Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Susan Rice’s Pro-Kavanaugh Son Allegedly Assaulted on Stanford Campus

Susan Rice’s Pro-Kavanaugh Son Allegedly Assaulted on Stanford Campus

She got in my face and proceeded to hit me in the chest area and push me back forcefully.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sH0akjRDJsY

The Stanford Daily reported that Stanford University student Melissa Hernandez allegedly assaulted Stanford College Republican (SCR) President John Rice-Cameron, the son of President Barack Obama’s national security advisor Susan Rice.

The alleged assault occurred at a tabling event on campus the SCR held in support of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

From The Stanford Daily:

According to Stanford Department of Public Safety spokesperson Bill Larson, Hernandez was placed under a private person arrest and issued a citation for battery in response to Rice-Cameron’s allegations that she “shoved him in the chest with her hand during a verbal disagreement.” Larson added that there was no obvious physical injury to either party involved, and that Rice-Cameron declined to be evaluated by paramedics. Moving forward, the District Attorney’s Office will review the case and decide upon any further action.

A leaked message from Rice-Cameron to 76 SCR members confirmed that he filed a police report and is pressing “full charges” against the woman.

When approached by The Daily at the scene, Rice-Cameron refused to comment on the issue. In a subsequent statement to The Daily, Rice-Cameron said, “She got in my face and proceeded to hit me in the chest area and push me back forcefully.”

“Nobody should be assaulted on campus, under any circumstances,” he added.

Hernandez says “she merely touched Rice-Cameron on the chest after he refused to stop video recording without her consent.” One witness described her as “angry [and] upset” and combative:

“She kept getting in his face, louder and louder — she walked straight towards him and invaded his personal space and definitely put her hands on him,” he said.

Another witness, a member of SCR who also declined to be named, described the contact as a push, but not a “hard push,” given that Rice-Cameron wasn’t shoved to the ground.

The incident took place during a “Change My Mind” SCR event. This idea “comes from conservative Steven Crowder, who created the concept to hold long-form conversations on controversial topics with people who disagreed with him.”

It looks like Rice-Cameron had a right to video Hernandez, but maybe not with audio:

Jim Wheaton, Senior Counsel at the First Amendment Project and a Stanford expert in media law, told The Daily that “video and photographic recording are permitted in public spaces, and generally one has the right to record with video or photo anything that can be seen with the unaided eye if you have a right to be in that space.”

White Plaza, where the SCR event was held, is considered a “free speech area” by the University. Tabling by student groups for informational purposes requires no prior approval as per Student Activities and Leadership (SAL) policy.

Under California law, audio recordings are subject to different standards of consent than video recordings. Namely, Wheaton cited a state law that requires consent from all persons recorded in a “confidential conversation,” which does not necessarily need to occur in a private setting to be classified as such.

Wheaton noted that exceptions exist — including public speech, public meetings or arguments loud enough that participants “cannot claim they thought it was confined to” those involved — but said that, based on his understanding of the circumstances, SCR would have the right to “record the video, but not the audio, without permission.”

“Recording a conversation — even [one] in a public space — is a violation of law in California,” he concluded.

These videos show student Annie Zheng removing SCR’s posters off of the table and running away.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

The news here is that there are a few conservatives in the Stanford student body.

“Recording a conversation — even [one] in a public space — is a violation of law in California,” he concluded.

And yet, I’m willing to bet the campus is so covered with video cameras that if they wanted to, they could go back and track every step the perp took before and after the assault and theft.

We took a tour of 8 colleges in California this summer. After being treated to the diversity parade that was Stanford, all of us concluded that this institution wasn’t even worth the application.

    Agreed.
    As a Stanford alum of both undergraduate and law school, and having followed Stanford’s evolution for decades through its official propaganda, I am convinced that our country and the world would be better off if Stanford and its law school no longer existed.

Does Susan Rice think it’s okay someone assaulted her son? Who knows, after all, her former boss said that Democrats can’t act civilly to Republicans.

Don’t worry. Mom will take care of it when she becomes the Junior Senator from Maine.

    kenoshamarge in reply to MTED. | October 10, 2018 at 12:51 pm

    I hate to quibble – but don’t you have to reside in a state to represent it in the Senate? Having family live there doesn’t quite seem enough.

    Of course she can just ignore the laws and rules as so many in her party do.

      oldgoat36 in reply to kenoshamarge. | October 10, 2018 at 3:01 pm

      Hillary didn’t live in NY when she was running for Senate, she was a carpetbagger, so for the “right” people it doesn’t matter, only the D next to their names.

        Milhouse in reply to oldgoat36. | October 12, 2018 at 2:49 am

        Incorrect. Lady Macbeth moved into her NY house and became the Wicked Witch of Westchester well before the election, let alone before she took office.

      Milhouse in reply to kenoshamarge. | October 12, 2018 at 2:50 am

      Yes, a senator must be a resident of the state that elected him/her. Legally all that means is that if she’s elected from Maine she’ll have to move there before Jan-3. But politically, if she decides to run she will move there immediately.

Comanche Voter | October 10, 2018 at 12:13 pm

As they say, what goes around comes around. Susan Rice and her Democrat buddies have been promoting violence against conservatives–and her son gets punched.

Seems like a wussified moment to me for all parties.

By the way, do street reporters not have the right to record audio without consent in California?

    carolmcl in reply to healthguyfsu. | October 11, 2018 at 2:35 am

    Of course I’m no lawyer, but I believe that’s bunk, about the audio. If she stopped by that booth, she knew she was being recorded with audio.

buckeyeminuteman | October 10, 2018 at 12:30 pm

The apple has fallen far from the tree. And that’s a good thing in this case.

Perhaps mom Rice will blame the assault on a cheezy youtub video.

Is doxxing the same thing as unmasking? Asking for a friend.

Oh, well. There’s always Netflix n chill.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/obama-security-aide-susan-rice-joins-netflix-231908098.html

Seriously, though, even if son Rice was a lefty loon, there’s no excuse for an assault.

Stanford. What a global embarrassment. Have my tax dollars been defunded from this marxist diversiversity indoctrination camp??

“Mom, I was in real trouble. The PC Rules of Engagement holds that I was a male canNOT strike a female. I was in a real bind.”

“I understand, son, but how would it look if I make efforts to help you while on a college campus when I refused to help out US personnel, including an ambassador, in Benghazi who then died because of my actions. Though I suppose I could go on the same five Sunday shows and explain it away.”

If he would just drop those pesky conservative positions, he could live a violence-free life.

Hilarious, Susan Rice’s son is a conservative Republican, not hilarious, Susan Rice’s son is assaulted. US Department of Ed needs to force schools to treat all people fairly.

If you can see the cameras and the microphones then you know that you are not having a private conversation! Only private conversations must have all parties consent. Whoever is giving their legal opinion in the article is wrong. That said, it’s California so they courts may rule wrongly also.

I am surprised her son wasn’t arrested for hate speech, sexual assault, or some other nonsense charge. Stanford needs to pick up its game if they are going to keep up with the Portland NKVE.

Make sure that you and your kids know what the state laws are regarding video and audio in public places. To my knowledge video recording in public places is legal everywhere, security cameras and intersection cameras are ubiquitous. Audio recording is going to vary according to both the state and the situation.
Also consider installing an app on your phone that records only video and instantly uploaded to the cloud so when the punk takes your phone the recording of them stealing it is right there.

News cameras record both audio and video, and I’ve never heard a challenge to this. There’s no special class of citizenship for a person holding a news camera, so the law must be the same for them as for us. Perhaps they have more lawyers. Anyone here know the skinny?

    Anything you say to a “reporter” (wearing proper credentials) or someone who identifies themselves as such, is going to automatically be considered to have been spoken in public, unless you have some agreement with those reporters not to be referenced as the speaker.

    I sometimes give interviews on “Background” to help explain legal concepts to reporters in the Dallas area when they have some legal event that they HAVE to talk about in their story, but can’t figure out how to condense to less than 200 words or explain in less than 30 seconds. Something like what “Temporary Orders” means in a well-known washed-up Porn Star’s divorce case, for example.

Wheaton noted that exceptions exist — including public speech, public meetings or arguments loud enough that participants “cannot claim they thought it was confined to” those involved — but said that, based on his understanding of the circumstances, SCR would have the right to “record the video, but not the audio, without permission.”

“Recording a conversation — even [one] in a public space — is a violation of law in California,” he concluded.

Horse-Hockey. Jim Wheaton, Senior Counsel at the First Amendment Project and a Stanford “expert” in media law is full of crap. He is COMPLETELY ignoring California Penal Code Section 632(c).

(c) For the purposes of this section, “confidential communication” means any communication carried on in circumstances as may reasonably indicate that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the parties thereto, but excludes a communication made in a public gathering or in any legislative, judicial, executive, or administrative proceeding open to the public, or in any other circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded.

Of course this girl wanted to be heard. She is a left wing loon, after all.

permanent1999 | October 10, 2018 at 8:22 pm

I’ve never seen Democrats this mad since Republicans freed their slaves.

Where the fu-k is sessions and the Justice Department? Does Odumbo still run the damn place?

Apparently, according to the Benghazi Bugle, Rice claimed that the offensive video event caused a spontaneous riot and it wasn’t possible logistically to extract her son from the ensuing violence./

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend