Iraqi "journalist" throws shoes at Bush

[Texsox]

I can't speak for Iraqi law, but by US and general common law, what he did is textbook definition of assault. He threw a potentially harmful object at another person. That is assault.

 

 

So I wonder how many Iraqi's Saddam locked up for their traditional gesture. I hope we freed all of them when we liberated the country. No wait, we need to beat them. I am so confused. Why did we invade and bomb the hell out of their country again?

[NorthSideSox72]

This guy did not invent some new insult. The intent, as is the long standing custom there, was to insult and not to actually hit him. Just like flipping him off is not to actually hit anyone with your finger. This seems to be the point that many people are overlooking.

 

This was a traditional gesture. The man had many other objects available to throw at Bush if the intent was to assault him. He did throw a cell phone, clipboard, lap top, chair, he threw a shoe, because that is the custom. Basically you guys would be saying that flipping someone off should result in jailtime.

 

But yes, if Bush was actually hit and died, or any other silly what if you want to come up with, it would be different. Just as if someone was flipping someone off and accidentally killed them or caused them to need stitches. But instead, just like when you flip someone off, no one is hurt, this guy managed the traditional and long standing custom perfectly, and no one was hurt.

I don't see how you can think he didn't intend to hit Bush. The shoe sailed right where Bush's head was, if he hadn't quickly (and, I must admit, deftly) dodged it.

 

[StrangeSox]

I don't see how you can think he didn't intend to hit Bush. The shoe sailed right where Bush's head was, if he hadn't quickly (and, I must admit, deftly) dodged it.

 

I agree completely. If Bush had been looking to the side that second instead of ahead, it would have hit him squarely in the face. If he had lobbed the shoes at the podium, that would be one thing, but it is obvious to me that he meant to hit Bush.

[southsider2k5]

This guy did not invent some new insult. The intent, as is the long standing custom there, was to insult and not to actually hit him. Just like flipping him off is not to actually hit anyone with your finger. This seems to be the point that many people are overlooking.

 

This was a traditional gesture. The man had many other objects available to throw at Bush if the intent was to assault him. He did throw a cell phone, clipboard, lap top, chair, he threw a shoe, because that is the custom. Basically you guys would be saying that flipping someone off should result in jailtime.

 

But yes, if Bush was actually hit and died, or any other silly what if you want to come up with, it would be different. Just as if someone was flipping someone off and accidentally killed them or caused them to need stitches. But instead, just like when you flip someone off, no one is hurt, this guy managed the traditional and long standing custom perfectly, and no one was hurt.

 

So we should just ignore the laws as they are in Iraq because it isn't a big deal here?

[lostfan]

So we should just ignore the laws as they are in Iraq because it isn't a big deal here?

^^

[Texsox]

So we should just ignore the laws as they are in Iraq because it isn't a big deal here?

 

Just the opposite. We should ignore our laws and respect their social customs and accept this was a protest insult and not intended as an assault. We are applying our laws there.

 

Flip off the Pres? no big deal.

Flip off the Pres, trip, and poke his eye out? Big deal.

 

If the guy threw a feather pillow, helium balloon, or anything other than a shoe, I'm all for locking him up and calling it assault. From what I read, this shoe thing is intended the same as you flipping me off and not meant to harm anyone. Again, from my understanding of this custom, their is a right way and a wrong way. The correct way results in no physical harm, which is what happened here. So based on that, getting beaten and spending a few years in jail is more like why we were told we went over there to stop.

[Texsox]

I don't see how you can think he didn't intend to hit Bush. The shoe sailed right where Bush's head was, if he hadn't quickly (and, I must admit, deftly) dodged it.

 

Why did he use a shoe and not something like a cell phone?

[EvilMonkey]

Just the opposite. We should ignore our laws and respect their social customs and accept this was a protest insult and not intended as an assault. We are applying our laws there.

 

Flip off the Pres? no big deal.

Flip off the Pres, trip, and poke his eye out? Big deal.

 

If the guy threw a feather pillow, helium balloon, or anything other than a shoe, I'm all for locking him up and calling it assault. From what I read, this shoe thing is intended the same as you flipping me off and not meant to harm anyone. Again, from my understanding of this custom, their is a right way and a wrong way. The correct way results in no physical harm, which is what happened here. So based on that, getting beaten and spending a few years in jail is more like why we were told we went over there to stop.

So because I feel personally offended that that jagbag threw a shoe at our President, that is wrong? I thought that AT THAT TIME, right when it happened, the secret service should have been a little faster on the ball and beat the crap out of the guy. As for now, he is in an Iraqi jail, being subject to iraqi laws, not our laws, so i am not sure what you are complaing about? Over there, insulting a foreign leader is apparently a big deal, since they had that law already onthe books and it wasn't just thought up for this occasion. Or do you want us to respect the custom but not the law?

[Texsox]

So because I feel personally offended that that jagbag threw a shoe at our President, that is wrong? I thought that AT THAT TIME, right when it happened, the secret service should have been a little faster on the ball and beat the crap out of the guy. As for now, he is in an Iraqi jail, being subject to iraqi laws, not our laws, so i am not sure what you are complaing about? Over there, insulting a foreign leader is apparently a big deal, since they had that law already onthe books and it wasn't just thought up for this occasion. Or do you want us to respect the custom but not the law?

 

You were really offended? You must spend a lot of time being offended, our Presidents are insulted every day. There are a lot of things over there that Americans found offensive in Iraq's legal system, so offensive in fact, we have lost thousands of US lives trying to fix them. Right after the WMD argument was exposed as based on faulty intelligence, we started looking at how Iraq treated people who insulted the country's leaders. It isn't so amazing we embraced those laws now. Imagine if Saddam had someone beaten for throwing a shoe at him. Something you yourself advocated in this post.

 

I believe this detour of the conversation started with what an appropriate punishment would be. I offered a counter to those that looked through a US lens and felt this was a simple case of assault. That he randomly used a shoe. I read a few articles that pointed out the tradition around that particular symbol and why there are mitigating reasons for Iraq to consider doing nothing instead of a harsh sentence.

 

I thought it was an interesting discussion. Anthropology is a fascinating area of study.

[knightni]

Good thing that he wasn't Richard Reid.

 

 

[Texsox]

Good thing that he wasn't Richard Reid.

Nice touch. Did you have to google that?

[knightni]

Nice touch. Did you have to google that?

How could I forget the guy who makes everyone have to take their shoes off at airports now?

[NorthSideSox72]

Why did he use a shoe and not something like a cell phone?

Because of the symbolism. Just because the object is symbolic, that doesn't make it or or not make it assault. The two facts are wholly independent of one another.

 

If I throw a brick through your window, its criminal damage to property. If the brick has some symbol painted on it, its still criminal damage to property.

 

By any reasonable interperetation of US or common law, this was an assault. Iraqi law? I have no idea. But how could you see that shoe go right where his head had been and think it wasn't meant to hit him?

 

[Texsox]

Because of the symbolism. Just because the object is symbolic, that doesn't make it or or not make it assault. The two facts are wholly independent of one another.

 

If I throw a brick through your window, its criminal damage to property. If the brick has some symbol painted on it, its still criminal damage to property.

 

By any reasonable interperetation of US or common law, this was an assault. Iraqi law? I have no idea. But how could you see that shoe go right where his head had been and think it wasn't meant to hit him?

 

Because you asked . . .

 

Great point regarding symbolism. I don't have a good answer for that besides it speaks of intent. And there are a number of laws that hinge on intent. The brick analogy doesn't fit unless there was a custom of throwing bricks on your lawn and this one sailed high and to the right. Then I agree, throw the book at the brick thrower. (pun intended) Same as if you are flipping someone off, trip, and poke their eye out.

 

Easy. A slow wind up and slow toss from the front versus waiting until he wasn't looking.

[Balta1701]

Seems we now have official charges and an idea of how much time he could face.

Iraq's Central Court has just delayed the trial, for which al-Zaidi faces charges of "aggression against a foreign head of state during an official visit." If convicted, he could receive up to 15 years in prison.