Called out and deservedly so on the Shaw matter
One of my anonymous commenters called me out and deservedly so. My mind was on other things lately, so I wasn't paying much attention. Here's where they gave me the business:
News flash: PP missed an easy oneGood call on that one, anon. In the beginning, he says here to the Rapid City Journal in his press conference:
Shaw keeps changing the story. In the Rapid City Journal it was:
"The lady driving it said, 'What are you doing?' " Shaw said. "I said 'I'm concerned about the safety of everyone here. What are you doing driving a car through here?' Ten seconds later the fair patrol grabs me."
Then a couple of days later he told the Argus Leader it was:
“I don’t remember having any conversation with her at all, I wouldn’t say I didn’t, but I don’t recall any conversation whatsoever."
Which is it?
“Sort of like somebody herding cattle,” he said. “They weren’t running into anybody, but it was kind of like, ‘Get out of my way.’”But that directly contradicts what he says here just three or four days later to the Des Moines Register (as related in the Argus):
That didn’t sit well with Shaw. He freely admits he was frustrated when he rapped on the back end of the SUV and asked the woman driving what she was doing driving through pedestrians. (my emphasis)
“It doesn’t sound accurate at all. First of all, I wasn’t with anybody, I was trying to be with somebody, my daughter, but there was no one else around,” he said. “I don’t remember having any conversation with her at all, I wouldn’t say I didn’t, but I don’t recall any conversation whatsoever."So did he or didn't he? The woman involved (in the same article) seems to tell a tale that he did much more than having no conversation ot the "what she was doing driving through pedestrians" statement:
Marchack said. “I finally said ‘Come on buddy, get out of the way! What are you doing?’ He didn’t respond. Then I said ‘You idiot!’ ”So, we have three versions of the tale at this point. And it appears that two differing ones belong to Mayor Shaw.
It was then that Shaw walked back to the car, Marchack said.
“He said ‘Who are you calling an idiot? You’re driving a car through this path here.’ I told him, ‘I’m trying to leave and if you would get out of my way I could,’ ” she said. “He said again ‘Who are you calling an idiot?’ and I didn’t want to repeat anything because I thought ‘This guy’s gonna hit you,’ ” Marchack recounted.
“He then said ‘If anybody’s an idiot, you are!’ and he slammed the car with his fist, very hard. I could see the anger on his face.” she said.
Comments
What happened to DianeM?
Word has it that she didn't like being mozzled and want on to something else.
muzzled
went
Fourth grade spelling class
Not sure about the law in Iowa but in SD I dont think that is legal.
Secutiry personnel, generally, only can detain for the arrival of the police. For example, a bouncer in a bar can make a type of "citizens arrest" if a patron has allegedly committed a crime and detain the person for the arrival of the police. A bouncer cannot handcuff a person to a chair to cool off for 90 minutes. That is no longer acting as "security" but as a vigilante kidnapper. If, Shaw was detained for a long period, and the police were not contacted, as it seems by their "no record of incidence" remarks, the fair security folks could be on thin ice on this issue even if Shaw was being a law breaker.
Shaw needs to come clean, and if he was out of line, admit he made a mistake.
Of course the problem with that now is that he would have to admit that he hasn't been telling the truth about what happened.
Shaw painted himself into a corner with his own spin, and now there is no way out.
#1 - He was charged with two crimes, so I'm assuming either police came and cited him or the state fair patrol are deputized and able to do it themselves. The news articles say he was ticketed, so someone had to write the ticket.
#2 - I'm pretty sure his only remedy for an illegal detention by non-police (if that's the case) would be a civil one.
Why not, the story keeps getting better everytime Shaw is interviewed.
the 90 minutes is the whole time he was seperated from his daughter. The 1 hr seperation plus about 30 minutes being detained. I read about the 90 minutes in another blog. Someone wrote that they gave Shaw 90 minutes to "cool down" I assumed he was detained 90 minutes.
apologies from a blogmoron,,,haha
Wishful thinking. I agree with your sentiments, but doubt that either Kooiker or Schumacher would run. Schumacher would make the better Mayor because he is smarter, but Kooiker would have a solid chance too, especially after pummeling Tom Hennies a few months ago.
If it weren't for these two guys, city hall would be a lost cause.
Regardless, I doubt Shaw will get a free ride in 2007 like he did in 2005.
Tom Johnson has been interesting to watch. What kind of a mayor would he be?
Seems like he might develop a real power complex if he was Mayor.
If they are on Rapid City's City Council, I sure haven't heard of anything that they have done.
How can some unknowns beat Shaw who has been on TV in Rapid City for thirty years?
Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of Shaw, but if the people don't know you, they are going to vote for you.
Do you know who Tom Hennies is? He has nearly 100% name ID and was in the state house and a former police chief.
Arguably, he is more respected that Shaw.
Hennies was pummeled in the last cycle by an unknown---Kooiker. I believe the final margin was 2 to 1.
And Schumacher pummeled Jean French with nearly 70% of the vote in 2005
Sure sounds like your banging your own drum.
Must be Kooiker or Schumacher trying to get some press.
actually no. just someone east river who watched west river politics.