It's too bad those guys didn't just call the police on the guy filming. He does not have a right to film in a private building period -- especially when asked to stop multiple times. He could have been cited for trespassing and disturbing the peace, and that would have been it.

It is unfortunate that the altercation took place since it really didn't help anything. Unlike Chris Dudley who was filmed saying he wanted to cut the minimum wage for some of our lowest income workers (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fww9HA3ayxA), John Kitzhaber wouldn't make a dumb gaffe that could be replayed on Youtube (although his supporters evidently did). It's too bad Chris Dudley is afraid to debate Kitzhaber and won't actually show up to these public forums -- how is Dudley even taken seriously as a candidate?

Couple of questions:

1. How was this event advertised? Was it advertised in public? If it was advertised in public, does the public advertisement turn the event within a "private building" into a public event?

2. Can private, religious buildings hold events with candidates for public office without violating their tax exempt status?

3. Does the "no filming in a private building" take precedence and completely dismiss the assault that was videotaped?

The comments on both YouTube and Willamette Week are both enlightening and disturbing.

Following the logic of Kitzhaber supporters, it would be legal to commit a crime such as assault on someone in your house because they brought a camera into a "private building" and did not turn off their camera when they wanted you to.

The onus or preponderance is on Kitzhaber supporters to convince everyone it was legal to assault the camera man.

So where is the consistency?

Edit: should read "did not turn off their camera when you wanted them to."

Ryan,

1). You can have a public event in a private building with your own rules. i.e. "no shirts, no shoes, no service." If people don't respect your rules in your private building, then yes, you can ask them to leave (which they apparently didn't -- they just asked him to turn off the camera). Not leaving definitely doesn't give them the right to beat on him, however. They should have just called the cops and had him arrested.

2). Churches and nonprofits can have candidate forums where they invite all of the candidates without risking the loss of their nonprofit status. Chris Dudley has been afraid to be on the same stage with Kitzhaber, so he has declined to appear at these forums. As such, the event may continue without any risk to the church's nonprofit status since they offered the opportunity to everyone. The church may not, however, advocate on behalf of any candidate or tell anyone how to vote. Having a blanket rule of no videotaping does not help or hurt any candidate (especially since the event was been streamed live on KOIN anyway).

3). The cameraman should not have been assaulted -- he should have been arrested for trespassing and disorderly conduct. That was a dumb move on the assailant's part. If Dudley had the courage to show up for a debate, however, I'm certain he would be spanked by our former Governor (figuratively, off course). That's a video I will look forward to seeing.

I haven't been super excited about Kitzhaber as the Democratic nominee since he's kind of a "has been", but in comparison to Dudley's "never was", it's an easy choice for me. Combine that with the lack of courage to even debate the issues, and there's no question in my mind.

Doc

When you're ahead in the polls, and your opponent is embroiled in scandals, agreeing to debate him is like throwing him a life preserver.

If videotaping in that church is prohibited, maybe they should ban assaults on visitors too?

At the church I attend, they videotape all services and private events from the balcony. Simply to create a record for posteriority.

I too am disappointed that Dudley is not participating in the several debate opportunities that have been offered.

I note with dismay, that he has declined to appear at the PDX City Club on October 8 for the traditional governor race debate.

That said, I am also disappointed at the many folks who agree it is OK to assault someone when they don't comply. What harm was done by making a video?

I looked on the KOIN site and could not find any video of the Kitzhaber appearance; if it was streamed live, there doesn't appear to be any archive.

Kitzhaber is pleasant to listen to, but so is Dudley. The avoidance of a debate is a calculated move on Dudley's part.

I have been invited to several Kitzhaber and Dudley appearances (no cost ones), but have been unable to attend.

Neither candidate is a great choice for governor, but the climate in Oregon is one that makes it difficult for strong and competent candidates to step up. Kitzhaber's past shows us what little he is able to accomplish with the legislature - we all remember "Dr. No". And we don't know what Dudley will be able to do, either.

As Jack suggests, the choices really are the back room teams of Kitzhaber or Dudley that we are electing. Perhaps those are the folks who should be at the candidate forums.

It is childs play to provoke the al sharptons of the world. Both sides of the incident wrong! We would have never heard of this if the person taping was black. It is about power, turf and race.

And Kitzhaber stood there watching and said nothing.

Doc

Why mislead about the what Dudley said?

If you want to see the statement in context where it clearly shows Dudley was QUOTING a restaurant owner, go to: THE TRUTH

I haven't heard a single person say this assault was okay -- that's a straw man fallacy and is just silly. He should not have been assaulted, and the person that did it should face assault charges. It was simply inappropriate.

That being said, the other bad argument is that the person who assaulted him was on Kitzhaber's team. I also haven't seen anything that indicates that to be the case either. Perhaps he just lost his cool because the video tape guy was being a complete ass. It's no excuse, but definitely a plausible explanation. Saying the person who assaulted him represents Kitzhaber without any proof is just making stuff up to disparage Kitzhaber's reputation.

Lastly -- I don't see any difference whatsoever in Dudley's message "in context" with MP97303's video. He is advocating lowering the minimum wage or stiffing waitresses out of their tips. It's really spoken like an elitist who has never worked a minimum wage job in his life (and probably doesn't know anyone that has). I wasn't super hot on Kitzhaber before, but if these are the types of policies we'll see from Dudley, I will go door to door for John Kitzhaber.

a record for posteriority.

This wins the thread, hands down.

Whoops...Mah fingers too big, mah fingers too fast.

I had to read it twice out loud before I realized it was wrong.

And Kitzhaber stood there watching and said nothing.

That is a punchline that can be used over and over.

There are other ways to handle stuff like this without violence until the authorities get there. I've been part of a group that handled people at events looking to cause trouble and it was all non-violent. Everyone involved in this is an idiot. The church should have clearly posted their rules so there was no room for debate. The idiot should have respected the rules. He could be cited for trespass though the DA is loathe to prosecute that one. And the morons should have called the cops and not taken matters into their own hands. They will surely be cited for assault.