Iraqi journalist gets three years for throwing shoe at President Bush

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Genx87
He did toss a shoe at a head of state. What would the penalty be in this country if somebody did the same?

:thumbsup:

Yeah, I have no problem with 3 years for assault on a head of state. If Iraq's President was visiting here and a reporter attacked him I'd expect a harsh sentence as well. The same if an American citizen threw a shoe at Obama.

And for those that are saying "It's just throwing a shoe", well that is assault. You can be charged on assault in American without ever touching/harming someone as well.

15 would have seemed harsh though.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: RichardE

So you would allow individuals to throw projectiles at heads of state without consequence? You are the one who lives in some fantasy world. Go throw something at Obama, see what happens, come post about it later.

Where did I say there should be no consequences? I think there absolutely should be. I just don't think three years is the most appropriate sentence.

 

[CitizenKain]

I would think a statue and possibly a parade or two, not jail time. But then again I'm not a blood thirsty warmonger.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone

Originally posted by: RichardE

So you would allow individuals to throw projectiles at heads of state without consequence? You are the one who lives in some fantasy world. Go throw something at Obama, see what happens, come post about it later.

Where did I say there should be no consequences? I think there absolutely should be. I just don't think three years is the most appropriate sentence.

I asked a question that is all. What would be a more appropriate sentence than for attempting to cause bodily harm to the President of the United States.

 

[fleshconsumed]

So you would condemn guy to 3 years for throwing popcorn. Awesome.

Originally posted by: RichardE
Remember the shoe bomb guy on the plane? Yeah, real funny.

Shoe and shoe bomb are two different things.

Originally posted by: RichardE
So should anyone who attempts to harm a president and fails get a free pass?

In order for it to be an attempt to harm, it actually has to have capability to harm a person. Throwing a knife or a 4 pound frying pan can seriously harm a person. Now that would be an attempt to harm, and if he did that I wouldn't be arguing now. Throwing show/popcorn however is not an attempt to harm. If anything it was a symbolic gesture intended to insult, not harm.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: fleshconsumed
So you would condemn guy to 3 years for throwing popcorn. Awesome.

Originally posted by: RichardE
Remember the shoe bomb guy on the plane? Yeah, real funny.

Shoe and shoe bomb are two different things.

Originally posted by: RichardE
So should anyone who attempts to harm a president and fails get a free pass?

In order for it to be an attempt to harm, it actually has to have capability to harm a person. Throwing a knife or a 4 pound frying pan can seriously harm a person. Now that would be an attempt to harm, and if he did that I wouldn't be arguing now. Throwing show/popcorn however is not an attempt to harm. If anything it was a symbolic gesture intended to insult, not harm.

So if I hit you with my shoe you'll just consider it as an insult? Are you retarded? Maybe if he took his shoe off and casually flipped it towards the stage it would have been considered an insult but the intent to cause pain was definitely there.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: fleshconsumed
So you would condemn guy to 3 years for throwing popcorn. Awesome.

Originally posted by: RichardE
Remember the shoe bomb guy on the plane? Yeah, real funny.

Shoe and shoe bomb are two different things.

Originally posted by: RichardE
So should anyone who attempts to harm a president and fails get a free pass?

In order for it to be an attempt to harm, it actually has to have capability to harm a person. Throwing a knife or a 4 pound frying pan can seriously harm a person. Now that would be an attempt to harm, and if he did that I wouldn't be arguing now. Throwing show/popcorn however is not an attempt to harm. If anything it was a symbolic gesture intended to insult, not harm.

So As I asked earlier, so should anyone who attempts to harm a president and fails get a free pass?

If I took my shoe off and smacked you across the face with it twice you would not consider that assault?

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: fleshconsumed

Originally posted by: RichardE
Remember the shoe bomb guy on the plane? Yeah, real funny.

Shoe and shoe bomb are two different things.

Shoe and popcorn are two different things, too. Thanks for playing.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Doesn't matter what it turned out to be. It was a projectile, an object thrown at a head of state. Just because it turned out to be a shoe, and not a grenade, and just because it didn't hit him, rather than maybe hit him square in the temple killing him does not change the idea of the potential for harm and the resulting repercussions of attempting to harm the president of the united states.

Anyone who throws anything at the president in a aggressive manner should get way more than 3 years of prison time.

OF COURSE it matters "what it turned out to be." The idea that throwing a grenade and throwing popcorn or packing peanuts (or, for that matter, shoes) are identically severe crimes is just laughable. Throwing a grenade is an act of terrorism and either an attempted or actual murder. Throwing a shoe has little or no potential to inflict death or serious bodily harm.

I asked a question that is all. What would be a more appropriate sentence than for attempting to cause bodily harm to the President of the United States.

Let's assume you prove this guy's specific intent to inflict bodily injury (which a prosecutor would be obligated to do). At that point, I would consider it a gross misdemeanor, with a sentence on the high end of that range (say, a year). I don't think you can entirely divorce it from its context - IMO this was as much a political statement as it was an assault. Obviously reasonable minds may differ on that, and it certainly doesn't mean it isn't punishable as an assault.

By the way, I never said I was outraged by the three year sentence, just that as a person with years of experience as a prosecutor and defense attorney, it seems high to me. I am not trying to deny the Iraqis the right to impose whatever form of justice they deem appropriate, and it's not as though they are cutting his hands off or executing him (which I would find outrageous).

 

[her209]

How long of a sentence does someone get when they throw a shoe at a non-head-of-state?

 

[fleshconsumed]

If someone threw a shoe at me and missed I'd be bemused, but I would laugh it off. I certainly wouldn't press any charges. Come on.

I could potentially agree with guy getting a month in jail because shoe might have left a bruise if it hit, but anything more is absurd.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone

Originally posted by: RichardE

Doesn't matter what it turned out to be. It was a projectile, an object thrown at a head of state. Just because it turned out to be a shoe, and not a grenade, and just because it didn't hit him, rather than maybe hit him square in the temple killing him does not change the idea of the potential for harm and the resulting repercussions of attempting to harm the president of the united states.

Anyone who throws anything at the president in a aggressive manner should get way more than 3 years of prison time.

OF COURSE it matters "what it turned out to be." The idea that throwing a grenade and throwing popcorn or packing peanuts (or, for that matter, shoes) are identically severe crimes is just laughable. Throwing a grenade is an act of terrorism and either an attempted or actual murder. Throwing a shoe has little or no potential to inflict death or serious bodily harm.

I asked a question that is all. What would be a more appropriate sentence than for attempting to cause bodily harm to the President of the United States.

Let's assume you prove this guy's specific intent to inflict bodily injury (which a prosecutor would be obligated to do). At that point, I would consider it a gross misdemeanor, with a sentence on the high end of that range (say, a year). I don't think you can entirely divorce it from its context - IMO this was as much a political statement as it was an assault. Obviously reasonable minds may differ on that, and it certainly doesn't mean it isn't punishable as an assault.

By the way, I never said I was outraged by the three year sentence, just that as a person with years of experience as a prosecutor and defense attorney, it seems high to me. I am not trying to deny the Iraqis the right to impose whatever form of justice they deem appropriate, and it's not as though they are cutting his hands off or executing him (which I would find outrageous).

The penalty for attacking a head of state is deservingly more sever than the penalty for attacking an average person as it should be. It is insane you are attempting to bring down attacks against the heads of state to the same level as the common person. Attacks against elected efficials are in essense attacks against the democratic process and should be treated as such. To pretty much say "well since if someone launched a shoe at Joe Smith it wouldn't matter" is ignoring the fact that the person attacked was The President of the United States . This isn't even glamorizing the position, it is respecting what it means and what it represents.

If someone launched a shoe at you, I would expect them to get a fine, maybe a misdemeanor, but probably not even that. They did this to the president though, different rules.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: RichardE

The penalty for attacking a head of state is deservingly more sever than the penalty for attacking an average person as it should be. It is insane you are attempting to bring down attacks against the heads of state to the same level as the common person. Attacks against elected efficials are in essense attacks against the democratic process and should be treated as such. To pretty much say "well since if someone launched a shoe at Joe Smith it wouldn't matter" is ignoring the fact that the person attacked was The President of the United States . This isn't even glamorizing the position, it is respecting what it means and what it represents.

If someone launched a shoe at you, I would expect them to get a fine, maybe a misdemeanor, but probably not even that. They did this to the president though, different rules.

I don't dispute an assault of this nature should be handled differently, though I think your statement that this was essentially an attack on the democratic process is a little fanciful, when it's clear this particular attack was something altogether different (it was, in effect, an attack against a foreign invading and occupying force - I'm sure if I were an Iraqi I would hold a white-hot anger toward GWB for the loss of tens or hundreds of thousands of civilian lives during Operation Iraqi Freedom).

I will say yet again that I'm not horrified by this sentence - I just think it's on the high side of what's warranted. I have no doubt that this guy will be the toast of whatever godforsaken prison they put him in, so at least he'll be relatively comfortable for a guy spending three years in an Iraqi prison.

Just out of curiosity, what sentence do you think is warranted for THIS assault (as opposed to your imaginary ones involving grenades and/or shoe bombs)?

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone

Originally posted by: RichardE

What if the shoe had a explosive in it? He put a head of state at risk. He is lucky he wasn't shot and killed on the spot as what should have and probably would have happened. If someone in the states threw something at Obama and the Secret Service were on top of there game he would be in a bodybag. 3 years is light compared to what potentially could have happened.

Obviously your scenario would be entirely different - you can't sentence someone based on what "potentially could have happened," particularly when you know full well what actually did happen. If he had thrown an explosive device at the President, several people would likely have been killed and he would deserve a much more severe sentence - none of those things is true. Obviously his actions might well have motivated Secret Service to shoot him, but that has zero bearing on the way his actions should be handled in a court of law. The reality is that President Bush was never struck by either shoe, and suffered no injury whatsoever.

Suppose the assailant had shot a bullet and missed. The potential was there to do severe damage or death.

If he had shot at him then 3 years wouldn't be even close to enough.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone

Originally posted by: RichardE

The penalty for attacking a head of state is deservingly more sever than the penalty for attacking an average person as it should be. It is insane you are attempting to bring down attacks against the heads of state to the same level as the common person. Attacks against elected efficials are in essense attacks against the democratic process and should be treated as such. To pretty much say "well since if someone launched a shoe at Joe Smith it wouldn't matter" is ignoring the fact that the person attacked was The President of the United States . This isn't even glamorizing the position, it is respecting what it means and what it represents.

If someone launched a shoe at you, I would expect them to get a fine, maybe a misdemeanor, but probably not even that. They did this to the president though, different rules.

I don't dispute an assault of this nature should be handled differently, though I think your statement that this was essentially an attack on the democratic process is a little fanciful, when it's clear this particular attack was something altogether different (it was, in effect, an attack against a foreign invading and occupying force - I'm sure if I were an Iraqi I would hold a white-hot anger toward GWB for the loss of tens or hundreds of thousands of civilian lives during Operation Iraqi Freedom).

I will say yet again that I'm not horrified by this sentence - I just think it's on the high side of what's warranted. I have no doubt that this guy will be the toast of whatever godforsaken prison they put him in, so at least he'll be relatively comfortable for a guy spending three years in an Iraqi prison.

Just out of curiosity, what sentence do you think is warranted for THIS assault (as opposed to your imaginary ones involving grenades and/or shoe bombs)?

5 years would be good, 3 is decent. I think 12+ would be extreme. It has to be large enough to make sure this does not become a standard practice. Not to mention we didn't know "why" he did it until after it was done. We can't let it become common practice to have people throw things at the president in some idea of political expression. This time nothing occurred, but as I said, we didn't know if a grenade was in those shoes until after the fact, which is not a position you want to be in with your president.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: Aharami
punishment doesnt fit the crime. he threw a pair of shoes. he didnt try to kill the guy. And if some other country was illegally occupying US, I'd want to throw my shoes at the head of the oppressing country as well.

Please tell me how we were there illegally? You obviously have no idea about the history of that area.

Being there was/is stupid, not illegal.


He got 3 years + an ass kicking. Will probably recieve some other justice from much bigger inmates in jail. Seems fair to me.

 

[trenchfoot]

Justice was served on Bush, just as justice was served on the shoe thrower. The magnitude of the punishment on both was proportionate to the magnitude of their crimes.

I'd say the shoe thrower came out way ahead of the game that scores points on who ultimately got the better of each other. As well, the world-wide humiliation that Bush suffered compared with the hero status the shoe thrower attained speaks volumes about Bush and his agenda and the wrongs he committed against the Iraqi people, irrespective of Al Qaeda and the other outside elements that took advantage of the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz goof-ups by easily infiltrating into and operating in Iraq after Saddam was removed from power.

IMHO, in the eyes of most common Iraqi's, there's a special kind of retribution that was served on Bush that was more satisfying than if Bush were harmed physically from an act of terrorism perped by a non-Iraqi.

Here was, apparently, from an Iraqi's POV, an Iraqi of common means heroically and defiantly expressing the sentiments of his fellow Iraqi's by supremely humiliating the titular head of the snake that made them all suffer through years and years of insurgency and civil strife, all caused by the greed, ignorance, arrogance, unpreparedness and total mismanagement of the occupation on the part of the top leaders that "liberated" them.

Sometimes Karma is a bitch. Ask Bush and Cheney, they'll tell you all about that.


edit - syntax

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: tweaker2
Justice was served on Bush, just as justice was served on the shoe thrower. The magnitude of the punishment on both was proportionate to the magnitude of their crimes.

I'd say the shoe thrower came out way ahead of the game that scores points on who ultimately got the better of each other. As well, the world-wide humiliation that Bush suffered compared with the hero status the shoe thrower attained speaks volumes about Bush and his agenda and the wrongs he committed against the Iraqi people, irrespective of Al Qaeda and other the outside elements that took advantage of the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz goof-ups by easily infiltrating into and operating in Iraq after Saddam was removed from power.

IMHO, in the eyes of most common Iraqi's, there's a special kind of retribution that was served on Bush that was more satisfying than if Bush were harmed physically from an act of terrorism perped by a non-Iraqi.

Here was, apparently, from an Iraqi's POV, an Iraqi of common means heroically and defiantly expressing the sentiments of his fellow Iraqi's by supremely humiliating the titular head of the snake that made them all suffer through years and years of insurgency and civil strife, all caused by the greed, ignorance, arrogance, unpreparedness and total mismanagement of the occupation on the part of the top leaders that "liberated" them.

Sometimes Karma is a bitch. Ask Bush and Cheney, they'll tell you all about that.

I think you hit the nail on the head. This guy will be treated like a demi-god in prison for good reason. It's too bad Iraq people didn't have a more...non threatening way of insulting like a good Ol "fuck you" on camera type thing that would result in this guy being a hero without jail time.