The Seattle Times endorsed Republican Kevin Haistings today over incumbent Democratic Rep. Roger Goodman in the 45th Legislative District… apparently the same Kevin Haistings who roughed up a cameraman at a press conference the Seattle Police Officers Guild held to announce their endorsement of Dino Rossi in the 2008 gubernatorial race.
Huh. It’s good to see the Times finally moving beyond its whole anti-labor/union-thug meme by, you now… actually endorsing one:
Republican Kevin Haistings would bring a pragmatic, independent voice to the principal task in Olympia: wrestling a tight budget.
That is, when he’s not wrestling a cameraman.
Equally amusing is the Times’ characterization of Haistings as “a political novice.” Apparently, they gave Haistings a mulligan for his failed 2008 run against Rep. Larry Springer. Kinda the political equivalent of regaining your virginity.
Anyway, here’s the video of Haistings dragging a cameraman out of a press conference, and then grabbing his camera and shoving him while he stood on the sidewalk outside the building. This is the sort of bipartisanship the Times thinks we need more of in Olympia.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gs0gfs2ZX5w&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]
The cameraman was told to leave and that he was trespassing, and he was. He was even advised beforehand not to enter the building. He did anyway. He was committing a crime. Check the private property laws and also refusing a lawful order from a police officer assholes, and see for yourself. The actions he got as a result was completely, totally, and legally justified. End of story, and good job to the SPD for enforcing the law.
Thanks for re-posting this Goldy, even a tenderhanded political muckraker like you needs to obey, understand, and follow the law, whether you like it, agree with it, or not. When you are told to leave private property and you refuse, you get what you deserve as a result.
Besides, don’t all you Libtards just love unions so much?
Good day all.
Anonymous Coward @1,
The guy was assaulted for attempted to record a press conference, an event that once might reasonable assume to be public, since that is, after all, the purpose of press conferences: to publicize stuff.
And FYI, if you click through to my old post on this, you’ll see video of how Democrats welcome Republican trackers. Compare and contrast.
Goldy limp-dick tenderhands @2:
He was not assaulted, he was forcibly removed from private property after being informed beforehand he was not welcome, and then later asked to leave. If this was so illegal, then how come there was nothing filed against the SPD and the Officers involved? Where’s all the outrage? Where’s the big story?
(crickets chirp….)
That building is not a “public place” as you like to shriek. Your argument has no legal merit whatsoever, you’re just tying to poke the hornets nest to distract your readers from the failures and shortcomings on the Libtard side, and attempt to slam Mr. Haistings as per your usual M.O. Arguing with you on this topic is fruitless, and you obviously need to brush up on the RCW’s. See trespassing, obstructing, and failure to obey a lawful order from a police officer for a start.
See you in November when your little bald head explodes. I may even feel enough pity for you at that point in time to buy you a beer. Good luck!
Is this guy some sort of a union member or leader? And even if he is, why use the right wing ‘union thug’ smear in the headline?
Mark1
Haistings continued his assault on a public sidewalk. He had no legal justification for doing so. Even you cannot justify his actions outside the building. This episode surely speaks volumes concerning how Haistings deals with those whose opinions differ from his. Roger Goodman is smart, a good fit for his district, and much more qualified for this position than is Haistings. The Times should be ashamed of itself.
Good catch, Goldy. I’m sure he can’t wait to bring his “tender” manner to Olympia.
Selectively pursuing one cameraman, out of many at the event, physically removing him, and restraining him outside on a public street, does not meet the private event/trespass law standards. Which is clearly why no charges were filed against the reporter (it is a shame we can’t access the civil claims against the SPD). The thug took it upon himself to remove a journalist he specifically targeted, much like Rossi did during much of his campaign. Standing up for that behavior, by offering legal crap, is the mark of trollness.
Maybe the Times thinks we need more wingnuts in Olympia, no surprise. Only a low-information, low-intelligence voter would choose a candidate based on a Times endorsement anyway. It’s a good thing they are not the majority in this state.
Kirk91 @4,
Um… I was being ironic.
@1 Thanks for reminding us that Republicans don’t want the public to see their campaign events, Mark. Why should anyone vote for a party that conducts secret campaigns? I mean, do you really know what you’d be getting if they got into office?
@1 (continued) Republicans also oppose campaign finance laws, because they don’t want voters to know who they’re taking money from, or what they’re giving away to get it.
It must suck going through life with such a little dick.
Irony or not, pretty typical Union Thug behavior.
I’m pro union, but:
The city needs an open shop drive for the SPD against SPOG. Thugs using the labor relations process to get away with beatings and murder– literally– need to go to prison. The city needs to grow some and have the guild decertifed or dissolved under RICO.
Then we taxpayers can engage in the mass firings that are necessary to clean up the place, root out the corruption, and get officers that actually want to do the job right for the citizens. Fire all of their asses. I don’t give a rats ass if they are Teamsters.
9. Goldy Er is this like the irony of Darcy Burner supporting single payer by urging folks not to mention single payer?
Note that Republicans hate unions.
Unless they are unions consisting of police officers.
And unless those particular unions happen to also support Republicans.
Until they ask for a raise. Then they become, in the eyes of Republicans, lazy and overpaid socialists feeding off the public tit.
Unless the raise for the police comes from everyday citizens, not by taxing the wealthy. Then, they are all for it.
@16
That’s very confusing, but aptly descriptive.
It will be very interesting to see what the union says about the officer who shot the deaf wood carver in downtown Seattle. I recently read an article that said the woodcarver was shot in the side four times, including one shot to the side of the head.
It’s hard to believe that a 50 year old man holding a 3 inch folding knife, who wasn’t even facing or looking at the officer, posed enough of a threat to warrant his death. I was in the Army in Iraq for several years, and I saw plenty of Iraqis holding small knives. I never felt the need to shoot any of them.
rhp6033 @16,
That’s not completely true. Republicans also like the prison guard unions.
Haistings and Pam Roach in the same caucus could be amusing though.
Re 16
Any sane person with a basic sense of justice hates unions. The basic principle, that those hired to do a job dictate the terms of employment on which they will condescend to work have any right whatever to do so is ludicrous. (This assumes of course that union members work. Wouldn’t that be a novelty?) Those who capitalize and run a business have the sole right to dicate terms of employment within the laws established to govern those terms. If employees don’t like it, they have every right to seek employment elsewhere.
Prior to basic laws governing wages, work hours, worker safety, child labor and so on in the early part of the last century there was a good reason for unions. That is no longer true.
A union is no more or less than a gang of extortionate thugs threatening the very people who pay their wages in 2010. They should be illegal. In a rational world they would be prosecuted under the RICO statutes.
“This assumes of course that union members work. Wouldn’t that be a novelty?”
You obviously have no idea what you’re talking about.
“Those who capitalize and run a business have the sole right to dicate terms of employment within the laws established to govern those terms. If employees don’t like it, they have every right to seek employment elsewhere.”
“They should be illegal.”
Gawd, you’re stupid. And full of hate and contempt for America and the American worker. Maybe you should move to Italy already.
Re 21
I’ve worked in union shops and non union. I’ve worked with union companies and non union. Union shops were always based on contract requirements, not personal choice. If a person wants an actual 8 hours of work for 8 hours pay, the latter is the only way to get it.
Steve,
The American worker is largely non-union. Of those who are union many are so by occupation or accident, not personal preference. (Machinist, Safeway clerk etc) So my ‘hatred’ for America and American workers is in your own mind, not mine.
The only problem with Italy is that the union sense of undeserved entitlement in workers is nearly universal in employees there. A socialist state has way of making things that way.
lost @ 20
Surely, you are just trying to be funny, right? You can’t possibly believe what you have posted. I am an employer, not an employee. I know damned well that I can learn from my employees. Employers who can listen to employees, especially those who might be organized, are better employers. You are simply someone who is ideologically set in stone. You, lost, are lost.
Steve,
lost is plainly on one of those nights when he ain’t worth talking to, wouldn’t you say?
Re 25
“You can’t possibly believe what you have posted.”
Yes, in fact I can.
I have been an employer and an employee. As an employer I work very hard to foster an environment where employees felt comfortable telling me what I could do better.
But to move from wisely recognizing that I can learn from others to assuming they have a right to run my business for me is a step I can’t see taking.
lost,
You just don’t get it. Unions don’t run businesses. But, ideological freaks like you don’t get that.
Let’s get back to the point of this post. Roger Goodman is a Harvard grad, with a law degree from George Washington. http://rogergoodman.org/AboutRoger.php
His opponent is way over his head. Education matters, people.
really Goldy? musta been a slow news day
This was a crap story when it was fresh. It’s still a crap story and it typifies how far the leftards will go to bend the story.
@26 Lost never did get around to explaining how it is that union workers don’t do any, um, work.
Of course, he tells us that he always presents reasoned arguments and never attacks anybody. In other words, he’s a lying asswipe. He presents opinion as fact, never backing up any of what he spews. About the only honest thing he ever wrote here was in regards to America’s “lazy” unemployed workers. Repeatedly asked, “where will the millions of unemployed find work?”, he wrote, “I don’t know and I don’t care.”
“I have been an employer and an employee.”
Lost an employee who was shit canned from his last job and I can understand why. I’m sure I’d have found plenty of reasons to fire his lying ass myself.
31
lost doesn’t do nuance very well. He’s a black and white kind of guy. I’m kind of thinking he should be recognized for his trollism . . .
If Haistings wrongfully assault the camera person when ejecting him from the premises, then why hasn’t he been SUED over this?
Sure, there are probably a lot of people wrongfully roughed up by police who NEVER sue them. Especially when many of these people are lowlifes with long records, low mentality, and lots of personal problems.
But our camera man is a pretty bright fellow, and highly motivated. If there was any reasonable civil case against Haistings (or possibly even a weak one), then I am sure he could find a politically motivated lawyer to sue Haistings in a civil court for money damages.
I have seen several video clips out there in public circulation of Seattle and other local law enforcement officers engaging in what appeared to be clearly unjustified force. And read newspaper accounts of other incidents like that.
Haistings’ actions DEFINITELY DO NOT fit into this category. You can strongly disagree with the political decision of Dino Rossi and the Seattle police union to close this campaign event and disallow opposition filming. But legally, they had the right to exclude trespassers and to use reasonable force in doing so (which would have been equally justified by someone who didn’t have a badge).
@23: Lost – you are lost.
If we look at the actual facts, countries with more unionized workers are wealthier, more educated and better of than those contries that have fewer unions. In fact, as unionization has decreased in the US – actual wages and benefits for the middle class have gone down.
Of course, if you are simple-minded and believe erroneously that the management is always right and that they can (and should) fire any worker at any time for no reason at all – then you might dislike unions.
But if you actually live in the real world, where actual workers might actually want some protections from arbitrary managment.
“I’m kind of thinking he should be recognized for his trollism . . .”
Contempt for the unemployed and those facing forclosure – the victims of the failure of Reaganomics. Contempt for America’s women by his wanting to control their bodies. Contempt for American workers. Contempt for community organizers. FDR a traitor. Lost as constitutional scholar. America has been ruined and his longing for the good ol’ days of the 19th century. Threatening to move to Italy if he doesn’t get his way. Opinion stated as fact. Narcissism unbound. I think we might have a GG winner here, PL.
Richard @ 33 said: “If Haistings wrongfully assault the camera person when ejecting him from the premises, then why hasn’t he been SUED over this?….”
Richard, I’m surprised that you would take this position. I’ve heard those not educated in the law who might say something like this, but I’ve never heard it uttered by a lawyer before.
There are probably a thousand and one reasons why someone wouldn’t choose to start a lawsuit. Some personal (the wife doesn’t want the family involved in what might be years of turmoil and inconvenience), the fact that no physical harm was done (limiting an award of damages to the merely symbolic). Maybe he just didn’t want to risk having the defendant pass the word around that he desearves “strict enforcement” of every traffic law in the future. It may, or may not, have any reflection on the merits of the case itself.
If that guy is a cameraman our profession is doomed. I’m a cameraman, and his footage sucked. Total novice. Labeling him a cameraman does a disservice to all of us that do it for a living