Did You Assault The Vice President? - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 10-05-2006, 09:21 AM   #16
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 06:06 PM
http://blogs.rockymountainnews.com/d..._pre.html#more

"You make excellent points in your first and third paragraphs. The Secret Service's job is to not only protect our leaders from immediate harm but to deter any possibilities of future harm as well. The fact that he left after his first "verbal assault" indicates that maybe they let him go because initially he was no threat, and he was no longer a problem. However, if they felt that his "reappearance" was indication that he was "stalking" the entourage, then they had the duty to detain him and see what his deal really was.

Nevertheless, this lawsuit will ultimately fail in my opinion since the highly professional Secret Service agents did not physically harm him in any way. It is for publicity purposes, but I think it is a telling example of the Vice President's tendency to squelch any and all dissent. That makes it newsworthy."

Part of another comment..

"Criminal profiling is a difficult and touchy subject. Sometimes a persons demeanor is enough to intervene on irrespective of the words said."



So since the Secret Service didn't physically harm him the lawsuit will fail? Shouldn't the Secret Service be held accountable? Yes it's their job to protect the President and VP and others, but it's not their job to suppress dissent. There has to be a balance. So they can arrest someone because they can suspect them of "stalking"? And it's stalking to come back once after leaving once? And he can be arrested based upon his demeanor?
__________________

__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 10-05-2006, 10:13 AM   #17
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 12:06 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen
"...The fact that he left after his first 'verbal assault' indicates that maybe they let him go because initially he was no threat, and he was no longer a problem. However, if they felt that his 'reappearance' was indication that he was 'stalking' the entourage, then they had the duty to detain him and see what his deal really was."
The problem with this is that, as the District Attorney already acknowledged, he was charged at the Secret Service's instruction with assaulting Cheney, not stalking him--a charge which they then reneged on. Anyhow, for still being in the vicinity, child in tow, 10 minutes after verbally expressing disagreement to constitute "stalking" (not a charge the Secret Service made) would seem like quite a stretch. Again, if he'd said or done anything threatening or criminally obstructive at the time, a competent Secret Service agent would've had him in handcuffs on the spot.
__________________

__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 10-05-2006, 10:49 AM   #18
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 06:06 PM
I just have to wonder if the Secret Service has always operated in such a way, or if it has any relation to who is President. And if they operate by their own set or rules so to speak that is not always directly related to a criminal code. At what point does that become scary? Not everything can be justified by a pressing need to protect our leaders, can it?

The "regular" police-what is their power to arrest based solely upon demeanor?
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 10-05-2006, 11:04 AM   #19
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
CTU2fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 5,366
Local Time: 07:06 PM
Arrest/detain people based on what we assume they might do down the road? Great idea...but why stop there, instead of arresting them, just shoot them. And his kid too, can't discount genetics. Funny we don't want people burning a flag, but torching the Constitution is just peachy.
__________________

__________________
CTU2fan is online now  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:06 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com