The "Death to Obama" Sign holder not arrested - just questioned

[RamboLiberal]

-----

Darrin Blackford, a special agent with the Secret Service in Washington, D.C., says his office is aware of the incident and they are doing appropriate follow-up. He adds that the office takes seriously every threat that endangers the life of any of their protectees.

According to Blackford, the man was not arrested. He was interviewed at the sheriff's office and was allowed to leave after being questioned.

http://your4state.com/content/fulltext/?cid=75771

Keep an eye on the idiot Secret Service - hope you scared the crap out of this cretin.

[deep1]

1. Funny....

if he was black or a Democrat he would have been charged in a hot minute. I hate this double standard. These terrorist hicks should be watched. They are not taking these threats seriously.

[Maru Kitteh]

4. Imagine for one second that this was a Muslim protesting a Bush event.....

[goclark]

31. Watching? This makes me so angry

If a Democrat did that they would be behind bars with BushCo.

[paulsby]

34. utter rubbish

this is par for the course for de minimis threats.

i've worked with the SS. this is how they generally operate.

fwiw, federal agents rarely make summary arrests. tv mythology aside. they generally only arrest by warrant. unless there is some compelling reason to make a summary arrest, which is apparently not in evidence.

some people though have to turn EVERYTHING into a racial incident.

[bluestateguy]

2. He wasn't just threatening the president. He was threatening the president's family.

This has had me disturbed all day.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

5. There has been a lot of hysteria here over the last few days about threats against Obama

and slurs against the Secret Service, even though they are clearly fulfilling their mission. Give the pros a chance to do their jobs and lets not let wingnuts infect us with their paranoia. The best picture we can put forward is that all the noise is not deterring us or causing us to change our lives or our goals for this administration.

[Apollo11]

6. You think police officers are infallible?

President Obama made a mistake when he said that Cambridge police had acted stupidly in the Gates incident. It was not appropriate for the POTUS to get directly involved in this incident.

But sometimes police officers also make mistakes. Even sherrifs.

Anytime during the past 8 years, if a liberal or leftist protestor had showed up to a Presidential event with a "DEATH TO BUSH" sign and/or a loaded gun, I would have expected law enforcement (local, state and/or federal) to take action. Not just ask questions.

[deep1]

7. Not appropriate?

For Christ's sake, a reporter ASKED HIM that question. He gave his answer. And as a black man having to deal with bull everyday (I won't be surprised if he was a victim of profiling), I don't blame him for becoming irritated. Racial profiling is real and happens to many black men everyday. Stupidly may have been a harsh word, but it is true. Seems like the dumb cop only arrested the professor because his ego was hurt.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

19. No I don't, but the recent claims of ineptitude, biais, and intentionaly putting POTUS at risk

by the Secret Service is getting tiresome and is digging deeply into the national tinfoil reserves. The Secret Service tend to err very heavily on the side of caution as I can attest to from personal experience. Also, like most of the former Dept of Treasury agencies, they have a good track record of political neutrality.

Depending what you read, Obama may or may not be at increased risk today. A lot of people were pretty pissed at the Chimpster too. Regardless, the pros seem to be on top of things, and that in the end is the most we can ask.

[Paladin]

26. Such Rosy Optimism From Yet Another DU Gun Militant.

As if Democratic and Republican officials are at equal risk from gun-wielding psychopaths in this country. As if the Secret Service, as good as it is, has a 100% effectiveness history. And where are you reading that Obama is not at increased risk---"American Rifleman"?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

36. More flotsam and jetsam from an anti gun bigot

[sabrina 1]

28. So, would you say

that, eg, Cindy Sheehan was a serious threat to Bush when she showed up wearing a tee-shirt honoring dead troops? She was hauled off to jail and kept there until Bush was safely back in the WH. Was she more of a threat than this guy holding a sign actually threatening the President's family?

How about Amy Goodman and her producers? Were they more of a threat than this guy in your opinion?

And what about those students who were charged as terrorists under the Patriot Act? Were they, in your opinion, more dangerous than this guy?

You're not getting why people are questioning these decisions. We were told for eight years that people such as Quakers posed a threat to national security, or people wearing tee-shirts supporting a Democrat. The list is long, there isn't time to present all the examples of people who were dragged away from events simply because they expressed disagreements on the president's policies.

You are defending the actions of the SS and the FBI. You say we should trust them to make the right decisions. You say they always 'err on the side of caution'. Is that what they were doing under Bush then? And if so why has the bar been raised as far as what 'caution' means in less than a year? Has the threat level decreased, or were the same people just wrong back then? Because if they were, then they need to say so.

I don't know if you were defending the actions of the SS under Bush or not. But you definitley are ignoring the fact that there has been a sudden change in what constitutes 'caution' on their part.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

37. Were any of the arrests/detentions for being a threat to POTUS

and were any by the Secret Service? I have no intention to defend the crap state and locals bubbas clearly have done.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

40. Was Cindy arrested for threatening the President?

[sabrina 1]

42. I don't know. Why was she arrested? She was not breaking any

laws. The president was there along with members of Congress. Someone thought that wearing a tee-shirt honoring dead troops was threatening to someone. I never saw anyone in authority condemn that arrest.

Hundreds, maybe of thousands of similar arrests took place over the past eight years. People were forbidden access to presidential events for no reason at all, unless being a Democrat is reason enough. Who makes those decisions?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

43. So you are referring to the arrest before the State of the Union.

House rules bar demonstrations in the gallery. She was asked to cover her shirt or leave, she refused to do both. She was arrested. A congressman's wife was asked to leave for the same thing. She left.

[sabrina 1]

49. See my response and link to back up the facts I am stating, to Whistler162 below. You are incorrect

about what happened. Cindy Sheehan received an apology from the Chief of Police who stated that the arrest should never have happened, being that is was based on an antiquated, unwritten law which was wrongfully interpreted by his officers. Her rights were clearly violated, and at least the Police Chief in this case, acknowledged that.

She was not demonstrating and had no intention of doing so. The shirt she was wearing was worn for another event she had attended and had not had time to change. A simple explanation if we had been living in a rational world at the time.

She was arrested because of who she was. And that happened over and over again over the past eight years, to thousands of other people.

I did not agree with it then and I do not agree with it now.

But my point is to those who are rushing to defend the actions of authorities in cases like Cindy Sheehan's. You cannot defend ignoring a guy with a sign threatening Obama's family, or a guy with a gun, but condone what happened to Cindy Sheehan and so many others. Either what happened to her was wrong or what's happening now is wrong.

I believe what happened to her and so many others, was wrong and that those wrongs need to be addressed. When a story like this comes up, it reminds people of all the wrongful arrests and beatings of demonstrators and denial of rights and would like an acknowledgement that it was wrong. Otherwise, it will happen again, the next time we have a Republican in the WH whose policies we disagree with. I do not want to live in a country that has one set of rules for Democrats and another for Republicans.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

55. I'm not defending their actions. I was trying to figure out what you were talking about.

No one is saying they should ignore anyone making death threats. Cindy Sheehan wasn't arrested for making death threats, which is why your statement was questioned.

[whistler162]

44. The Capital Police asked her, then arrested her ....

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/31/sheehan.arrest/index.html

""She was asked to cover it up. She did not," said Sgt. Kimberly Schneider, U.S. Capitol Police spokeswoman.

House rules bar demonstrations in the galleries.

On Wednesday, U.S. Rep. Bill Young, R-Florida, spoke on the House floor saying his wife, Beverly, had been "ordered to leave" the gallery during the speech for wearing a shirt that said, "Support Our Troops."

Young, an 18-term congressman, held up his wife's shirt during his remarks, speaking with anger and emotion about her treatment.

"She has a real passion for our troops, and she shows it in many, many ways," Young said. "

[sabrina 1]

48. I am aware of the story. She was singled out and jumped on by

police before she had a chance to comply. She was a guest of a Congresswoman and was very tired after attending another event, that was the event for which she wore the tee-shirt and did not have time to change.

She was hand-cuffed and hauled off, injured, questioned for over an hour and held for several hours before being released. During that hour long questioning ordeal, even if you forgive the rest of the wrongful arrest, was it not possible to learn why she was wearing the shirt and that it was not a demonstration at all, something she had not even thought about? Also, she had not really wanted to attend, so had no interest or intention of making a statement there.

The other woman should not have been asked to leave either.

As it turns out, the Chief of Police was embarrassed by the actions of his officers and apologized to Cindy Sheehan. The ridiculous charges against her were dropped. The Police Chief attempted to take the heat off those who violated her rights by taking some of the blame himself.



http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/02/politics/main1272923.shtml

Gainer apologized, saying, "The officers made a good faith, but mistaken effort to enforce an old unwritten interpretation of the prohibitions about demonstrating in the Capitol.

"The policy and procedures were too vague," he added. "The failure to adequately prepare the officers is mine."

But, back home in Los Angeles Wednesday, Sheehan told Linda Alvarez of CBS station KCBS-TV, "They violated my civil rights they humiliated me. They treated me like, instead of having just a t-shirt on, I had a weapon."

I am surprised to see anyone here even attempt to justify that arrest. I thought it had been well established that she was arrested because of who she was. The 'law' that people here are citing here was, as you can see not even a written law, and even worse, a lame interpretation of a law that old and unwritten. It was the equivalent of arresting someone for hanging out wash on Sunday. A ridiculous excuse for an arrest.

She was not the only one, but one of thousands treated this way over the past eight years. To be clear, I am not in favor of arresting people who are not breaking the law no matter what 'side' they are on. I am asking why things have changed so much without any explanation.

If people want to argue for allowing more freedom to dissent, I am all for it. But you cannot make that argument and then approve or defend what happened to Cindy Sheehan and thousands of other Americans. Those wrongs need to be addressed, unless you believe that treating Democrats one way and Republicans another is okay. I do not.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

54. Captiol Police, not Secret Service

[sabrina 1]

56. Several people in this thread attempted to defend

what happened to Cindy Sheehan implying that her case was different to the one in the OP, because she had violated the law. I wanted to set the record straight on that as even the Police Chief realized how absurd it was.

So yes, in her case it was the Capital Police. In other cases it was the local police, and in many, many more cases it was the SS or the FBI keeping Democrats away from public events where the president was speaking and arresting them if they did not 'comply' with these violations of their rights.

I know those of you who for some reason do not want to acknowledge that the crushing of dissent for the past eight years was unjustified, will use tactics, such as you are doing right now, of diversion. Maybe it's simply a personal reason for wanting to protect the police when they do wrong, of the SS, or the FBI or whoever.

You seem unwilling to admit that things have changed drastically since Bush left office as far as what is tolerated in the name of exercising rights. Imo, for the better. But that doesn't address or acknowledge that what went on under Bush and which many people, even here, often supported, was wrong.

In the case in the OP eg, had that been Bush, if the SS didn't arrest him, the local police would have. But no one would have been anywhere near Bush with a sign like that and you know it.

As it happens, I agree with not arresting everyone for simply expressing an opinion, even one like that. That is not my point, and I don't care whether it was the SS, the Capitol Police or the FBI, but thousands of Democrats were WRONGFULLY arrested during the Bush years.

The problem is, if you disagree that those thousands of individuals were wrongfully arrested, then it is hypocritical to claim that this guy should NOT have been arrested.

So which is it, was it right to keep citizens from wearing certain tee-shirts around the president, or to carry controversial signs, or from showing up exercising your 2nd Amend. rights, or was it not? Because you cannot have it both ways.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

57. This sub thread was about threats to POTUS and how the Secret Service was dealing with them

Cindy is not really relevant

[sabrina 1]

58. When someone is arrested and treated the way she and so many

others were during the past eight years, in the vicinity of the president, it is relevant to compare how those same issues are being handled now, under a different administration. If she was no threat to anyone there, including the president, as I asked before (rhetorically) why was she arrested in the first place?

The relevance is that what she did, even if you were stupid enough to agree with the arrest, was far less threatening than if her tee-shirt's message was a threat to the president or his family. And if that had been the case, I am almost certain that people on this thread would have applauded her arrest for, if nothing else, stupidity.

But here we have a rightwinger doing what you have to agree, would have gotten her charged with a crime, and the SS simply questions him and lets him go. The relevance is the disparity in the treatment of Democratic dissenters and Republican dissenters.

As far as how the SS handled everything then and now, it is like night and day whether you are aware of it or not, and they do work in conjunction with local law enforcement who often make the arrests after receiving word from the SS.

[imdjh]

29. Don't argue the hypothetical. It really got old on the Republicans, and it's old on us.

Sorry , but 8 years of unsubstantiated hypothetical rhetoric really wore me out in the Bushies. Like most people, I got sick of their every defense starting with, "If Clinton had ..." or some such stupid shit.

The Secret Service has detained, interrogated, and arrested lots of people over the years for everything from the clearly impotent to the clearly insane (and thus not credible) - some of which we approved of and some of which we didn't. Some of which we were in agreement with the right-wingnuts about, and some of which we weren't.

You know and I know that some 70 year old jackass behind a computer screen in Arkadelphia was not a serious threat to President Clinton at some gathering 300 miles away- but the secret service said they were following policy and even the wingnuts agreed. By the same token, some broken down hippie in front of the White House has never given the police a real reason to arrest him, and yet he has been arrested by every president in the last 20 years.

[paulsby]

35. they did take action

that action did not result in a custodial booking.

i've investigated scores of crimes where i have taken the suspect to the question, questioned them, and then released them . that's par for the course for many non-mandatory arrest crimes, and threats fall under that category.

also, the SS does not generally make summary arrests, like most federal agents. they prefer to investigate, send the case to a US attorney and then if a warrant is issued THEN they arrest.

hth

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

39. What mistake would the Sheriff have made here?

[RamboLiberal]

21. One thing that disturbs me is that a new book about the Secret Service

claims that since they were folded into Homeland Security there have been cuts that endanger Obama - training & so forth. Now the author though he once worked for reputable news agencies works now for Newsmax. But even that gives me pause - like we're being friggin' setup for a disaster.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

24. Boks likte that appear on a cyclic basis, look back a few years

Its a good read, and at times salacious, but that is about it.

[Union Yes]

8. All hope is lost.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dennis Donovan]

10. The term is "hanged."

And we don't do that in this country - we have something called "due process"...:eyes:

[malaise]

14. You stole my reply

:fistbump:

[Dennis Donovan]

15. Great minds...

:fistbump:

[Doctor_J]

18. Actually, what we have is "due process for Republicans"

mob rule for others.

[greennina]

41. Deleted? I see we have a Palin fan here...

that doesn't like my web site!

balinpalin.com

[Dennis Donovan]

50. deleted because your post wa a call for violence...

That's a no-no here.

[madrchsod]

11. there is an active file on this guy for the next few years

since he did`t make a psychical threat against the president they will not arrest him. i know the secret service scared the crap out of him...

[ddeclue]

17. psychical ???

you mean "physical"

[madrchsod]

33. ya it was to early....

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

12. I'm glad he was taken in for questioning

and I bet there will be a watch on him and if he ever wanders into a Presidential event, he will be escorted out.

[mainer]

13. Any ID of the guy?

Does anyone know anything about him? I guess, since he wasn't arrested, there's no public record available.

[RamboLiberal]

20. I haven't seen any ID

Guess since he wasn't arrested Secret Service is not releasing.

[Doctor_J]

16. A similar sign about Bush would have gotten prison time

this guy probably got a wink and a "get out of jail free" card.

[KatieW]

22. If you think the Secret Service don't take things like that serious, you are so wrong.

The Secret Service did not just give this guy a wink and a nod. It is they duty to protect the life of the president, and his family, and they take it VERY serious. They are not secretly hoping for the President's death, as your post implies.

[Juche]

23. I remember when people were arrested for wearing anti-Bush T-shirts

Ah, the rule of law.

http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1095255205.shtml

[paparush]

25. Cindy Sheehan got arrested for wearing a T-shirt with a number on it.

Imagine if Libs had worn guns to a Cheney speech.

Imagine if Libs had held up "Death to Bush - Death to Laura Bush and her two stupid daughters" signs.

[RamboLiberal]

27. Imagine if Cindy Sheehan had a gun strapped to her thigh

Point made on Ed Schultz today when he talked about ABC article about Obama's safety. Article posted in GDP.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

38. By the Secret Service for being a threat to POTUS?

[whistler162]

45. Nope by the Capital Police for breaking House rules....

the same way a Republican Congressman's wife was asked to leave the House.

""She was asked to cover it up. She did not," said Sgt. Kimberly Schneider, U.S. Capitol Police spokeswoman.

House rules bar demonstrations in the galleries.

On Wednesday, U.S. Rep. Bill Young, R-Florida, spoke on the House floor saying his wife, Beverly, had been "ordered to leave" the gallery during the speech for wearing a shirt that said, "Support Our Troops."

Young, an 18-term congressman, held up his wife's shirt during his remarks, speaking with anger and emotion about her treatment.

"She has a real passion for our troops, and she shows it in many, many ways," Young said."

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/31/sheehan.arrest/index.html

[ProgressiveProfessor]

53. Quite Right...

Now if only those breathless from their hyperpole would understand such details

[Lerkfish]

30. remember when that guy in New Orleans was arrested for just saying F-you to cheney?

ironic

[whistler162]

47. In so many ways....

Interesting to see how many want a return to bush era arrest rules!

[Beetwasher]

32. Need To See Who He Associates With

n/t

[cherokeeprogressive]

46. If I ruled the world, he'd have his words tatooed on his forehead and be released back into society.

Imagine the trouble he'd encounter.

He could though, wear a bandana on his forehead, but he'd ALWAYS have to wear it.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

51. Good.

People who are seriously threatening to murder the president don't hold up signs in public.

"Contributing to an atmosphere leading to a crime" should not be a criminal offence, I think.

If (kayn aynorah) Obama is assassinated by a right-wing loony, I think this man will bear some (a tiny amount) of moral responsibility, but no legal responsibility.

Being an asshole should not be criminalised.

Besides, if your goal is seriously to minimise danger to the president, rather than to express righteous ire, then it's almost certainly better not to give people like this publicity by locking them up and letting right-wingers view them as "martyrs".

[B Calm]

52. Only real crimes now days, are when black men breaks into their own home.