High court rules for secret service in Cheney case

[Don Vito Corleone]

This holding will actually help with a civil case I am working on - I am defending a police officer who pepper-sprayed an uncooperative arrestee, and he has brought a claim contending that he was arrested, at least in part, for exercising his free speech rights.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

This holding will actually help with a civil case I am working on - I am defending a police officer who pepper-sprayed an uncooperative arrestee, and he has brought a claim contending that he was arrested, at least in part, for exercising his free speech rights.

I would think that depends on the circumstances. If the "free speech" involved physical contact then yes. If someone was sitting on a step on a courthouse in protest but otherwise harmless I'm not so sure.

 

[ElFenix]

It's silly to call what he did assault, but the Secret Service should be given wide latitude in protecting public officials. While Cheney is a reprehensible individual, it's about protecting members of the office, not him.

(3) intentionally or knowingly causes physical contact with another when the person knows or should reasonably believe that the other will regard the contact as offensive or provocative.

if you say, 'hey buddy, you're an asshole' and then touch me, i'm going to consider that offensive or provocative.

 

[fskimospy]

if you say, 'hey buddy, you're an asshole' and then touch me, i'm going to consider that offensive or provocative.

Yeap. Still silliness.

I'm not arguing the legal definition of assault, but the practical one. There was no harm done. Chances are good that by this standard an enormous percentage of America has been guilty of assault at some point.

 

[PokerGuy]

No he didn't post here and I'm glad you can make that distinction. Cheney should still receive the message regardless of his membership on Anandtech. Deflecting to Bush only diverts the eyes of the hard right. Try again.

Nice try at diversion. YOU were the one who posted advocating violence against someone (in this case Cheney). Apparently you are OK with violence against those you don't like.

 

[woolfe9999]

Nice try at diversion. YOU were the one who posted advocating violence against someone (in this case Cheney). Apparently you are OK with violence against those you don't like.

Would you advocate violence against, say. Hitler or Ted Bundy? Not making the comparison myself as I don't think it's valid, but maybe PCsurgeon thinks Cheney is really that bad. Is there a point at which someone is so bad that's it's acceptable to advocate violence? Dunno.

 

[woolfe9999]

This holding will actually help with a civil case I am working on - I am defending a police officer who pepper-sprayed an uncooperative arrestee, and he has brought a claim contending that he was arrested, at least in part, for exercising his free speech rights.

I had a case involving a property owner who shows up at county Board of Supervisors meeting and publicly criticizes the Board and gets quoted in the local press. The next week, code compliance people are all over his property turning over every rock looking for violations. He sues under 1983. The trouble is, the violations were real even if minor. I think this case would have been a problem for us even though ours wasn't a criminal case because the logic of it would have undermined our theory.

- wolf

 

[NoStateofMind]

Nice try at diversion. YOU were the one who posted advocating violence against someone (in this case Cheney). Apparently you are OK with violence against those you don't like.

Cheney.

 

[PokerGuy]

Would you advocate violence against, say. Hitler or Ted Bundy?

Sure, as part of legal punishment. If someone is a criminal then let them be charged and punished accordingly. Just because I don't agree with someone is not a reason to advocate violence against them.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Would you advocate violence against, say. Hitler or Ted Bundy? Not making the comparison myself as I don't think it's valid, but maybe PCsurgeon thinks Cheney is really that bad. Is there a point at which someone is so bad that's it's acceptable to advocate violence? Dunno.

There was the case of Ted Nugent who got a visit.

The problem is that while I think Cheney is a piece of crap, the government has given him a pass along with the rest of the past administration. It's tacit approval by avoiding the issue of Iraq altogether. That's life which sometimes sucks. Consequently he isn't "guilty" in the legal sense, but then again there are those who think Obama is as bad. What you or I think isn't the issue so much as that individual or group. Do they have the right to advocate violence? I'm thinking that's not smart no matter if the answer is yes or no.

My personal opinion is that people who think Cheney is evil but haven't held current authorities accountable for a distinct lack of interest haven't much right to say much of anything about his guilt or innocence.