Dead Soldier; Happy Mom

[Rich Parsons]

Just a side story:

When you get a ticket, you never argue with the cop. It just makes it worse and it could get you in trouble even if you were not really in trouble. One takes it to court to get your say.

So the story goes like this. I get pulled over by a police officer doing 66 MPH in a 65 MPH, in a group of cars. Others travelling faster. The officer walks up to the vehicle, Ihave the window down and and he "Reaches" in by slapping his hand against my chest and clinching his hand into a fist, and asking "What the hell are you doing?" I get my ticket, and ask for his number and full name politely and write it down and ask him why he picked me out. He told me the Chief's wife had called and said I was flipping her off. I did not argue with the officer.

I went to court and to argue my case. The officer did not show up. The judge did not want to sign off on the ticket and so talked to me, in chambers, about speeding, and that I must have done something else to get a 1 MPH speeding ticket. So I showed him my notes and explained the situation. He was quite upset, and said if I wished to press charges, I could, I told him that I would not if he would talk to the officer and also the chief. He smiled and thanked me.

I went from being guilty with a judge to explaining myself calmly and politely and in a manner that was not aggressive. He was concerend about the absense of the officer and the possible media and political problems. I jsut wanted it not to happen again.

I got a good result by following the instructions of the officers dispatched. I did not fight. I did not stand on the Bill of Rights. I waited for my time in court.

There are rules and laws, and procedures not chaos and anarchy.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

You also didnt WANT to make a big scene in front of the entire nation.

 

[michaeledward]

You also didnt WANT to make a big scene in front of the entire nation.

And Blotan Hunka can read the future that didn't happen, and thoughts of someone far away ... man, that is some serious kung fu.

neither Mrs. Sheehan’s manner of dress or initial conduct warranted law enforcement intervention.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Yes, by all means, avoid the First Person accounts of what happened. God knows the people who were actually involved won't have any idea what happened.

Of course, and we are sure to get the unbiased, absolute truth too, right? As we all know, Cindy wouldn't lie for the cause. Actually, i'm less concerned with her telling the truth, than her grip on reality.

People with a martyr complex tend to live in fanatasy worlds.

 

[michaeledward]

sgtmac_46 .... there are already enough responses as to whether Ms. Sheehan's first person account should be viewed as 'unbiased, absolute truth' ... check 'em out.

 

[Don Roley]

Of course, and we are sure to get the unbiased, absolute truth too, right? As we all know, Cindy wouldn't lie for the cause. Actually, i'm less concerned with her telling the truth, than her grip on reality.

People with a martyr complex tend to live in fanatasy worlds.

That martyr complex is an interesting point.

She says she was not there to protest. Should we believe her or look more toward her past patterns of behavior.

Let's face it. She has arranged to be dragged away (smiling) from protests before and arrested. She camped out for weeks in front of the president's ranch in the hope of confronting him. She has sought out fame and media attention at every oppurtunity, good or bad.

And despite all this, the guy who gave her the ticket somehow did not expect her to get up in the middle of the speech and cause trouble?

No one can predict the future or what someone would do. But Sheehan's past actions do not point to her sitting quietly without fuss. Someone wanted some fireworks. It just did not happen live onn national tv.

 

[sgtmac_46]

That martyr complex is an interesting point.

She says she was not there to protest. Should we believe her or look more toward her past patterns of behavior.

She was obviously there to protest. Moreover, she was there for attention. She seems to desire the limelight obsessively. It's hard to let go once you become a celebrity. It's apparently quite addictive.

Let's face it. She has arranged to be dragged away (smiling) from protests before and arrested. She camped out for weeks in front of the president's ranch in the hope of confronting him. She has sought out fame and media attention at every oppurtunity, good or bad.

She certainly seems to enjoy herself. It's sad that her son had to die, in order that she become a minor celebrity.

And despite all this, the guy who gave her the ticket somehow did not expect her to get up in the middle of the speech and cause trouble?

It was entirely staged and orchestrated. It was a chance to pour a little bad news on the president's state of the union address. Had she not gotten arrested, there would be no story.

She had to get arrested. I'd be surprised if it wasn't a democratic operative who made sure to point out to the Capital Police that she was 'protesting' in the first place. No arrest/No story. Surely they don't think we're all that stupid.

No one can predict the future or what someone would do. But Sheehan's past actions do not point to her sitting quietly without fuss. Someone wanted some fireworks. It just did not happen live onn national tv.

Cindy is a publicity addict. Her handlers will use her until they can't squeeze anything else out of her.....then she'll be on an episode of Celebrity Boxing, fighting Anna Nicole Smith.

It's pathetic when you think about it. I shudder to think what she'll do when the cameras are gone.

 

[michaeledward]

She was obviously there to protest. Moreover, she was there for attention. She seems to desire the limelight obsessively. It's hard to let go once you become a celebrity. It's apparently quite addictive.

She certainly seems to enjoy herself. It's sad that her son had to die, in order that she become a minor celebrity.

It was entirely staged and orchestrated. It was a chance to pour a little bad news on the president's state of the union address. Had she not gotten arrested, there would be no story.

She had to get arrested. I'd be surprised if it wasn't a democratic operative who made sure to point out to the Capital Police that she was 'protesting' in the first place. No arrest/No story. Surely they don't think we're all that stupid.

Cindy is a publicity addict. Her handlers will use her until they can't squeeze anything else out of her.....then she'll be on an episode of Celebrity Boxing, fighting Anna Nicole Smith.

It's pathetic when you think about it. I shudder to think what she'll do when the cameras are gone.

And all of this also applies to Mrs. Young, right? You know, the Congressmans' wife. I mean, who would show up to the State of the Union Speech in a T-Shirt, unless they wanted to get arrested, eh?

 

[Rich Parsons]

. . . can read the future that didn't happen, and thoughts of someone far away ...

neither Mrs. Sheehan’s manner of dress or initial conduct warranted law enforcement intervention.

Hmmm, I was once standing out side of a building after spending about $25 for a pool table and paid hourly rate. Ncie pool hall. The local ordinances did not have loitering, or gang related laws in place. I was jsut standing there, waiting for a friend to show, who was late, so we could go some place else.

A police officer rolls up, and gets out of his vehicle with his spot on me, and has me against the wall, and after a check says I have to leave. I told him I left something inside, and needed to go ask for it. The officer told me to leave or he would put me in the back of his car. So, I rold him I was reaching for my keys in my coat pocket (* he already knew as he had patted me down *) and was going to leave.

Michael, I really do not know what world you live in. But the world I grew up in, has racism, (* which I hate *), discrimination (* which I hate *), and people who make judgement calls based upon their experience, (* which is tolerable in some instances. *).

My point is this and remains this. If asked to leave you leave. Do not pretend you do not see them or hear them. When they get in your face and tell you again, even if you had not seen or heard, them apologize and go with them. When it is over, if you are in the right either they will be censured and or an apology will be given.

In my case, I left and went to BK, ordered a burger, and then went back and went inside and asked if I could have my $25 back. The owner manager was surprised, by my actions. So I explained that the police officer would not let me back in. And that if this is how he was going to have a relationship with his customers, and having police escort them off property after their money is spent, I did not wish to do business with him. Some people walked out without getting a table. Others packed up and left. Why? Because I was a regular. If I got treated like this would the others? The owner filed a complaint with the police department. The department apologized. The officer was new and had come from an area with no loitering. You see, his training was not complete. He did not know the thousands of laws for local and state and fed for the area he was working.

I do not support the woman in question of this thread. I just realize that mistakes happen, and knowing ever law is not practical. Hence, why police enforce, not interpret the law. That is for Lawyers to argue and Judges to rule.

 

[michaeledward]

Rich Parsons ....

The reports have been two reports about what happened.


Ms. Sheehan states something to the effect of ...

I was taking off my coat, I had one sleeve out of my jacket when the police officer yelled "Protestor", came over grabbed me, and escorted me out of the building.

​

The other report is the Capitol Police Force Spokesperson, who states something to the effect of ...

She did not respond.

​

I guess the question is, which of these statements seems to have more validity. How one interprets these statements will apparently have quite a bit of bearing on the case.

Ms. Sheehan was there. Her description of events is specific and reasonable (I take my coat off one sleave at a time. In that activity, the clothing beneath my jacket becomes visible.)

The Capital Police Force Spokesperson does not elaborate on the statement. Because it is a spokesperson, and not the arresting officer, we are one step removed (at least) from the activity.

Some are ascribing 'motive' to Ms. Sheehan for manipulating her statement; fair enough. But, couldn't there similarly be 'motive' for the Police Spokesperson to manipulate her statement?

I contend, that Ms. Sheehan was not 'asked to leave'. If she was, let's get that presented into evidence. What were the words the officer spoke? What was Ms. Sheehan's reply? Did the officer repeat the request and clarify to whom he was speaking? (I am assuming the gallery was a bit noisy and many people were moving around ... would it be clear to whom the officer was speaking? - Ms. Sheehan was not loitering alone in the gallery).

Rich Parsons ... how do you know, or why are you making the assumption that Ms. Sheehan is 'pretending' to not see or hear, or respond to the police?

Rich Parsons ... why are you making the assumption that the officer 'got in Ms. Sheehan's face' and repeated a request - any request - to do anything, for which she should apologize?

Those facts, to my reading of the story, are not in evidence.

Many seem to think that because Ms. Sheehan would peacefully camp out on the side of the road in Texas, her goal in life is to embarass the President. Or because she attempted to 'Petition' her government, and was arrested outside the White House, her goal is to embarrass the President.

I thought our Bill of Rights gave spelled out the right to peaceably assemble and to petition our government. Others, apparently don't.

 

[Rich Parsons]

I thought our Bill of Rights gave spelled out the right to peaceably assemble and to petition our government. Others, apparently don't.

The Bill of rights allows for this yes. Yet there are laws in place that prohibit such with out the proper permits. Sometimes it is a simple fee, other times they have to make sure proper security is there.

As to embarassing the sitting President, I cannot speak to her actions nor intent, nor her words. For I think he just like any politician can embarass themselves easily enough.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

It was the state of the union address, not a protest site. I thought that attendance was "invitation only" didnt some Dem. polititian "invite" her to attend. I always thought that the State of the Union Address was the President primarially talking to Congress, not an "open door event". Its easy enough to "uninvite" a troublemaker from a closed door event and thats not a violation of the Constuitution.

 

[michaeledward]

My comments about Peaceable Assembly, and Petitioning the government refer not to the evening of the State of the Union address, but rather to the opinions that some are expressing about Ms. Sheehan desire to embarrass the President.

I specifically mentioned her camping out in Texas, and the arrest at the White House.

From those activities, which I believe are Constitutionally protected, some have formed the bias and opinions about what her activity at the State of the Union might, or might not be.

A citizen exercising her rights .... can't have that, can we?

 

[Don Roley]

The reports have been two reports about what happened.


Ms. Sheehan states something to the effect of ...

I was taking off my coat, I had one sleeve out of my jacket when the police officer yelled "Protestor", came over grabbed me, and escorted me out of the building.

​

The other report is the Capitol Police Force Spokesperson, who states something to the effect of ...

She did not respond.

​

I guess the question is, which of these statements seems to have more validity. How one interprets these statements will apparently have quite a bit of bearing on the case.

Ms. Sheehan was there. Her description of events is specific and reasonable (I take my coat off one sleave at a time. In that activity, the clothing beneath my jacket becomes visible.)

The Capital Police Force Spokesperson does not elaborate on the statement. Because it is a spokesperson, and not the arresting officer, we are one step removed (at least) from the activity.

I would think that unless you are highly partisan, the Capital Police Force Spokesman would be the more reasonable source. And that is the reason that the major news orginizations went with it rather than Sheehan's versions of events.

Despite the idea that they are the tools of Coporate America's propaganda arm, the major newsgroups do like to make money off of selling eye-catching stories. But they do have a reputation to uphold and try to view the sources as best they can.

Aside from the fact that no- one taken away in cuffs gives an acount that puts the blame on themselves for it, there is all the past action by Sheehan to look at. She has forced police to arrest her and drag her away. She has tried to confront the president and cause trouble for him every chance she gets.

So, before running with her side of the story, a good editor would try to see if there were any witnesses to the screaming and running that she says went on. This happened in a large room full of people. If there had been only a few that they could find that would back up what Sheehan says, as an editor I would run her version of events next to the statement by the police. Considering just how hard it would be to miss if her versions of events went down, I would view the failure to find any collaberating witnesses as a big sign that her view of things may not have any merit.

Many seem to think that because Ms. Sheehan would peacefully camp out on the side of the road in Texas, her goal in life is to embarass the President. Or because she attempted to 'Petition' her government, and was arrested outside the White House, her goal is to embarrass the President.

I thought our Bill of Rights gave spelled out the right to peaceably assemble and to petition our government. Others, apparently don't.

Actually, it is the things like how she does interviews, forces police to arrest her and drag her away and her public statements that all point to her extreme hatred towards the president and a desire to cause him trouble.

As for her right to protest, if anyone runs out onto the field at the Superbowl this weekend to protest anything, they will be taken away in cuffs. And if someone has always shown a pattern of behavior before through protests, it is acceptable to point to those public protests as an example. I am quite content with letting Sheehan make statements and protest in a legal manner. But I don't think that pointing to those protests to show a pattern of behavior is an infringment on her rights as you are saying.

 

[sgtmac_46]

My comments about Peaceable Assembly, and Petitioning the government refer not to the evening of the State of the Union address, but rather to the opinions that some are expressing about Ms. Sheehan desire to embarrass the President.

I specifically mentioned her camping out in Texas, and the arrest at the White House.

From those activities, which I believe are Constitutionally protected, some have formed the bias and opinions about what her activity at the State of the Union might, or might not be.

A citizen exercising her rights .... can't have that, can we?

She was arrested protesting in Texas? I don't recall that occuring

Moreover, I have the right to protest in America....but I don't have the right to physically protest in your living room, if you don't want me there. Therefore, there are obvious restrictions on the time and place of a protest. As the State of the Union address is not open to the general public, it's not a 'Public Forum'. You can be removed from the building, and arrested for refusing to leave. Imagine, if I could just barge in your house or office, at will, and begin a protest somewhere the general public isn't allowed to be.

 

[michaeledward]

She was arrested protesting in Texas? I don't recall that occuring

No, she was assembling peaceably in Texas. Something some have called part of a pattern of behavior.

Moreover, I have the right to protest in America....but I don't have the right to physically protest in your living room, if you don't want me there. Therefore, there are obvious restrictions on the time and place of a protest. As the State of the Union address is not open to the general public, it's not a 'Public Forum'. You can be removed from the building, and arrested for refusing to leave. Imagine, if I could just barge in your house or office, at will, and begin a protest somewhere the general public isn't allowed to be.

If you have evidence that she 'refused to leave'. .... put up or shut up.

The police have said, that nothing in Ms. Sheehan's initial actions merited police intervention.

Your reasoning is ... "She was in handcuffs, so she must have refused" ... then why was Mrs. Young given the reason 'It's only fair' that she needed to be escorted out?

 

[michaeledward]

Furthering Ms. Sheehan's 15 minutes of fame ...

by Cindy Sheehan
Dear Friends,
I just saw the below "apology" on MichaelMoore.com...thanks Eric!
This is the biggest crock of horse manure ever.
Everyone is saying how "wonderful" it is that they apologized to me.
Look at a few things they said: My "initial" conduct wasn't enough to warrant me getting arrested.
None of my conduct was. I didn't yell at the officer, or call anyone an "idiot" like Mrs. Young did.
Secondly, it states the Mrs. Young wasn't arrested because she didn't "return to the gallery."
Why did they arrest me? They didn't even give me the opportunity to leave the gallery.

They had fours hours to figure out that I didn't do anything wrong. The Capitol police tried the tactic of smearing me and lying about me when I was in jail to the media. I guess they didn't count on the Reuter's reporter who was sitting right next to me.

They also started lying about me when I was in jail, I heard a female officer say "She took off her jacket and threw it." And Mike Weight, who arrested me, said I "stood up and started yelling something."
The Capitol police could not support their lies, that's why they apologized.
That's the only reason.

Love,
Me

You may take not of the name of the arresting officer ... "Mike Weight".

You may compare that with the name of the person who reports Ms. Sheehan did not respond ... "Kimberly Schneider".

Are arrest records public documents?

 

[sgtmac_46]

No, she was assembling peaceably in Texas. Something some have called part of a pattern of behavior.

And she was not arrested, thank you. So nobodies 'rights' have been violated.

If you have evidence that she 'refused to leave'. .... put up or shut up.

The police have said, that nothing in Ms. Sheehan's initial actions merited police intervention.

Your reasoning is ... "She was in handcuffs, so she must have refused" ... then why was Mrs. Young given the reason 'It's only fair' that she needed to be escorted out?

Whatever. The fact of the matter is that she intended to cause a scene, and managed to do so. Everything Ms. Sheehan has done for the past several months has been a calculated, orchestrated publicity stunt. Now she's gotten more publicity. The whole 'I got arrested' schitck is a part of that publicty stunt. The controversy she's trying to start now about how and why she got arrested is simply CONTINUING the same publicity stunt. If you set out to get arrested, don't whine that.....you got arrested. Go figure.

 

[michaeledward]

And she was not arrested, thank you. So nobodies 'rights' have been violated.

Whatever. The fact of the matter is that she intended to cause a scene,

How has her 'intent' been proven as fact?

Unless, of course, you argue the pattern of behavior.... but, her behavior has been within the bounds of the Constitution. ...

So, if her behavior has not violated her rights .... how can she have a pattern of behavior that determines intent?

and managed to do so. Everything Ms. Sheehan has done for the past several months has been a calculated, orchestrated publicity stunt. Now she's gotten more publicity. The whole 'I got arrested' schitck is a part of that publicty stunt. The controversy she's trying to start now about how and why she got arrested is simply CONTINUING the same publicity stunt. If you set out to get arrested, don't whine that.....you got arrested. Go figure.

Oops, there you go, arguing the Pattern of Behavior .... behavior which is within her rights .... so, why thend did she get arrested?

Was it her intent to exercise her constitutionally protected rights, that no one violated?

You sure have me running in circles there ....

 

[sgtmac_46]

How has her 'intent' been proven as fact?

Unless, of course, you argue the pattern of behavior.... but, her behavior has been within the bounds of the Constitution. ...

So, if her behavior has not violated her rights .... how can she have a pattern of behavior that determines intent?

That didn't even make sense, michael. Could you please restate that.

Let me sumerise for you. Cindy Sheehan is a publicity hound. She lives for controversy. It's the only way she gets her message out. When she protests within the bounds of the law, she can say whatever she wants. She camped out in Texas, and got all the publicity she wanted legally. However, eventually people started getting bored with her. So then she had to get kookier and kookier to get the cameras pointed her way.

She intended to provoke an incident at the State of the Union Address, for the purposes of getting arrested, because she knew getting arrested would get her name back on the front page. I have no doubt she orchestrated the incident, and acted in such a way as to provoke arrest. That's her 'pattern of behavior' now, as you call it, to get arrested for publicity. Her handlers have decided that it is necessary to get publicity.

Oops, there you go, arguing the Pattern of Behavior .... behavior which is within her rights .... so, why thend did she get arrested?

LMFAO. It's obvious what Cindy Sheehan is, and that's a publicity animal. She wants to get arrested. She was arrested because she wanted to get arrested. She set out to provoke an arrest. That's she's now playing the 'victim' is nothing new. That's part of her modus operandi. Provoke arrest, and then play the martyr. It's a continuing cycle of her martyr complex.

Moreover, michael, you're well aware of all of this. You're a smart guy. You're just a happy, willing participant in spreading the myth, but you very well know the truth, even if you don't admit it.

Was it her intent to exercise her constitutionally protected rights, that no one violated?

Her intent was to get arrested, so that she could continue her 15-minutes of fame, by getting us to talk about her getting arrested.

You sure have me running in circles there ....

You should be used to running in circles by now.