I’m with Paul Hackett on This One Until I See Something to the Contrary (see UPDATES)
Three of them, one of him. I don’t see the problem, though additional facts, and a little brush-up on what the law says you can and can’t do, may change things.
______________________
UPDATE, Jan. 12: After reading the Enquirer article on the incident (HT Volokh via Instapundit), I’m still supporting Hackett; in fact, I’m on the verge of cheering him. The Volokh discussion is leaning in his direction. The grand jury leak, especially if it’s by one of the three, should be prosecuted.
UPDATE 2, Jan. 13: Here is apparently where the contention is –
As the men approached the stop sign on Pipewell at Given Road, he attempted to block their vehicle from continuing. He said in his statement that the men then went in reverse behind him and drove onto Keller Road before stopping in the driveway of 8725 Keller.
This is when the three men and Hackett diverge into their own account of events. Lawall said the car began to overheat from the damage suffered in the crash and pulled into the Keller Road home. Hackett then approached their vehicle, he said, tapped his gun on the driver’s side window and ordered the men out of the car and onto the ground. However, Lawall said the rifle was never pointed at them.
Hackett said in his statement that he kept a distance of 15 feet to 20 feet from the car and told the men to exit the car. He then called his wife and informed her of his location.
The Indian Hill Rangers arrived shortly thereafter. Officer Paul White said in his report that once he realized Hackett was armed, he told him to put the weapon away. He also told Hackett “he should call us with the vehicle information and not take things into his own hands.”
With all due respect, Officer White, why not?
UPDATE 3, Jan. 20: Hackett won’t be charged (HT Volokh via Instapundit) according to Hamco Prosecutor Joe Deters as reported by the Cincinnati Enquirer. This is no surprise based on what is known.
damn that paul hackett. always putting wingnuts in that no win situation. quite a conundrum, huh? attack paul or defend gun rights.
…and you always do have an out dontcha?
Comment by Eric — January 10, 2007 @ 10:24 am
#1, waiting until all the facts are in to make a judgment. Imagine that. You ought to try it sometime, instead of pronouncing premature RIPs. You look less foolish that way. :–>
Comment by TBlumer — January 10, 2007 @ 11:20 am
number two: like you waited on jamil. i gotcha. good one. i happen to disagree with how paul handled this one but was very interested to see which way the right would bob and weave it.
you did look silly on that jamil thing. gotta admit. what was the final spin on that one? i lost track after you delegated. heh.
Comment by Eric — January 10, 2007 @ 4:19 pm
Jamil’s situation is wide open. AP says they ID’d him, but he has a different name (which is why MOI couldn’t find him) and says he’s never talked to AP. Hardly an RIP based on that.
Comment by TBlumer — January 10, 2007 @ 5:52 pm