Judge Reinstates Cheney Subpoena in Lawsuit

[Hissyspit]

Source: Associated Press

Judge reinstates Cheney subpoena in lawsuit
Associated Press - March 2, 2009 6:14 PM ET

DENVER (AP) - A federal judge has reinstated a subpoena seeking testimony from former Vice President Dick Cheney in a lawsuit filed by a Colorado man.

The judge on Monday overturned a federal magistrate who had denied a motion to subpoena Cheney.

Steven Howards was arrested in June 2006. He says he walked up to Cheney in Beaver Creek and told him his Iraq policy was "disgusting."

Agents called the incident an assault and a harassment charge was later dropped. Howards filed suit, alleging the arrest was in retaliation for disagreeing with Cheney and a violation of his constitutional rights to free speech and protection from unreasonable search and seizure.

Howards' attorneys say Cheney could answer several questions about the incident, including whether Howards slapped him on the back or lightly touched his arm.

Read more: http://www.krdo.com/Global/story.asp?S=9933043

[Abq_Sarah]

1. Laying hands on a sitting VP

Uninvited probably isn't a good idea. I sure as hell don't want anyone getting up close to VP biden without his express permission and either slapping him on the back or touching his arm. You never know when someone is going to come completely unglued.

[garybeck]

7. according to the article he didn't touch him.

it looks like the attorneys just want to question Cheney to show that he wasn't touched

[santamargarita]

2. Cheney was an un-elected fascist pig - big difference

I hope this stumpy little shitbag is forced to show up!

[Abq_Sarah]

3. Not to the courts and not to the secret service

They don't particularly care if you think a President or VP is legitimate or not. Unless, of course, you don't mind people deciding on their own if President Obama and VP Biden are "legitimate" and basing their actions on those delusions?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

4. Battery would have seemed a more fitting charge.

[Igel]

5. Nah.

A roommate when I was an undergrad had to learn the difference. Since everything he learned the semester we were roomies I had to explain to him ... I learned that an assault can even be entirely verbal and gestural with no contact.

Here are quotes from a website that pretty much match what I learned in the '70s.

Assault: A crime that occurs when one person tries to physically harm another in a way that makes the person under attack feel immediately threatened. Actual physical contact is not necessary; threatening gestures that would alarm any reasonable person can constitute an assault. http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/Term/22542B6F-FEDB-450A-889A82A49EA50CEB/alpha/A/

Battery: A crime consisting of physical contact that is intended to harm someone. Unintentional harmful contact is not battery, no mater how careless the behavior or how severe the injury. http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/term/17A1E180-3796-4CCB-8E65996C566DDC20

No actual injury or intent to injure, you don't have battery. It skirts the very problem that's adduced--the extent of the contact. Still, since the threat level seems to be at issue ...

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

6. Simple battery may include any form of non-consensual harmful or insulting contact

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_(crime)#Distinction_between_battery_and_assault