Posts: 5,055
Threads: 1,141
Joined: Oct 2021
Reputation:
0
http://www.npr.org/2012/03/21/148606249/...rime?sc=fb&cc=fp
The U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments Wednesday in a case involving the arrest of a Colorado man who was thrown in jail after telling Vice President Cheney in 2006 that the Bush Administration's policies in Iraq were "disgusting."
What makes this case doubly fascinating is the fact that even the Secret Service agents involved in the arrest do not agree on what happened. The agents who actually saw the encounter testified they saw no threatening action.
In this case, the agents, backed by the Obama administration, are contending that in cases involving protection of the president and vice president in particular, law enforcement officers must make split-second decisions — and that their protective actions would be chilled if they could be sued for making the wrong call. They want immunity from lawsuits.
Howards counters that the essence of American democracy is the ability of its citizens to express their opinions to elected officials, and that if police officers cannot be held accountable for retaliatory arrests, the rights of citizens will be greatly inhibited.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Posts: 27,860
Threads: 759
Joined: May 2025
Reputation:
0
Posts: 57,781
Threads: 5,856
Joined: May 2025
Reputation:
2
Sound more and more like the arresting agent screwed up.... And was transferred to... GUAM ? Definitely a "why don't you retire" messsge there...
Posts: 16,917
Threads: 1,500
Joined: May 2025
Reputation:
0
i heard that report this morning. as described it did sound like a retaliatory arrest but the retaliation was for pissing off the agent not for 'threatening' cheney; that was bogus.
i'm surprised a pissing contest has gotten this far. i was thinking the plaintiff must not be black because any black person would know responding as he did to a cop was just asking for trouble, deserved or not.
Posts: 8,440
Threads: 599
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation:
0
Let's see if you are hostile towards the VP, while putting your hand on him, then are seen acting anxious a few minutes later, then you refuse to answer agent questions and act like a jerk, I can see how that might lead to your arrest.
There may be some agency goofs here, but I think the service does a great job and they should get a little slack. This guy got his due process.
Posts: 8,780
Threads: 202
Joined: May 2025
Reputation:
0
Grace62,
I'm not sure I read the same article at you. It wasn't a few agency goofs, but the retaliatory actions of a law enforcement officer. "Charged with felony assault of the vice president," are you kidding me? As the man said, he would have been on the ground in an instant if that took place! There were no assault charges against the others shaking Chaney's hand. I don't find it far-fetched that this person tapped his shoulder while talking to him. I've yet to allege felonious assault against the innumerable people who have patted my shoulder while talking to me.
After the fact, he was arrested by an angry secret service agent. Perhaps the agent was having a bad day, perhaps he didn't like judgment on his actions protecting Chaney, perhaps he didn't like the guy and his comment to the VP, and certainly the other agents cited appeared to be doing a great job, but I don't excuse this agent's actions in the least.
Posts: 16,917
Threads: 1,500
Joined: May 2025
Reputation:
0
August West wrote:
Grace62,
I'm not sure I read the same article at you. It wasn't a few agency goofs, but the retaliatory actions of a law enforcement officer. "Charged with felony assault of the vice president," are you kidding me? As the man said, he would have been on the ground in an instant if that took place! There were no assault charges against the others shaking Chaney's hand. I don't find it far-fetched that this person tapped his shoulder while talking to him. I've yet to allege felonious assault against the innumerable people who have patted my shoulder while talking to me.
After the fact, he was arrested by an angry secret service agent. Perhaps the agent was having a bad day, perhaps he didn't like judgment on his actions protecting Chaney, perhaps he didn't like the guy and his comment to the VP, and certainly the other agents cited appeared to be doing a great job, but I don't excuse this agent's actions in the least.
:agree: except it still felt like a pissing contest between this guy and an agent.
Posts: 8,780
Threads: 202
Joined: May 2025
Reputation:
0
I agree, graylocks, and that is where I think the agent fell down. I think I've stated it before, I believe that it is incumbent on the officer to show the proper restraint, and not to expect that every member of the public will act well-mannered. If the guy mouthed off to the agent, he was wrong. But, if in response, the agent arrested him for felonious assault of the VP, in my mind, that was more egregious. The public grants the agent the power of life and death over the citizenry, and the agent needs to be held to a higher standard.
However, the case itself seems very interesting as to the merits of voicing opinion to elected officials. I'll have to read up on it.
Posts: 8,440
Threads: 599
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation:
0
Yes I read the same article. What the Denver judge says makes sense:
the arrest was justified, whether it was retaliatory or not is undecided. I agree with the administration attorneys defending the service, they need a little slack to do their jobs. I don't see that this man had any rights violated, he convinced law enforcement that he was no threat. Fine. It's over. He could have answered questions and avoided arrest to begin with.
"The Denver-based federal appeals court ruled that the agents had sufficient grounds for taking Howards into custody, but the court also ruled that there was sufficient evidence to allow Howards to continue with his claim of retaliatory arrest."
Posts: 8,780
Threads: 202
Joined: May 2025
Reputation:
0
He could have answered questions and avoided arrest to begin with.
Perhaps, perhaps not.
NYTImes wrote:
The appeals court said the arrest was lawful and so did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Mr. Howards lied about not touching Mr. Cheney, a point he has since conceded, and that was reason enough to arrest him, the appeals court said.
But the court nonetheless allowed Mr. Howards’s claim for retaliatory arrest to proceed to trial, saying his First Amendment rights may have been violated, since the agents could have been “substantially motivated” to take action against him based on his remarks.
|
