Guest Gichin13 Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 I can't really argue with your points wskin....only I'd add, its not just mistakes in judgement, its our obsession as a country and a media with making every story as sensationalistic as possible, even when the facts don't warrant it. I am not understanding why this story is getting so much ink. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The 12th Commandment Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 I am not understanding why this story is getting so much ink. The Vice-President of the United States of America shot somebody. Think about that sentence. How is that not news? Edit: To be fair though, I would be dissapointed if it doesn't start to lose some air time today. Unless something else comes out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 Edit: To be fair though, I would be dissapointed if it doesn't start to lose some air time today. Unless something else comes out. Frankly, I'd say that the guy having a heart attack will help kill (no pun intended) the story. With the guy having a heart attack, that should tend to shut up the comics (which, I'd think, would be the main people keeping it going). And with the (IMO) really slim chance of the guy actually dieing, the "serious media" can't really get into the "will he be impeached?" / "who would be the replacement?" / "How does this affect our Olympic team?" speculation circle-jerk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 And no one here is tasked with investigating a potential crime or has access to a single piece of real evidence. Thats why we should presume nothing and base our judgements on the facts, not wild allegations.I'd agree, if its factual, that delaying any police involvement was an error in judgement. Then again, I'm not sure thats what happened, and I think you have to keep in mind, the VP just shot a friend. I'm pretty sure at that point, the priority was to get him medical attention. The question of delay between shooting to law enforcement contact with the shooter is valid and much more serious then you're making it. If a gun accident occurs because alcohol is involved....the evidence would have been a mild headache by the time law enforcement decided to do it's job. Not saying drinking was involved but merely pointing out why time is important and why this isn't a simple "error in judgment". This is incompetence, plain and simple. Getting medical treatment to the injured is the responsibility of emergency personnel not ‘the shooter’ or the police. The duty of the police officers is to investigate as best they can, not cater to the schedule or requests of parties involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The 12th Commandment Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 Frankly, I'd say that the guy having a heart attack will help kill (no pun intended) the story. With the guy having a heart attack, that should tend to shut up the comics (which, I'd think, would be the main people keeping it going). And with the (IMO) really slim chance of the guy actually dieing, the "serious media" can't really get into the "will he be impeached?" / "who would be the replacement?" / "How does this affect our Olympic team?" speculation circle-jerk. Yup, that's what I was getting at. On that note, did the late shows continue to poke fun last night? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 The question of delay between shooting to law enforcement contact with the shooter is valid and much more serious then you're making it. If a gun accident occurs because alcohol is involved....the evidence would have been a mild headache by the time law enforcement decided to do it's job. Not saying drinking was involved but merely pointing out why time is important and why this isn't a simple "error in judgment". This is incompetence, plain and simple. Getting medical treatment to the injured is the responsibility of emergency personnel not ‘the shooter’ or the police. The duty of the police officers is to investigate as best they can, not cater to the schedule or requests of parties involved. Law enforcement was there when it happened, it is called the US Secret Service. I think if there was any funny business going on it will make its way out. Those agents are sworn law enforcement officials. They have a pretty high degree of integrity and if the VP was liquored up, I'm pretty sure someone will say so. I'm sure most of you don't trust those guys either, so my question is..."Who would you trust?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelms Posted February 15, 2006 Author Share Posted February 15, 2006 Law enforcement was there when it happened, it is called the US Secret Service. I think if there was any funny business going on it will make its way out. Those agents are sworn law enforcement officials. They have a pretty high degree of integrity and if the VP was liquored up, I'm pretty sure someone will say so. I'm sure most of you don't trust those guys either, so my question is..."Who would you trust?" That is an excellent point, one that has escaped me until you mentioned it. The U.S. Secret Service is law enforcement and they have a high degree of credibility and integrity. If any shenanigans went on, they will make sure the authorities that have jurisdiction are informed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 Law enforcement was there when it happened, it is called the US Secret Service. I think if there was any funny business going on it will make its way out. Those agents are sworn law enforcement officials. They have a pretty high degree of integrity and if the VP was liquored up, I'm pretty sure someone will say so. I'm sure most of you don't trust those guys either, so my question is..."Who would you trust?"Conflict of interest. If the SS is there to POLICE behavior then they would not be effective at protecting the individuals. Their presence would be rejected as much as possible for fear that stepping out of line would as you put it "make it's way out"Let's test my theory though, did the secret service agents arrest Nixon for water gate? Why not? Did they come out and say Clinton is getting polished in the WH despite what he is saying? How many agents were asked to testify about Iran contra? How many are dragged in front of confress to answer questions about the person they are defending? If they were expected to police their assignments then they would be responsible if the law was broken and they failed to report it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelms Posted February 15, 2006 Author Share Posted February 15, 2006 Conflict of interest. If the SS is there to POLICE behavior then they would not be effective at protecting the individuals. Their presence would be rejected as much as possible for fear that stepping out of line would as you put it "make it's way out"Let's test my theory though, did the secret service agents arrest Nixon for water gate? Why not? Did they come out and say Clinton is getting polished in the WH despite what he is saying? I don't think anyone is saying that they are there to police behavior. But, they are potential witnesses to any behavior that led to the shooting. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the some members of Clinton's secret service subpoenaed to testify in the Lewinsky case? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 Conflict of interest. If the SS is there to POLICE behavior then they would not be effective at protecting the individuals. Their presence would be rejected as much as possible for fear that stepping out of line would as you put it "make it's way out"Let's test my theory though, did the secret service agents arrest Nixon for water gate? Why not? Did they come out and say Clinton is getting polished in the WH despite what he is saying? How many agents were asked to testify about Iran contra? How many are dragged in front of confress to answer questions about the person they are defending? If they were expected to police their assignments then they would be responsible if the law was broken and they failed to report it. You are correct in stating that they are not there to "Police" the protectee's. However the scenario you describe insinuates that these guys are actively involved in a cover up. And at this point they have no plausible deniability regarding their knowledge. I find it a little amusing that the country would feel better if some Sheriff(most likely a Repub) from southern Texas came out and said it was all good. I mean if it is a conspiracy to cover it up, would "they" have let this get in the way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 You are correct in stating that they are not there to "Police" the protectee's. However the scenario you describe insinuates that these guys are actively involved in a cover up. And at this point they have no plausible deniability regarding their knowledge.I find it a little amusing that the country would feel better if some Sheriff(most likely a Repub) from southern Texas came out and said it was all good. I mean if it is a conspiracy to cover it up, would "they" have let this get in the way? I hear what you are saying, but it's not my argument. The secret service argued in court for a "protective function privilege" for the very reasons I gave above. They lost the court battle but the stance was their own. If they believed in this to the point of fighting to be exempt from testifying under oath do you think, logically, that they would volunteer information to local sheriff? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 Destino's completely correct and you all know it. The Secret Service (I can't call them the SS, it's just too creepy) will never intentionally out a President or Vice President. If they are willing to take a bullet for them,then certainly they are willing to keep their mouths shut to protect those they are sworn to protect. I don't know if they did so here, but they certainly were acting to protect the VP and not aid an investigation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 From the reports i read the sheriff was notified directly by the secret service who then interviewed the victim and a eyewitness. Much ado about nothing......But ya'll carry on http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/3661234.html "He still kind of wonders what all the hoopla is about," said Peter Banko, the hospital's administrator. He said Whittington sees it as "much ado about nothing." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 From the reports i read the sheriff was notified directly by the secret service who then interviewed the victim and a eyewitness.Much ado about nothing......But ya'll carry on http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/3661234.html "He still kind of wonders what all the hoopla is about," said Peter Banko, the hospital's administrator. He said Whittington sees it as "much ado about nothing." I tend to agree with you that this is a lot about nothing, at least the serious side of it. I think as a joke this one will last a while, and I can see why. I mean a politician shot a lawyer in the face....that sounds like a joke already lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 but they certainly were acting to protect the VP and not aid an investigation. And this statement is based on what evidence? Seriously. This statement implies that the VP was doing something wrong(other than hunting without a bird stamp) and subsequently the USSS agents in the area covered said actions up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 You know the stamp argument bugs me. It's exactly the inverse of the Clinton Lewinski thing. The Republicans shout. The impeachment was about a lie... The Demmocrats add.. about an affair. They try to minimize it because lying about an affair can be acceptable. Similarly, Cheney broke the law. He shouldn't have. His breaking of the law coincided unfortunately with someone getting shot. Unacceptable. Breaking the law is breaking the law. He should not break the law and his staff failed him by not making sure he had exactly what he needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 And this statement is based on what evidence? Seriously. This statement implies that the VP was doing something wrong(other than hunting without a bird stamp) and subsequently the USSS agents in the area covered said actions up. The evidence that it's their job to do so. Always. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 Let's test my theory though, did the secret service agents arrest Nixon for water gate? Why not? Did they come out and say Clinton is getting polished in the WH despite what he is saying? How many agents were asked to testify about Iran contra? How many are dragged in front of confress to answer questions about the person they are defending? Or a more recent example: When Jenna Bush gave a fake ID to a bartender, her Secret Service did . . . . ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 So let me get this straight.....The Secret Service is involved in a cover up of Vice President Cheney shooting a hunting partner while under the influence of alcohol(or was it drugs). You people are the best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 So let me get this straight.....The Secret Service is involved in a cover up of Vice President Cheney shooting a hunting partner while under the influence of alcohol(or was it drugs).You people are the best. I don't think you got it straight. All people are saying is why is anyone surprised that the press wants to know how this happened? The rest is just funning around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 So let me get this straight.....The Secret Service is involved in a cover up of Vice President Cheney shooting a hunting partner while under the influence of alcohol(or was it drugs).You people are the best. Why do you ignore every argument that doesn't fit your conclusion? I posted that the Secret Service themselves argued that they shouldn't be made to testify against those they protect. You completely ignored it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancalagon the Black Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 http://www.secretservice.gov/mission.shtml MISSION STATEMENT The United States Secret Service is mandated by statute and executive order to carry out two significant missions: protection and criminal investigations. The Secret Service protects the President and Vice President, their families, heads of state, and other designated individuals; investigates threats against these protectees; protects the White House, Vice President’s Residence, Foreign Missions, and other buildings within Washington, D.C.; and plans and implements security designs for designated National Special Security Events. The Secret Service also investigates violations of laws relating to counterfeiting of obligations and securities of the United States; financial crimes that include, but are not limited to, access device fraud, financial institution fraud, identity theft, computer fraud; and computer-based attacks on our nation’s financial, banking, and telecommunications infrastructure. http://www.secretservice.gov/faq.shtml#crimes What types of crimes does the Secret Service investigate? The Secret Service has primary jurisdiction to investigate threats against Secret Service protectees; counterfeiting of U.S. currency or other U.S. Government obligations; forgery or theft of U.S. Treasury checks, bonds or other securities; credit card fraud; telecommunications fraud; computer fraud; identify fraud; and certain other crimes affecting federally insured financial institutions. What legal authority and powers do Secret Service agents have? Under Title 18, Section 3056, United States Code, agents and officers of the Secret Service can carry firearms; execute warrants issued under the laws of the United States; make arrests without warrants for any offense against the United States committed in their presence, or for any felony recognizable under the laws of the United States if they have reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed such felony; offer and pay rewards for services and information leading to the apprehension of persons involved in the violation of the law that the Secret Service is authorized to enforce; investigate fraud in connection with identification documents, fraudulent commerce, fictitious instruments and foreign securities; perform other functions and duties authorized by law. The Secret Service works closely with the United States Attorney's Office in both protective and investigative matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelms Posted February 15, 2006 Author Share Posted February 15, 2006 I bet some of you guys will try to compare Cheney's accident to Kennedy's Chappaquiddick "accident". Wait a minute ... someone already has. Nevermind, carry on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 Why do you ignore every argument that doesn't fit your conclusion? I posted that the Secret Service themselves argued that they shouldn't be made to testify against those they protect. You completely ignored it. What is my conclusion exactly? The only conclusion that I drew was that there was law enforcement on the scene that apparently contacted local law enforcement. I drew no conclusion as to the BAC of the VP... I drew no conclusion as to why the press wasn't informed immediately...(and quite frankly I am perfectly satisfied finding out about it Sunday morning) If the consensus around here is that the USSS doesn't have to provide information, or doesn't want to but has to, then that is what the consensus is. The argument you make supports them being involved in a cover up...am I misinterpreting that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 I bet some of you guys will try to compare Cheney's accident to Kennedy's Chappaquiddick "accident". Wait a minute ... someone already has. Nevermind, carry on. Kennedy is a fat, drink dope. But he wasn't VP. If we're obsessed with a President who bangs fat chicks. Why wouldn't we be obsessed with a VP that's shot a person? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.