West Point reinstates cadet in LaBelle altercation

HOUSTON CHRONICLE ^ | 8/19/11 | ALLAN TURNER

[Aunt Polgara]

A West Point cadet from Houston will return to class Monday after military academy officials rescinded a suspension that came after he was embroiled in a March altercation with singer Patti LaBelle's entourage at a local airport.

Word from the New York military academy came as dueling lawsuits - one filed by cadet Richard King, the other by LaBelle - await resolution in local courts.

King's attorney, John Raley, said Houston police recently apprised academy officials that the 23-year-old cadet had not been implicated in wrongdoing in the March 11 incident at George Bush Intercontinental Airport.

[Steely Tom]

When your attorney says the police have not implicated you, that's not the same as the police saying they have exonerated you.

Under our Constitution, every American is innocent until proven guilty.

I am currently not implicated in any of hundreds of crimes that have recently been committed in the towns and cities I live near. If my attorney were to be asked, he would say that the police have not found any evidence implicating me in any of them.

I guess someone who plays with words, like you, could say I'm a suspect in every one of those crimes, because although the police haven't found any evidence implicating me, they also haven't yet released a statement exonerating me.

[Blackhawk45]

>Who is Patti LaBelle???

A person of no talent - That is unless you are into shrieking.

[jwalsh07]

When your attorney says the police have not implicated you, that's not the same as the police saying they have exonerated you.

You're conflating the USA and the old Soviet Union.

[heartwood]

Eh. I was accusing the lawyer of playing with words, not playing with them myself.

Now I don’t think the cadet was guilty of anything more than at most wandering around aimlessly while under the influence, when he wandered into what Ms. LaBelle’s people perceived as her space.

The police saying “We don’t have any evidence that he picked a fight,” is not the same as saying, “The evidence shows that Ms. LaBelle’s bodyguards made an unprovoked attack upon him.” Which is what exoneration would be, and should be followed by criminal charges against the bodyguards.

We’re not really talking about the criminal law standard of presumed innocence here. We’re talking about West Point judging what conduct is befitting an officer and a gentleman, and their standards are not nearly so protective of the accused as criminal law is.

And that said, I think anti-white pro-black PC racism and Ms LaBelle’s celebrity influenced West Point’s original decision and I am glad the cadet has been reinstated. I just do not care for attorneys’ weasel wording even though that is their job.

[heartwood]

Re my previous reply: “Exonerated” was Aunt Polgara’s term, which I felt went rather too far.

The attorney said “not implicated,” and I shouldn’t have accused him of weasel wording.

Please note, AP, I’m not saying you were weasel wording, just taking it a little far.

Polgara - is that from that foot-thick multi-volume fantasy by Eddings?

[Aunt Polgara]

heartwood,

Please note, AP, I’m not saying you were weasel wording, just taking it a little far.

No offense taken. You are technically correct, but in common usage, I do believe that, in this case, it probably amounts to about the same thing.

Polgara - is that from that foot-thick multi-volume fantasy by Eddings?

Yup.. I identify with Polgara and her traditional ways and how she doesn't take guff from anyone. :-) I even used to have a streak of gray hair just like she does; but now, it's all gray. :-)

If you Google Aunt Polgara, I'm actually the second entry behind the actual book on Eddings site.

[Aunt Polgara]

Here's the first book in the Belgariad series:

[heartwood]

My brother had all the books - I might have gotten through three of them, but I did remember Polgara’s white streak. And nothing else, but that there was a boy and a chess theme.

[Steely Tom]

Eh. I was accusing the lawyer of playing with words, not playing with them myself.

Here's your original comment, the one I responded to:

When your attorney says the police have not implicated you, that's not the same as the police saying they have exonerated you.

Now you're saying that this statement was meant as an accusation against the attorney who made the statement. What are you accusing him of? You're not making sense.

We’re talking about West Point judging what conduct is befitting an officer and a gentleman, and their standards are not nearly so protective of the accused as criminal law is.

I'm wasn't talking about that. I was talking about what looked to me to be a statement of fact, written by you, to the effect that stating that someone is not implicated of wrongdoing is not identical to stating that the person is exonerated of the accusation of wrongdoing.

You may have been talking about something else, and you have a perfect right to do so. But you don't have the right to tell me what I was talking about, which is what you did when you made your condescending statement about "what we're talking about." More word play on your part.

[Aunt Polgara]

Now, now, children. It’s not important enough to act like refugees from DU. :-)

[heartwood]

Yes, auntie.

[Aunt Polgara]

Good. I thought I might have to slap the two of you upside the head. :-)