem bothered by the fact that his people assaulted a protester. 

After all the trouble he's gotten into the past few months the last thing you'd think he wants is something like this.  But no, Allen practically condones his people ganging up on a man and wrestling him to the ground. 

Allen does not deserve to be a U.S. Senator and this sort of behavior only re-enforces that notion.

from NBC-29 stated that "the Senator is okay."  ????  What about Mike?

You might want to rephrase your headline.  I think Mike was less a "protestor" and more a "citizen trying to ask his Senator a question."

IT was mike. So I am sure we will all change out diaries.

Wow. That's all I can say.

that man wasn't hitting anyone or doing anything threatening.  They didn't have a right to lay hands on him.  They grabbed him and wrestled him up against the glass and down to the floor. What a bunch of thugs.  I hope he goes to the magistrate there with this video and tries to get some warrants for assault sworn out.  What they did looked plainly illegal to me.

I tried to watch the tape on the TV station link, but it was very slow to load.

Try this faster link here on YouTube.

The news report is about 2 1/2 minutes long. The attack on Mike Stark is near the beginning. The whole report is worth watching. It mentions the new CNN poll showing Webb in the lead, and it shows anti-Allen protesters who were outside the hotel.

Issue a statement condemning BOTH the behavior of the man shouting things at Allen AND the reaction of Allen's staff.  Both were unbecoming: shouting unsourced accusations about someone's ex-wife is not exactly a laudable thing no matter how you dislike or disbelieve Allen.  On the other side: bodily tackling and attacking a man for speaking, no matter how untoward he was being, is simply wrong if not flat out illegal.

In short, Allen's people's actions may have been criminal, but the man in question should not be applauded or apologized for either.

unjustified.

with posta, but I do not feel that post should have been trollrated.
Apologized for, no...APPPLAUDED, yes. Most definitely.

Allen should issue an apology, which he will not do. Mike was simply asking a question after which he was assaulted by the thugs. This is a free country, correct?  Mike was not threatening the senator.  I can't wait for Hardball and Countdown this evening!

I just spoke with him to confirm. He's obviously very busy right now due to the incident so we will get together tonight to talk about what happened.

Markos, at dailykos is already blogging about it.

he oughta.
Question for lawyers:
In cases of citizen's arrest, for example, any witness to a crime can file charges against the perps.
Can anyone who saw this video swear out a complaint and file charges?
Just asking......

In the letter to the TV station, Mike says he will bring charges:

I will be pressing charges against George Allen and his surrogates later today. George Allen, at any time, could have stopped the fray. All he had to do was say, "This is not how my campaign is run. Take your hands off that man." He could have ignored my questions. Instead he and his thugs chose violence. I spent four years in the Marine Corps. I'll be damned if I'll let my country be taken from me by thugs that are afraid of taking responsibility for themselves.

The entire letter is definitely worth reading. Mike is a real example of how all Americans should be standing up to Republican thuggery and suppression of open discussion.

sorry, previous poster, we have freedon of speech.
this doesnt happen at bush rallys, because they have better control of access.
  Those three allen staffers need to be booked pronto.and spnd a night in jail.
I will be protesting at  the  springfield allen rally, if they do that to me,  Ill swear out a complaint, and sue the  shite out of the allen campaign.

  This thuggery needs to stop, and stop soon.

11/4 - Fairfax County GOP Committee Get Out The Vote Rally
w/Senator John Warner, Senator George Allen, Rep. Frank Wolf,
Rep. Tom Davis, Congressional Candidate Tom O'Donoghue & local
elected officials - 8:30-10 AM, Interstate Van Lines, 5801
Rolling Rd., Springfield. FREE. Coffee and donuts will be
served. Call: (703) 766-4GOP.

filed is if Mike Stark hies himself over to the local magistrate's office and swears out a complaint.  It would be tremendously helpful to bring along a witness or two AND the videotape.  I'm sure someone knows who all three of these clowns are.  Unless the magistrate's a brain dead moron or Republican partisan this should be enough to get charges.

Virginia law is quite clear that offensive language or even verbal harassment is not grounds for assault.  This assault looks unprovoked.  Even if they could claim that when they first shoved him they were trying to keep someone they didn't know away from the Senator (which I'm sure will be their claim), they went beyond what was necessary to achieve their goal by grabbing him and wrestling him to the ground when he presented no threat of harm to anyone.  The scene of him being pushed against the glass pane is particularly bad.  It seemed as if the guy with his arm around Stark's neck was trying to injure him, then thought better of it and just continued taking him to the ground.  Too bad it didn't happen in Arlington.  The Commonwealths Attorneys here would have had all three of those thugs for lunch -- as the main course.

Maybe the young man's comment was in poor taste, but that is not the point. The point here is that the new elite cannot tolerate any protest or perceived insult from the lower classes. That was the young man's mistake--- forget those quaint arguments about free speech or use of force beyond what is required, and so on.

Remember, we are in the new era, and the self-appointed new elite, the upper one percent of the corporate feudal heirarchy, cannot permit any questioning of their elevated status, and that goes for their chosen lackeys like Allen as well. Not only are we supposed to be grateful for their leadership, we are supposed to sing their praises. No doubt our children will be forced to take Fawning 101 in school, and not as an elective.

I think Stark should have said something like:  "Senator Allen, will you address the questions about your sealed divorce papers, and those arrest records?  Will you agree to let the public see your bar application?

It's better to be polite.

I wonder what they would have done if the questioner was a woman.  Remember the case of the female reporter in Smyth County who asked a neutral question of Allen and got spat at?

There was another incident made much of when our Maura had the audacity to ask Joe Lieberman a perfectly reasonable question on St. Patrick's Day.  I'll try to find that video.

There was huge outrage about it. 

It's the second one, but it isn't St. Patricks Day.

http://www.spazeboy....

the Allen people were wrong to turn this into a physical confrontation and should be investigated for assault, I think that this is going to be played out as an attack on Allen and that Webb had better make it crystal clear that he had nothing to do with the protester.

If you check the nbc4 website (NOVA), they have a sub-headline "Allen not injured".  Sends the wrong message about the incident.  The Allen team will certainly use this as an attempt to smear Webb again - and in this case Jim is an innocent bystander.  He needs to make that clear.

this is not being well-presented by the media, but I am not sure if it should be responded to out of the blue by Webb, unless it comes as a question by a reporter. If he does respond (and I trust his and Saunders' judgment here), then somehow the free speech rights of the young man should enter into it. Neither party conducted themselves with dignity but the Allen reaction was over the top, typical Republican thuggery. 

Too bad the young man's question was so personal... although, now that I think about it he could have asked a personal-type question along the lines of: "You say you don't read many books, do you ever bother to read any of the legislation you vote on? Like the Family Leave Act you voted against? Like armored vests for the troops? Like prosthetics for amputees from the Iraq war? Like..." you get the idea.

I bet the bodyguards would have reacted the same way.

As with previous instances in which Allen has embarrassed himself, Webb should not comment unless asked about it, and even then he shouldn't say much more than that the guy was not part of his campaign. After the "macaca" incident, Webb commented only on the fact that his staffer was treated rudely and on the inaccurate information Allen was spreading about Webb's knowledge of that part of Virginia; he did not comment on whether Allen had used a racist term. Similarly, he has stayed away from any mention of Allen's other racist connections, his divorce, his history of violence toward his family, or anything else not related to his policies. And that's the way it should stay.

We know from experience that Allen's campaign is perfectly capable of mishandling this incident badly on its own. Intervention by Webb could only hurt.

There must be something on this first wife rumor to get such an over the top reaction from a reporter (even if the question was a bit obnoxious in form and content)

They discussed the sealed divorce papers at length.

Is a UVA law student, not a reporter.  Personally, I don't think stunts like these are in anyone's interest long-term.

"Have you ever used the N-word?" or "Did you spit on your first wife?" just aren't relevant. 

"Why didn't you provide body armor for the troops until 2005?" I see as a little more substantive.

Mr. Stark should understand that some questions are more valuable than others.  The issue here isn't whether Allen's a jerk.  It's whether he's a good Senator.  I really don't like the philosophy behind productions like Roger and Me and Fahrenheit 9/11.  They may be effective on one level, but on many other levels they're cheap and barely above ad hominem attacks.  Ambush journalism is too confrontational and carries too much of the taint of sudden personal attack.  To onlookers it can appear unfair and over-the-top.  I'm not saying don't ask questions of the target.  There's nothing wrong with standing to the side and yelling a question about a policy or a record, but there's a fine line between legitimate heckling and an ambush. 

The video up at Alternet shows the moments leading up to the confrontation, and Mike was just asking to talk to the Senator to ask him a question.  This was shown on CNN also.

Before Mike ever shouted out "Mr. Allen did you spit on your first wife?!" he was already in the process of being dragged out of the Senator's range.

This is without a doubt, unjustified assault.

http://alternet.org/...

they were describing Mr. Stark as someone who has followed and heckled Allen repeatedly.  If this is the case then it's just going to be difficult to make him out to be a blameless victim.  Even if it isn't the case he has the problem of being perceived that way due to the appearance on the video of him thrusting himself in there to question Allen.  I'm not saying he doesn't have the right to ask questions.  I'm talking about perceptions.  And let me ask, what was the first question he asked?  Was it about issues or his record or was it something like the divorce/wife-spitting question?  There's just no way to dress up that sort of question as a legitimate inquiry into the substance of a candidate's campaign.  In the end it's about trying to show up the candidate.  And yes, I agree, it was an unjustified assault. 

This is classic damage control.  Call radio shows, get your version of events out first.  The problem is when people see the full video it undercuts the credibility of these other accounts and reflects negatively on George Allen's credibility as well.

I do think this is a wash as far as decideds go.  I think this incident could hurt Allen on the margins with undecideds. 

Mr. Stark was reported to have e-mailed practically every reporter in the state with the details from his point of view.  It does look ugly and there is no excuse for it, so I hope it does make Allen look bad, but I'm not holding my breath.

Helps to clarify things.  Politically I see this as marginally bad for Allen.  It won't sway voters who have already made up their minds either way, but it's unlikely to win George Allen any new fans.

should expect ANY type of question.  A public person can elect to say "I am not going to answer that question" and leave it at that. We all know what Allen's handlers are afraid of. If the questioner wants to know, he is free to ask.  There are many, many examples of "professional" reporters who ask questions that I consider stupid questions that are not in anyone's long term interest either.  But they still have the right to ask them.

And consider what Mary Sue Terry and her campaign staff went through over a witch hunt based on a lunatic pedophiles claims.  They didn't beat people up for asking time and time again for being rude.  And George Allen loved every minute of it.

they had audio of the  event, and Stark was quoted as planning to press charges.

will bet it's going to be hard to get the cops to act on this.  They could take forever, if they act at all.  The best thing is to go directly to the magistrate's office and swear out a complaint.  This is actually the most common way of having misdemeanors not witnessed by police officers prosecuted in Virginia.  We have a weird system in this state.  A magistrate is not a judge, but a person, not even required to be an attorney, who has been appointed to issue warrants and summonses (a lot of misdemeanor charges can be issued as summonses) and set the initial bond in arrest cases.  They are not part of the police department, although their offices are usually located close to the cops. It's well known to the domestic relations lawyers of this state that the assault charges go to the one who wins the race to the magistrate. 

Is a law student, I'm sure he'll figure out the best (and fastest) way to go.

the ways of the Virginia criminal justice system can be convoluted.  Hope he's asking someone who knows.

whem they were just pushing and shoving him, that might be a midsemeanor.  But when the one man put a headlock on him and dragged him to the floor, that became felonious assault - since Stark was already being removed from the Seanotr's presence, was not resisting being removed, the additional use of force and taking him to the floor represented the possiblity of serious injury and surely qualifies as a felony.

Police do not have to witness a felony - they may act on the basis of the complaint to do an investigation.  They ahve the tape, they will know at least some of the people who were witnesses (the reporter, the cameraman) even if some may be hostile to Stark.

And regardless of whether or not a criminal complaint is pursued, unless Stark were first asked to leave the premises by someone authorized to make that request (from the hotel) and refused, any action by thrid parties (that is, not hotel staff) to remove him from a public area of the hotel (he was apparently in an unsecured corridor) will give him a very strong case for a civil suit.  And if the people who manhandled him were hotel staff(which I doubt) and they did not make an attempt to have him leave using verbal methods, he will have a rather large tort against the hotel.

IANAL (that means I am not a lawyer) but I grew up around the law, my mother was an assistant AG in NY, many in my family are lawyers (and some judges) and I teach government.  I read Supreme Court opinions for pleasure (yeah, I am weird).

I saw no evidence of any action by Stark that would qualify as fighting words under the doctrine as established by Chaplinsky.  The level of physical action by those handling Stark is so out of proportion to anything he might have done methinks it is going to be a problem for Allen, especially in and around Charlottesville.

Here's a copy of the video from CNN (via AlterNet)

http://www.alternet....

Here's a copy of the video from CNN (via AlterNet)

http://www.alternet....

Thanks, JPTERP

The audio makes it clear that the assault is not related to the approach -- in other words, the thugs surrounding Allen did not say anything to indicate they were fearful for Allen's safety or worried about Stark doing anything other than ask him a question -- He's described in the report as a former Marine. Just as an aside, if that's the case why isn't he demanding answers about Iraq instead of a stupid 32 year old arrest warrant or an impossible to prove ancient domestic assault?  The way it plays out here he's the issue rather than the question he's asking.  But I digress. If Mr. Stark decides to go to the magistrate he should definitely take the CNN tape, complete with audio, rather than the wimp NBC tape. The big lump who brought him down says his question about Allen's wife is too personal.  NOT grounds for assault.  Just food for thought, what if Big Lump had brought him down while he was demanding answers about Allen's blind support for the Iraq war? I think Big Lump's actions would have been the same no matter what, and that would have been much more effective.

The person who shot the video for channel 29 could possibly be my cousin, catzmaw.  What can I say?

By wienie I meant that the original story this afternoon had no video and that young blond reporter was talking about how Allen wasn't hurt in the incident (??).  The audio is extremely helpful, and the editing was different in the later version of the assault.  Much better and easier to see what exactly was happening.

I don't even know if it's him, and I think he's a 2nd cousin.  And I agree with you about the reporter's strange remark.

is MUCH better, thanks for the link

A UVA first year law student gets assaulted by a United States Senator's Campaign workers- just for asking a question? The Allen Campaign workers behavior is absolutely unacceptable. I have volunteered with other campaigns but have never seen such a display of wrecklessness as demonstrated today by Allen's workers.

"These things happen" was Allen's reply ?? I have never seen campaign workers physically attack constituents and it should NEVER happen. I hope the student is o.k. 

There is longer video still on the CNN site:

http://www.cnn.com/2...

What is interesting to me (and there is a discussion about this on Waldo's site) is that the altercation in the lobby appears to be following an earlier altercation in the ballroom.

Allen's staffers are shoving Stark out a ballroom door and into the lobby, and this part freaks me out, into the lobby where Senator Allen is already located.  That seems very odd to me.

I was not there, only noting a slightly more detailed video online.

I also agree with someone who posted earlier that niether Stark nor Allen should be applauded for their behavior; they both behaved badly (Stark could have been more civil while still asking aggressive questions, Allen could have taken control and shutdown the physical activity) - but the Allen supporters are clearly criminal in this case (assault and in one case at least, battery).

I dont care how much stark provoked it, he was crininally assauted, and  those that assaugted him should be locked up.

But , like the rodney king video,  maybe they will walk......

If you haven't seen the CNN video piece .... do that first. It's much better than the orginal local station take.

Notice what happens first.  People try to stand in the way of  Stark like they did with the Webb tracker a while back. They are oriented to physically confront outsiders either video taping or wanting to talk to the senator.... by standing in their way.

When the question(s) got "personal" they started pushing back. No "stopping" or "halting" behavior ... they started pushing (assault) the guy back (which would be bad enough, but nobody would make much of that) ... and then took him down (aggravated assault??). I didn't see much resistance on Stark's part.... really he handled himself well given the circumstance (If it were me I would have kick somebody in the balls and maybe driven headlock boy through the glass window). In short it would have gotten real ugly and Allen probably would have been viewed with sympathy.

As it is .... this little episode is Macca 2.... with Allen's staff being the bullies this time around. And NO this guy IS NOT connected to the campaign ... dear Ms. Dolehead.

God help us .... please get Jim Webb elected. ... I know, I know .... he who helps himself...

Channel 4 (NBC) at 11 presented it as a notorious heckler/gadfly who approached Allen and started shoving Dan Allen (the famous Doofus of Tracker Torture) when he tried to "escort" him from the room.  Doofus describes him as threatening to the Senator and is seated in an interview expressing concern and saying that the Webb campaign should apologize for their guy.  The Webb campaign of course did not have anyone there and a female spokesperson was quoted as saying they knew nothing of the incident nor of Mr. Stark.  Mr. Stark comes off sounding like a bit of a nut who brags about bothering people like Bill O'Reilly.  He's also described as having a prior encounter with Allen, which makes him sound just below Letterman stalker level.

Channel 7 (ABC) showed only the scuffle near the window and announced he was thinking of filing charges.  They said he was wrestled to the ground after asking about Allen's divorce.  At least they called him a blogger and not a heckler or stalker. 

Don't know what the other outlets did.

This just makes my point about how this thing will play out re perceptions.  An old law professor of mine used to say that there's legal, and then there's sensible, and the two don't necessarily mesh.  What Mr. Stark did was legal, but once again I question the benefits of this behavior.  The attack on him might be borderline felonious, although with the lack of injury I don't think so, but it's not going to play that way in the press.  Mr. Stark goes out deliberately seeking controversy and intruding on his targets' space.  I've heard three correspondents describe him as "bragging" about his confrontations with right wingers such as O'Reilly and Allen.  He wrote of his plans before the encounter today.  This rubs a lot of people the wrong way, especially those over 30 who grew up with ideas of acceptable versus unacceptable behavior.  It's not that he speaks up or asks questions.  He's not waiting for answers to his questions.  It's all about the confrontation.  He becomes the issue, not the thing he's asking about.

saying that stark planned it, and maybe just a leetle bit deserved it, is the same argument that sicko perves say about the sluttily dressed teen. If she says no, and you still do it, its RAPE.

Any contact on stark, is assault, and is a felony.

Okay, Good.  I was afraid that the assault was not

 

and I certainly agree that any contact on Stark was an assault, but disagree as to whether it's a felony.  The vast majority of assaults are not felonies. 

As for planning it, I'd say Stark was surprised at the assault. He seemed to think he was going to be able to continue approaching Allen without physical repercussions.  Well, the courts are full of people who reacted physically to verbal provocation so I'm not surprised.  Judges who sit can get a little jaded after awhile, especially if they think the victim could have avoided the situation by behaving differently.  Thus, I've seen cases where judges will find the defendant guilty and give him a suspended imposition of sentence (SIS) for dismissal after a year, but will then chide the victim for bringing on the situation with obnoxious behavior. The video tape does not show Mr. Stark doing any more than advancing toward the Senator to ask his question, but by the time it gets to trial there will be a dozen defense witnesses detailing Mr. Stark's stalkerazzi behavior, and saying that they thought he was a real threat to the Senator and they were only trying to keep him from getting too close.  And they'll point out that Mr. Stark wasn't trying to ask a normal constituent type question, but rather one of a personal and insulting nature. It won't be positive, but it will keep the issue out there. 

I think that what the public will perceive from this, is that this senatorial race has become a 3 ring circus, and this was simply what occurred in one ring on one day. 

But, when you add up everything over time (macaca, "N" word, Allen's unexplained arrest record, not releasing the divorce records, the Allen's campaign's mis-characterization of the quotes taken from Webb's books, etc.) it all points to Allen being at the center of the problem. 

And, when people go to vote they will rehash these recent memories and many will experience a visceral reaction at the thought of voting for Allen.

Webb will then be elected.  :-)