PDA

View Full Version : Can someone really defend Cheney and the Secret Service on this?



Care4all
10-05-2006, 06:37 AM
Cheney critic sues agent over arrest
O'Donnell suggested service program for high school boys. The Republican candidate said the last year of high school is "wasted." His opponent cited an opinion piece from 2004 in a debate airing tonight.
By Mike McPhee
Denver Post Staff Writer
A Golden businessman sued a Secret Service agent Monday, claiming he was subjected to unlawful seizure, unlawful search and retaliation for exercising his right to free speech.

Steven Howards, 54, was arrested during the summer by Agent Virgil Reichle Jr. after he made comments about the U.S. policy in Iraq to Vice President Dick Cheney in a Beaver Creek shopping mall.

"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.

Reichle refused to comment and referred all media inquiries to his boss, Agent-in-Charge Lon Garner, who failed to return phone calls.

While walking his 11-year-old son to a piano lesson, Howards saw Cheney shaking hands and posing for photos. He walked over and told Cheney, "I think your policies in Iraq are reprehensible."

Howards said he walked on, not wanting to cause a disturbance with so many Secret Service agents around.

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."

U.S. attorney spokesman Jeff Dorschner said that if Reichle was acting within the scope of his employment, he will be given the choice of hiring a private attorney to defend him at taxpayers' expense or to use an assistant U.S. attorney to represent him.

Staff writer Mike McPhee can be reached at 303-954-1409 or mmcphee@denverpost.com.

uscitizen
10-05-2006, 06:45 AM
Oh I can think of one or two who will defend the Bush Admin on anything ;)

Damocles
10-05-2006, 06:51 AM
"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 appears that Cheney doesn't need a defense.

Care4all
10-05-2006, 07:11 AM
Doesn't this concern anyone? This is not the first time anyone that vocally decents, gets handcuffed and carried away to jail?

What right did they have to do this to this man? I hope he wins his law suit...BIGTIME...it pisses me off that it is tax payers money that he will be awarded, and not the individuals that CAUSED this... :(

care

Damocles
10-05-2006, 07:25 AM
Doesn't this concern anyone? This is not the first time anyone that vocally decents, gets handcuffed and carried away to jail?

What right did they have to do this to this man? I hope he wins his law suit...BIGTIME...it pisses me off that it is tax payers money that he will be awarded, and not the individuals that CAUSED this... :(

care
That sounds fine. However, if the man had the wrong information from the Secret Service there isn't much that Cheney had to do with it.

There isn't much to defend. They believed when they arrested him that what he had done was more serious than what he had done because of information from the Secret Service. How did they get bad information? That is what we need to find out and what will come out in any lawsuit.

Care4all
10-05-2006, 07:48 AM
That sounds fine. However, if the man had the wrong information from the Secret Service there isn't much that Cheney had to do with it.

There isn't much to defend. They believed when they arrested him that what he had done was more serious than what he had done because of information from the Secret Service. How did they get bad information? That is what we need to find out and what will come out in any lawsuit.

I took this article completely differently than you, I think?

It said there was an AGENT that arrested him with his son there...I presumed this was a Federal Agent of some sort, working for the VP...

then the article mention that a local Sheffif Deputy broght him to the jail and so on and so forth...then the local police dismissed the charges because of lack of evidence....?

Did I read it wrong?

care

Did you see the AGENT as some sort of local police?

Damocles
10-05-2006, 07:52 AM
Read this paragraph again, I hate repeating it, but it pretty much blows your theory right up...



"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."


Notice that Cheney didn't ask for it to happen and the person who arrested him had gotten the information from the Secret Service?

You read what you wanted to hear into that article rather than actually reading the information presented.

Prakosh
10-05-2006, 08:09 AM
Read this paragraph again, I hate repeating it, but it pretty much blows your theory right up...



Notice that Cheney didn't ask for it to happen and the person who arrested him had gotten the information from the Secret Service?

You read what you wanted to hear into that article rather than actually reading the information presented.

Are you taking any medication for pain??? If so maybe you shouldn't be operating machinery...

The person who arrested him was a Secret Service Agent. "Steven Howards, 54, was arrested during the summer by Agent Virgil Reichle Jr."

I wouldn't take a prosecutor's statement to be worth the paper or the post it is printed on or in. One does wonder where the Agent got the authority to make the arrest since he does work for the Vice President and he probably isn't just going around arresting people in malls willy nilly. The whole thing looks like typical Republicanism. The man asks Cheney a question, then is harrassed, arrested and trotted off to jail and then charged with harrassment. SOP for these "strict constructionists" of the Constitution; and of course don't forget all the "honesty and integrity" they have brought back to our great nation...

But nice try Damocles...

Damocles
10-05-2006, 08:11 AM
Are you taking any medication for pain??? If so maybe you shouldn't be operating machinery...

The person who arrested him was a Secret Service Agent. "Steven Howards, 54, was arrested during the summer by Agent Virgil Reichle Jr."

I wouldn't take a prosecutor's statement to be worth the paper or the post it is printed on or in. One does wonder where the Agent got the authority to make the arrest since he does work for the Vice President and he pwobably isn't just going around arresting people in malls willy nilly.

But nice try Damocles...
Read the story, it tells you where he got the information he used to arrest him. This is simply disingenuous supposition based on "feelings" of what you want to believe, not the actual information presented.

Prakosh
10-05-2006, 08:26 AM
Read the story, it tells you where he got the information he used to arrest him. This is simply disingenuous supposition based on "feelings" of what you want to believe, not the actual information presented.

Show me where it tells me any such thing. According to the story the arresting officer and his boss are both refusing to talk: "Reichle refused to comment and referred all media inquiries to his boss, Agent-in-Charge Lon Garner, who failed to return phone calls."

Do you know the difference between an "arrest" by an officer and a "formal charge" by a prosecutor??? You may want to check out the difference. The prosecutor's statement has nothing to do with the reason for the arrest. It only refers to the change in the "formal charges" that the prosecutor finally filed.

As I said before, Nice Try!!!!!

Cheney had the guy arrested and that is pretty damn obvious to all but the blind and he was arrested for asking a simple question which was then trumped up as an assault. Perhaps you should read the first Amendment this AM just for a refresher...Aren't you libertarian types big on government non-interference...

Damocles
10-05-2006, 08:29 AM
Read again the sentence I posted, it says he got his information that he arrested the man on from the Secret Service.



"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."


(this time I'll bold that part since you keep pretending to miss it)

Damocles
10-05-2006, 08:31 AM
This whole thing is like saying that the guy arrested on the beach after insulting Clinton was arrested because Clinton wanted it. Rubbish. I don't believe it about Clinton any more than I think Cheney cared that the guy was challenging him over policy.

Prakosh
10-05-2006, 10:11 AM
Read again the sentence I posted, it says he got his information that he arrested the man on from the Secret Service.


"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."


(this time I'll bold that part since you keep pretending to miss it)

Nice, but its unfortunate that your apparent fixation on that part of the sentence has made you oblivious to the small word "charged" that appears three words prior to your bolded segment. There is in fact nothing in this statement from the prosecutor about the "arrest". The statement only refers to the charges filed. If you see the word "arrest" in your quote please show me where it is and make an immediate appointment with an eye doctor, or other medical professional because you are hallucinating. The word "arrest" does not appear anywhere in the statement you have quoted. The paragraph begins "We filed a motion to dismiss the charge" and continues to discuss the charges[B]. As I already noted and your obsessiveness evidently forced you to overlook, [B]the officer "arrests" the prosecutor "charges"; the man is sueing for false "arrest" which is something the officer did, not something the prosecutor did or talks about doing. Your statement from the prosecutor says nothing about the false arrest it only refers to the charges filed.

If this isn't chear now it never will be. Clinton be damned.

And I can only say at this point that you seem to be suffering from some kind of intentional obtuseness today, Damocles--did you have a tragedy of some sort that has you in a bad humor??? Ot is it the possible loss of the House and Senate that has you in this state???

Damocles
10-05-2006, 10:28 AM
Nice, but its unfortunate that your apparent fixation on that part of the sentence has made you oblivious to the small word "charged" that appears three words prior to your bolded segment. There is in fact nothing in this statement from the prosecutor about the "arrest". The statement only refers to the charges filed. If you see the word "arrest" in your quote please show me where it is and make an immediate appointment with an eye doctor, or other medical professional because you are hallucinating. The word "arrest" does not appear anywhere in the statement you have quoted. The paragraph begins "We filed a motion to dismiss the charge" and continues to discuss the charges[B]. As I already noted and your obsessiveness evidently forced you to overlook, [B]the officer "arrests" the prosecutor "charges"; the man is sueing for false "arrest" which is something the officer did, not something the prosecutor did or talks about doing. Your statement from the prosecutor says nothing about the false arrest it only refers to the charges filed.

If this isn't chear now it never will be. Clinton be damned.

And I can only say at this point that you seem to be suffering from some kind of intentional obtuseness today, Damocles--did you have a tragedy of some sort that has you in a bad humor??? Ot is it the possible loss of the House and Senate that has you in this state???
Nah, I actually came to terms with that loss long ago. I prefer a less religious oriented, and actually conservative, GOP and think that this is the path toward that. The overspending foolishness has hurt them bad, and they pretty much deserve it.