Man charged with Assault for criticizing Cheney

Originally posted by esdad71
I am not contradicting myself, the USSS did nothing wrong. Nothing. Period.

Yes you did. You first stated on page 1 or 2 that a man is "inocent untill proven guilty" then you stated that "all are guilty". That, in my eyes is a contradiction....sorry if you don't see it.

Man griff, you make me laugh.

Good...it's nice to laugh every once in awhile.

First WTC, now this.

The patriot act was the start of things like this, so 9/11 has every relevence to this subject.

You really hate the government and seem ot want ot blame ALL the problmes on them, but answer me this.

No, I don't. My boyfriend actually works at the State Department. As a foreign advisor on nuclear proliferation....and many years on arms control...including space arms. So, don't sit there and tell me what I believe. I know....

Do you truly think it will be any different with someone else in office? If you do, then you sir are the one with blinders.

No, I don't. Unless we get a third party elected. I know you think I'm a leftist but to tell you the truth, I'm more conservative than liberal (and to give a datum of what I'm saying...my boyfriend is more Liberal, but the Republicans love him.....because he's not a crazy left wing liberal....I'm more conservative than him.) Please don't make assumptions of what I believe. I can state what you believe though because you've stated it. "All Hail Bush...All Hail Cheney....Cindy Shihan is the devil". Seriously dude...you say you look at both sides and come up to your own conclusions? May I ask....are you a part of the religious right who will demonize anyone who gets in their way? Cindy is the devil? Whether her son volunteered for the Army or not....it was Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeldt's policies that killed her child. Think about that. They are just as bad as the mob. Send in someone else to get killed or kill for the "boss". And yes. it makes me sick. Doesn't mean I'm against this country, government, troops or anything else. Nice try to make me look unpatriotic.

Originally posted by usaforever
He's telling the truth, can you please lay off of him guys. He gave us the article and everything, if you keep this up, I wil have to consider reporting you to the staff for trying to flame him.

He's telling the truth? Who's truth? The arresting officer? Oh, I forgot that the arresting officer couldn't be contacted for his testimony.....so who's truth are you going by? He's telling his version of the "truth".

BTW, go ahead and contact the Admin....I've done nothing wrong as far as the T&C of ATS.

It was Iraqis who killed her child, not our government. I think she is nothing but a puppet for left thinking and she wants attention. Nothing more, nothing less.

This thread is about whether or not the USSS acted wrongly, and they did not. They did what they are trained to do, assess a situation and act accordingly, which they did. Would you rather they lax security so they can be threatened or killed. You act upon suspicion or you are too late. Sorry if you cannot see that.

Also, I do not deem you in particular unpatriotic, unless you compare my country to Nazi germany, then yes, I have an issue.

Also, here is his admittance that he did touch Cheney...

www.denverpost.com...

Howards said he may have touched Cheney on the elbow or shoulder, like others in the crowd.

The story continues to change. No he MAY have tocuhed him, like others did.

Also, as far as the Sheehan is the devil remark, it is called sarcasm. Although, I cannot stand her and yes, I support Bush and Cheney, it was sarcasm. AS well as laughter, the world needs a little sarcasm...

[edit on 15-10-2006 by esdad71]

E71 with regard to your comment of Hitler wanting to rule the world you are wrong, Hitler wanted to do a deal with Britain and have the British Empire and a German one, that was his original plan but we were having none of it.

And as you seem to want members to read history how about doing it yourself and see the similarites between the US and Germany pre WW2. And what was a Nazi, somebody who blindly followed Hitler and his doctrines, Germans were superior to all others, does that ring any bells with you.

I think you mean tha members of British royalty were sympathitic to the Nazi movement?

HItler did not want only Britan, and if you think that, you are diluded. I do not blindly folllow anyone.

Now, anything else on Mr. Howard???

Originally posted by esdad71
Also, here is his admittance that he did touch Cheney...

www.denverpost.com...

Howards said he may have touched Cheney on the elbow or shoulder, like others in the crowd.

The story continues to change. No he MAY have tocuhed him, like others did.

So, why wern't these "others" arrested also? Also, he didn't admit that he DID touch Cheney....it says he MAY HAVE...there's a difference.

I see this situation has 2 points 1. has an individual in a democracy have the right to speak out/to elected officials. 2. does the actions of the individual pose any threat to the elected member.

Yes, in a democracy any person has the right to speak out/to any elected official.

The SS are supposed to be experts in risk management of VIP's, did this person pose a risk, obviously not, could the SS have said to Howards this is not the right time or place and dealt with the situation there and then, yes they could of but they chose not to why. Instead he was arrested and held for 3 hours and eventualy was not charged.

You can look at this and think it was his own fault he should of kept quite or you could say he was right and the way he was dealt with was ridiculous, and a waste of time and money.

It comes down to your interpretation of the meaning of democracy, liberty and freedom. You have stated that because of comparisons mentioned that if it America was like Nazi Germany then Howards and his son would of been shot. Well that depends on the time frame, in the thirtys there were many demonstrations against Hitler and his ideology and initially nobody was shot.

If you want to believe that your Goverment, Country, war in Iraq are all right and good thats your choice as it is to those who do not agree. If people are concerned about the state of their Country and its Goverment that is healthy in a democracy, Goverments are elected by the will of the people and it is they the Goverment who are accountable to the people and not the other way round.

And by the way the first rule of authority is to challenge that authority as failure to do so means the quick removal of freedom and liberty. As your fond of mentioning the Nazi'z if enough people had spoken out against Hitler they could of stopped him and his regime before it ever got started, or are you saying that the people should have obeyed him just as you obey your Goverment.

Cheney was shaking hands Griff with people in the crowd.

When you ask a kid if he took cookies out of the jar, and he say 'I don't think so" or "I may have", you know he did. This is partial admittal to something he knows is wrong. Howard is using the same answers.

You should challenge authority, and there are forums for that. I would have known better than to do what he did, even though it is his right. It is about using common sense. IF you create a website that says KillBush, you may get a visit from someone to check you out. If you come in close contact with the VP of the US, make a anit-government statement, and then return to the scene of the incodent, you should expect to be questioned. If not, then they are not doing their job and when someone else is in office, they would not be doing thier job either.

Also, I believe it was the threat of communism that made the Nazi party so attractive in the early 30's. It was after the death of HIndenberg in 34 that it began to get ugly.

OK. I'm done argueing with you Esdad. Obviously no ammount of "common sense" will get you to change your viewpoint. Just remember what you've said in this thread when you might have said the wrong thing and they take you away and handcuff you for 3 hours. Say to yourself "they're only doing their job". Good day to you sir.

I am arguing the fact that in this instance, nothing was done wrong. I know there are overzealous law enforcement, and I have had a real bad run in with them that left me in the hospital with a broken nose and bruised ribs. Does this mean however, for the rest of my life I cannot trust another person in authority? No, I just make sure not to put myself in unforgivable situations.

This is not about changing someones mind, it is about right and wrong.

If you come in close contact with the VP of the US, make a anit-government statement, and then return to the scene of the incodent, you should expect to be questioned.

He was more than questioned..He was arrested and charged with assult.....And what exactly was his anti goverment statement? Telling cheney he did not like the war in iraq? Since when is it a crime to question what are govt does? Lest you forget the govt works for us (according to the constution) not the other way around. Obvisously the guy did not commit a crime or the da would not have dropped the charges.....this is a clear case of misconduct on behalf of the secret service and the only question is did cheney order it?

And......I guess most Americans still think that the Fascia symbols which appear on the back wall of Capitol Hill are just decoration. They've been there for decades and so has fascism. Get used to this type of treatment , it will get worse. The next time a SOTU address is given you'll see them when they pan back for a wide shot. Hidden in plain sight!

No, Cheney did not order it, this is in the thread. It is protocol to detain and question anyone they seeas suspicous? Ever see the movie Taxi Driver?

It is protocol to detain and question anyone they seeas suspicous? Ever see the movie Taxi Driver?

So movies are the source of your knowledge and information?

The Secret Service is authorized to charge suspects with breaching security or disruptive behavior at National Special Security Events, but only if the president or another person under the protection of the service is in attendance, according to a legislative summary. This is in the Patriot act I believe.

and

quote]
www.washingtonpost.com...

But Specter and his aides said the first change is meant to close a loophole in current law, whereas the second is aimed at making clear that the Secret Service has authority at major events as outlined in a Clinton-era presidential directive.



Wow, Clinton did something like this.....


and To the wise guy- I was trying to give a pop culture reference. If you feel you can add something to the thread, please, contribute something more than a drive-by troll statement. and Yeah, I get all my knowledge from FoxNews and Beavis and Butthead cartoons. What a tool.....



[edit on 16-10-2006 by esdad71]
[

[edit on 16-10-2006 by esdad71]

esdad71
posted on 16-10-2006 at 08:58 AM (post id: 2554132) - single

* * * I am arguing the fact that in this instance, nothing was done wrong. I know there are overzealous law enforcement, and I have had a real bad run in with them that left me in the hospital with a broken nose and bruised ribs. Does this mean however, for the rest of my life I cannot trust another person in authority?

This thread is not about trusting people in authority. If we accept as true every FACT that's been reported about this incident as true it leads to the inescapable conclusion that Mr. Howards was wronged. THE SS has not reported any FACTS to the media. They have only said that Howards was "argumentative and combative". Those are conclusory characterizations, not facts. The SS has failed to say what Mr. Howards said and what Mr. Howards did. The SS has failed to put forth any FACTS that refute Mr. Howards' acccount of what happened. Why? It's called maintaining deniability or, in common terms, covering your guilty ass.

If I were to apply your logic to the incident where you were beaten by the cops, it would go like this: You clearly deserved to be put in the hospital with a broken nose and bruised ribs. You must have done something illegal. You must have been argumentative and combative. Otherwise the cops wouldn't have done that. You probably resisted arrest and physically attacked the cops. You were obviously a crazed and dangerous mad man at that time and the cops had no choice but to beat the crap out of you to get you under control. The cops wouldn't have done that unless you were behaving in a disorderly way. Don't try to defend what you did. I don't need to hear anything else. The cops were right because they're cops and you aren't. I don't know why they let you back on the streets. Now we're all in danger! Besides, I know some cops who would never do that to someone unless the person deserved it! Case closed!

[edit on 10/16/2006 by dubiousone]

esdad71...I got to give u props! There are always 2 sides to a story. For those of you who can't acknowledge this, you are not denying ignorance, whatever your political persuasion.

I have worked in many situations similar to this, regarding security. Sometimes you have to stop everything that's going on and you have to go with your gut. If this guy seemed even a little suspicious, they had every right to question him and when he was not cooperating, detain him. Especially in this current political climate.

And I must say that this attacking of people because they have a different opinion than you is deplorable and immature. Maybe by asking people why they feel the way they do, you might actually learn something. Kudos to esdad71 for standing up for himself and what he believes in!

Originally posted by MrMedic
There are always 2 sides to a story. For those of you who can't acknowledge this, you are not denying ignorance, whatever your political persuasion.
they had every right to question him and when he was not cooperating, detain him. Especially in this current political climate.

Seems you are doing the same thing as you condem some of us as doing. So, you are taking the word of the SS over Howards? By what proof? Remember the 2 sides to every story BS you just spouted?

esdad71
posted on 16-10-2006 at 08:58 AM (post id: 2554132) - single

I am arguing the fact that in this instance, nothing was done wrong.

esdad, you are not arguing facts at all. You're merely pronouncing, in the absence of evidence, that the SS acted properly in arresting Mr. Howards. You are now just repeating the same old line despite anything said by others. We get it. Your point is that no-one should dare to be critical of an authority figure within earshot of that figure, especially when our words may be deemed critical or offensive.

It's plain that you will always take the word of authority over that of a citizen, unless the authorities corroborate the citizen's version. I hope you never get chosen to sit on a criminal trial jury because, if you are, the defendant may as well forego a trial even though innocent.

[edit on 10/16/2006 by dubiousone]

Wow, you sounded jsut like the PA that the state had. You are right, I did nothing wrong, but the cops beat the hell out of me, and enjoyed it. They told me that there was nothing I could do about when I was in the car, since they were both 10+ year vets of the SPPD and their word is bond. That is how it is made a open and shut case and gave me a year probation. However, this does not mean every law official is a s***bag.

I can only assume, but I am sure that they took the guy in, ran him through a few databases (they run every person arrested when booked through a nationwide anti-terror database) and he was released. Big deal. He was not injured, nor was he charged. He should be glad he was able to say his peace and leave it at that. THat is what you do when someone acts combative to general questioning, especially if you are in the vicinity of the VP of the US.

His first amendant rights were not violated, and that is what he is suing for.