Did You Assault The Vice President?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

MrsSpringsteen

Blue Crack Addict
Joined
Nov 30, 2002
Messages
29,223
Location
Edge's beanie closet
You can't say that to the VP in the United States of America? Assuming he did say that (or words to that effect, as it says in the article) and didn't threaten him in any way-how can you legally be arrested for that? Maybe I'm just naive about the legalities. Assault? Is that supposed to be some sort of verbal assault? Then they called it harassment. Is that harassment?

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_5039230,00.html
 
What he quoted himself as saying doesn't sound like a threat to me. But I don't know why we should trust that what he quoted himself as saying is actually what he said.
 
Cheyne can Kiss My Ass. Even God dislikes him if he almost had a heart attack and need heart surgery a few years ago.
 
I have no idea what the law in the US is. Certainly in Canada this doesn't amount to an assault. Not under our Criminal Code or civilly.
 
Denver Post
.............................
"I was handcuffed and arrested in the presence of my young son for simply telling Mr. Cheney that his policies in Iraq are reprehensible," said Howards, an environmental consultant and former director of the Regional Air Quality Council in 1986-1991.

[Secret Serivce Agent Virgil] Reichle refused to comment and referred all media inquiries to his boss, Agent-in-Charge Lon Garner, who failed to return phone calls.
............................
About 10 minutes later, Howards and his 8-year-old son were walking back through the square when Reichle allegedly walked up to Howards and asked him whether he had assaulted the Vice President. "He came out of the shadows," Howards said. "He didn't accuse me but asked me if I had assaulted Cheney. I said no, he grabbed me and handcuffed me behind my back in front of my son. As he led me away, I told him I can't abandon my son. He said he'd call social services." Howards said Reichle told him he was being charged with the felony crime of assaulting the Vice President. An Eagle County sheriff's deputy drove him to jail, where Howards' wife bonded him out three hours later.

Howards eventually was charged with harassment, a misdemeanor crime, which Eagle County District Attorney Mark Hurlbert dropped on July 6. "We filed a motion to dismiss the charge because we didn't think we could prove it beyond a reasonable doubt because we had gotten word that the Vice President did not wish to prosecute Howards," Hurlbert said Monday. "Originally, he was going to be charged with assault because the information we got from Secret Service was that he had pushed the Vice President. We learned later that it had been only verbal."
It does seem a bit odd--you'd think that if he'd done anything remotely "assault"-like, they'd have been all over him in an instant, not 10 minutes later.
 
yolland said:

It does seem a bit odd--you'd think that if he'd done anything remotely "assault"-like, they'd have been all over him in an instant, not 10 minutes later.

Exactly!!!

And we still have those that refuse to acknowledge the abuse of power this admin displays.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


Exactly!!!

And we still have those that refuse to acknowledge the abuse of power this admin displays.

And those who refuse to believe the story of every single person out there who doesn't have evidence to support his/her claim.
 
80sU2isBest said:


And those who refuse to believe the story of every single person out there who doesn't have evidence to support his/her claim.

I'm not saying every story out there is true, but how many have we heard like this? Quite a bit. How many did we hear in previous admin? Very few to none.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


I'm not saying every story out there is true, but how many have we heard like this? Quite a bit. How many did we hear in previous admin? Very few to none.

Are you kidding me?

Whitewater?

Vince Foster?

Rose Law Firm scandal?

The Hillar Clinton White House Firings?
 
80sU2isBest said:


Are you kidding me?

Whitewater?

Vince Foster?

Rose Law Firm scandal?

The Hillar Clinton White House Firings?

Ok, yeah, you aren't getting the point. I'm talking about everyday citizens getting arrested, investigated, or being censored at public speakings because of dissent.:huh:
 
Last edited:
BonoVoxSupastar said:


Ok, yeah, you aren't getting the point. I'm talking about everyday citizens getting arrested, investigated, or being censored at public speakings because of dissent.:huh:

You were talking about abuse of power. I gave you examples of alleged abuses of power by the Clinton admin.
 
What does any of this have to do with whether an assault was committed?

Google the Colorado Criminal Code, you should have your answer in 2 minutes flat. And I'm willing to bet the answer is a big, fat NO.
 
Justin24 said:
Even God dislikes him if he almost had a heart attack and need heart surgery a few years ago.

This has nothing to do with the point of the thread, but you honestly believe heart attacks and heart problems mean God dislikes someone? Whoa. I've had a minor heart problem, I guess God doesn't like me either.

I don't understand how saying something and pushing the VP could be mixed up like that. Hmmm. The Secret Service can certainly distinguish between the two. So why did they even file the harassment charge? Stating an opinion is not harassment, if that really is all he said.
 
http://blogs.rockymountainnews.com/...6/10/what_can_you_say_to_a_vice_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 said:
"...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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom