If the man wasn't being disruptive, what's the problem?

@Graham - I don't know, but maybe exclusive broadcasting rights for KOIN, one of the event's sponsors? You can't film in a movie theater either, even if you aren't being disruptive.

I went to school with the man who "assaulted" him first. I don't think he did anything wrong other than push his camera down. He is a kind & very intelligent person. The other man took it too far though.

One of those men, as you can see by the name tag, is Charles McGee III. (This was first pointed out to me by @wyleecoyotejim, although not on Twitter.) The irony is that once upon a time

http://communique.portland.or.us/02/12/an_…

McGee eloquently spoke up against censorship, in favor of the open flow of information. So much for that.

The First Amendment only applies to governments not businesses or churches. He should have been arrested for trespassing after refusing to leave.

This is like when the taggers claim First Amendment then get upset when the homeowner shoots them claiming Second Amendment.

According to Lynn Heider at KOIN, whose reporters were in attendance at th event, they had "in no way exclusivity to the video". I have also heard that KOIN has asked the event organizers to apologize to the victim.

And the guy who threw the punch has been positively identified as former Democratic Portland Mayoral Candidate James Posey.

The man was not being disruptive, but calmly sitting in his seat with a camera, not in anybody's way. Even the seats on either side of him were empty, leaving plenty of room for the assaulters to position themselves for the attack. Since when is it the protocol for two men to surround a guy in his seat, and throw punches for such a harmless an non-disruptive offense? What ever happened to dragging a supposedly "unruly" man out of a public event, rather than punching him in the face? And how could Kitzhaber expect to win over any votes by turning the other cheek as he looked on at the assault, and the build up to the assault, and simply keep on talking, as if he had no concern? Not even a comment. Not even a pause. Is he really for the little guy? Is he really a Good Samaritan? Could he not have even been polite enough to stop speaking, as he sees a man being illegally assaulted right before his very eyes, at one of his own public campaign appearances, by those who hosted him?

On a seperate note, I always hear Kitzhaber and his closest supporters preaching about separation of Church and State, so what's the deal with holding a campaign event for a Gubernatorial candidate in a Church??? Isn't this against the Kitzhaber religion?

The man was not being disruptive, but calmly sitting in his seat with a camera, not in anybody's way. Even the seats on either side of him were empty, leaving plenty of room for the assaulters to position themselves for the attack. Since when is it the protocol for two men to surround a guy in his seat, and throw punches for such a harmless an non-disruptive offense? What ever happened to dragging a supposedly "unruly" man out of a public event, rather than punching him in the face? And how could Kitzhaber expect to win over any votes by turning the other cheek as he looked on at the assault, and the build up to the assault, and simply keep on talking, as if he had no concern? Not even a comment. Not even a pause. Is he really for the little guy? Is he really a Good Samaritan? Could he not have even been polite enough to stop speaking, as he sees a man being illegally assaulted right before his very eyes, at one of his own public campaign appearances, by those who hosted him?

On a separate note, I always hear Kitzhaber and his closest supporters preaching about separation of Church and State, so what's the deal with holding a campaign event for a Gubernatorial candidate in a Church??? Isn't this against the Kitzhaber religion?

@pacificrk - It was private property. The event organizers told him he couldn't film, and he did. It doesn't matter if he was 'sitting quietly' or 'not bothering anyone around him' or not - thems the rules, and they had every right to kick him out if he didn't follow them. You'd do the same if he was sitting in your house, filming.

I love you morons who think you can assault someone for not stopping filming at a PUBLIC event.

It was a public event - If they wished, they could have asked the police to remove him when he refused, HOWEVER, since it was a INVITED public event, they gave up most of thier power under the law to remove him physically. (And non defensive assault is a crime either way in a public forum such as a church)

And the loser who gave the analogy of the home and the second amendment. If you INVITE someone to your home, you cannot legally shoot him if he doesnt obey your commands. Invitees are not the same as intruders under any law in the United States. If you invite someone in your home, or any property, you cannot then use force, or deadly force, unless in a defensive measure. (Otherwise it would be a easy way to kill someone, invite them over, then say the person refused to leave and you had to shoot him)

Thank God the law is not what you morons think it is, and this jerk that assualted the man will face charges of assault an battery :)

@tiernanlaw I think you're on the wrong website. Go yell your strawman arguments somewhere else. I'm sure it feels orgasmic to think that you're right and everyone else is wrong, but indulge in some reading comprehension before you bust a nut: No one advocated shooting intruders or said that it was okay to assault this man. We simply said he didn't have a right to film at this event, even if he 'was sitting quietly and not bothering anyone.'

I spoke to KOIN. Lynn Heider told me directly that KOIN had "no exclusivity" to the video and that she didn't see any reason why anyone could not film should they wish to. They wanted the public to view the event in case, as was in mine, we could not personally attend.

@tiernanlaw? As in Bob Tiernan? You must not be very busy if you have time to bother us here.

the problem is, this guy filming is a fucking snake. who chops up videos, and spreads misinformation. you got what you deserved. someone who isn't me thinks you didn't get nearly what you deserved.