home

Monday Night Open Thread

I'm about to catch up on the day's news, and watch the Voice. Our last open thread is full. Here's a new one, all topics welcome.

< Ted Cruz Announces Presidential Bid | Utah Reinstates Death by Firing Squad >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Another victory for Scott Walker. (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 08:02:48 AM EST
    With help from his good pals on the Supreme Court, which has let stand Wisconsin's 2011 voter ID law that requires all voters to produce an approved form of identification before being allowed to vote.

    Washington Monthly
    :

    Long after everyone has given up on any effort to explain in any detail the Wisconsin voter ID law the U.S. Supreme Court allowed to go into effect today, it will be another Famous Victory for Scott Walker. Since SCOTUS did not offer any explanation for this decision, the line between permissible and impermissible ID schemes remains somewhat vague, though 17 states have enacted new requirements since Indiana's first cleared the judicial review hurdle in 2008. Negative federal court action on Texas's statute could still force a substantive review by SCOTUS. But the wind is definitely blowing the wrong way for voting rights, particularly now that Republicans have gotten by the 50th anniversary of the Selma police riot without having to make any new commitments to do anything other than what their partisan interests dictate.

    And that means the Wisconsin law can fully take its place, without an asterisk, as a jewel in the crown of Scott Walker's conservative policy legacy, and another payoff for Republicans who figure he can duplicate his success nationally. It only adds zest to their enjoyment that this is happening to the state once famed for its progressivism.

    Yeesh.

    Angelina Jolie wrote a moving (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by caseyOR on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 12:26:37 PM EST
    piece for the NY Times about her recent decision to have her ovaries and fallopian tubes removed. This follows her decision, I think it was last year, to undergo a double mastectomy.

    Her family has a long sad history of women dying of breast/ovarian cancer. Her chances of getting the same cancers were very high. Thus, the surgeries.

    I have a great deal of respect for Jolie's decision to be public about her health. As we have seen time and again, going back to Betty Ford's decision in the '70s  to be open about her treatment for breast cancer, when famous women share their health it encourages other women to seek treatment they might have been avoiding or did not realize could apply to them.

    well... (none / 0) (#35)
    by sj on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 01:47:18 PM EST
    ... sorry I can't read it. I've reached my limit of free articles. I can try reading it on my home computer, but she's an elderly little thing and the NYT site flummoxes even my work computer.

    I'll try to look at it later. But I heard about that this morning. When AJ first crossed my consciousness, it was when "Gia" was broadcast, and then there was her odd relationship with Billy Bob Thornton. Those two things combined created an certain kind of mental picture, which I guess I kept in place for years without thinking much about it.

    But now I have to agree with you about respect for her decision and for the way she has focused her intensity. I imagine it isn't always easy to live with -- even for her.

    Parent

    to get around that (none / 0) (#36)
    by CST on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 01:50:03 PM EST
    you can just open up a new browser window in incognito mode and copy/paste the link.

    Parent
    Or sj, just dump your (none / 0) (#52)
    by fishcamp on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 03:24:16 PM EST
    NY Times cookies, if you can figure out which ones they are in that camouflaged mess.

    Parent
    Yeah, (none / 0) (#64)
    by sj on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 04:43:12 PM EST
    I lost my cookies just a little while ago. Sometimes I forget about that option.

    Parent
    Wonderful photo of Justices Soyomayor and (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 02:42:40 PM EST
    Kagen at women's basketball game.  College tournament.

    link

    So they are real people... (none / 0) (#57)
    by fishcamp on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 03:34:57 PM EST
    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by FlJoe on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 04:00:05 PM EST
    Democrats usually nominate real people to the bench, Republicans not so much.

    Parent
    Sotomayor is a Princeton alum. (none / 0) (#73)
    by caseyOR on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 05:49:15 PM EST
    Don't know about Kagan. They were watching the Princeton women play in the NCAA tournament.

    Obama and Malia attended an earlier Princeton game this weekend. Obama's neice is a member of the Princeton women's basketball team. Afterward, some jackw@d phoned in a threat to Obama's neice. Security was heightened.

    Parent

    Ted Cruz (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 04:03:47 PM EST
    signs up for Obamacare. LOL.

    Stranger than fiction (none / 0) (#78)
    by Peter G on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 07:58:23 PM EST
    When I first saw this comment, I assumed it was sourced to either Borowitz or The Onion. Then I heard it on NPR. Did the Senate cancel its Cadillac government health care plan when they enacted the Affordable Care Act as a gesture of solidarity?

    Parent
    Members of Congress and their (5.00 / 3) (#81)
    by caseyOR on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 08:11:04 PM EST
    staff members are required to buy health insurance in the exchanges. This requirement is the result of an amendment to the ACA that was proposed and supported by the Republicans in Congress.

    The GOP thought they were making some kind of point about the evils of the ACA. I think it is a good thing.

    Parent

    Ted Cruz (none / 0) (#79)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 08:03:07 PM EST
    had been using his wife's insurance and now they are not going to have any insurance as apparently she is taking a leave of absence from her job. So off to Obamacare they go. I thought it was a joke at first too.

    Parent
    But my question is/was ... (none / 0) (#80)
    by Peter G on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 08:08:56 PM EST
    Don't U.S. Senators have good health insurance for themselves and their families as high-level government employees? Or did they used to, but then canceled it and put themselves into the Exchange as a political gesture when the ACA passed, or something like that?

    Parent
    I thought they always had an 'exchange' (none / 0) (#83)
    by nycstray on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 09:06:49 PM EST
    and that was partly what the ACA exchange was modeled on. Most Senators prob opted for the gold plan (vs Bronze or Silver) on their exchange, as they can afford it.  

    Parent
    Cat Food Commission recommendations (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by MO Blue on Wed Mar 25, 2015 at 08:24:19 AM EST
    implemented one or two at a time????

    WASHINGTON -- An ambitious agreement by Speaker John Boehner and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to fix a major funding gap in Medicare and make some separate long-term cuts appears in good shape to pass the House.
    ...
    The legislation would eliminate the "doc fix" problem that has become one of Washington's most despised rituals. The existing Medicare formula for paying doctors imposes steep annual cuts that Congress has overridden for more than a decade. Doctors face a 21 percent cut if no "fix" is enacted by April 1.

    At a cost of roughly $210 billion, the bill replaces the "sustainable growth rate" formula to instead give doctors gradual raises while extending the Children's Health Insurance Program for two years starting in October. It includes $70 billion in offsets by making two structural changes to cut Medicare spending: force high-income seniors to kick in more for their care and reduce spending on supplemental Medigap plans, specifically "first dollar" coverage. link

    Those "structural changes" in the real world known as cuts to Medicare were a big part of the Cat Food Commission recommendations.

    First dollar Medigap coverage (Plan F) is one of the most popular plans in Medicare. Seniors who choose this plan already pay a high monthly premium for this coverage. Seniors with serious or life threatening illnesses who need ongoing treatment will see a reduction in income each year if they have to meet high deductibles on top of insurance premiums. The income reduction will increase each year as costs continue to increase. This is just one more cost shift from the insurance industry to the patient.

    Reduce Medigap coverage and make it just a more costly Medicare Advantage plan and you will soon privatize Medicare.

    And the Dem legislators are cheering this as a great bipartisan effort. We have only one party. The Corporate Party.  

    My cats don't seem to care, but (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by fishcamp on Wed Mar 25, 2015 at 09:06:21 AM EST
    their daddy does.

    Parent
    I care a great deal as well (none / 0) (#111)
    by MO Blue on Wed Mar 25, 2015 at 09:28:42 AM EST
    Before I went on Medicare, during a year when I was being treated for cancer, I had more money going out to meet deductibles than was coming in. Savings don't last very long when forking out thousands for medical care.

    Also, if they achieve their long held goal of privatizing Medicare, they will remove the advantage from Medicare Advantage and sky will be the limit.

    Medicare Advantage, which sucks much more money out of the system, was scheduled for cuts in 2014. Instead of cutting per-person rates by 2%' the CMS increased them by 3%.

    Rather than bring private Medicare plans in line with regular Medicare the powers that be will be making regular Medicare more expensive and less desirable. A government for the people my foot. It is a government for the corporations and the rich and it gets worse each year.

    Parent

    Surprise, surprise (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by MO Blue on Wed Mar 25, 2015 at 11:20:09 AM EST
    Obama is eager to sign a bipartisan bill that contains Cat Food Commission Medicare cuts.

    "As we speak Congress is working to fix the Medicare-physician payment system. I've got my pen ready to sign a good bipartisan bill, which would be really exciting," he said in a speech about Obamacare at the White House. "I love when Congress passes bipartisan bills that I can sign. It's always very encouraging."

    The presidential endorsement could sway enough Senate Democrats, who have emerged as a potential obstacle, to support the agreement. link



    Parent
    This is (none / 0) (#132)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 25, 2015 at 11:43:27 AM EST
    the reason that I have suspected was behind the Warren for president stuff. If Obama could get her out of the senate and running for president...

    Parent
    I seriously doubt the left leaning (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by MO Blue on Wed Mar 25, 2015 at 12:00:10 PM EST
    elements of the Democratic Party who are pushing Warren to run are conspiring to remove Warren from the Senate in an effort to move the government even further to the right.

    I don't recommend you pursue this line of conspiracy theories in your zeal to eliminate talk of Warren running for president.

    Parent

    I'm (none / 0) (#135)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 25, 2015 at 12:17:31 PM EST
    talking about the Globe.

    And Move On apparently it was just a fundraiser.

    Parent

    And she's (none / 0) (#136)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 25, 2015 at 12:19:29 PM EST
    not running. She even had Lawrence O'Donnell deliver that message to Move On.

    Parent
    She is not running (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by MO Blue on Wed Mar 25, 2015 at 12:29:22 PM EST
    Which might indicate that it is a good time for you to stop your campaign against her and people who are interested in seeing her more populist agenda get more press.

    Parent
    I have no (2.00 / 1) (#141)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 25, 2015 at 12:33:58 PM EST
    campaign against her but like I have said before I have problems with the Move On crowd and I have said always believed that she was not running and would keep her word.

    Parent
    Enough with... (5.00 / 3) (#145)
    by sj on Wed Mar 25, 2015 at 12:42:26 PM EST
    ... this "Move On crowd" business. You use that particular fire hydrant to hose down whole sections of liberal/left-leaning people. And I, speaking as a very left, very liberal citizen, am really resenting it.

    Next time you mention MoveOn, how about you use it in the context of a particular effort of theirs and leave the rest of us out of it.

    Parent

    More language for Hyde Agreement (none / 0) (#137)
    by MO Blue on Wed Mar 25, 2015 at 12:21:16 PM EST
    in House Bill.

    Even as Senate Democrats waged war over an expansion of the Hyde Amendment--which prevents federal funds from being used to cover abortions--on a human trafficking bill last week, Pelosi was penning a deal with Speaker John Boehner to eliminate the Medicare "sustainable growth rate" that includes another controversial Hyde Amendment provision. Link

    While this is a very important issue as well, so far I haven't read any opposition to the Medicare cuts in the bill. I would truly like to hear more Dems coming out strongly against cuts to Medicare. OTOH, if this or any other issue prevents cloture in the Senate I think it will be a good thing.

    Parent

    A real deal. (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by KeysDan on Wed Mar 25, 2015 at 12:24:17 PM EST
    Permanent for the Doc Fix, Permanent for Medicare, Two-yerars for CHIP.  Some Democrats are thinking of the children, --they want four-years.   And, the increase in  co-pays, even higher premiums for greater pensioned seniors, means-tests Medicare more and more, changing the concept of Medicare.  

    Parent
    Remove the benefits of Medicare, (5.00 / 3) (#142)
    by MO Blue on Wed Mar 25, 2015 at 12:34:32 PM EST
    change it so that it is perceived as a welfare program for those people and make it less and less popular.

    Slowly but surely the powers that be are moving to eliminate Medicare and move to complete privatization. The rich will survive. Those on the lower edge of the spectrum, including the lower middle class, will not.  

    Parent

    This proposed legislation (none / 0) (#150)
    by KeysDan on Wed Mar 25, 2015 at 01:47:13 PM EST
    has that great statesman from Utah, Orrin Hatch, saying that Nancy Pelosi is taking the passage of this bill personally.  She is quite proud of her achievement with Boehner.   Harry Reid is gumming up their works, for now.  Part of it relates to concerns for enhanced Hyde language, part of it relates to the new found joy of Reid to return grief to McConnell.  In any event, it should be killed in its present form.

    Parent
    I would be quite proud to see (5.00 / 2) (#151)
    by MO Blue on Wed Mar 25, 2015 at 02:01:56 PM EST
    Nancy Pelosi replaced as minority leader of the Democratic Party.

    I would be glad to see this bill killed for any reason but I am of the opinion that having Democratic politicians in the House and the Senate voting YES for legislation to cut Medicare is not only bad policy but bad politics. Obama cheering on this effort is also not helpful.

    A Democratic campaign slogan of we are the people party who want to cut your Medicare benefits does not lead to election victories IMO.

    Parent

    A good bipartisan bill, these days, (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by KeysDan on Wed Mar 25, 2015 at 02:43:53 PM EST
    is one that has something for everyone to dislike. One of the dislikes of Republicans is that over half the cost of the package ($200 billion over ten years) is not "paid" for.  Any guesses, on where the shortfall will eventually come from?  The doctor reimbursement would be a wrong guess.  

    Yes, we could have a "Pride March" when Nancy Pelosi steps down.  Mrs. Pelosi held much promise--until that "impeachment is off the table," just as soon as she placed her Speaker's hat on the table.  I believe I could hear the sighs of relief out of the mouths of Bush and Cheney all the way down here.

     Of course, Mrs. Pelosi has done many good things, but as in that famous response to a reporter's question of President Eisenhower about  his vice president, Richard Nixon's contributions to his administration, said: give me a week and I'll try to think of something.

    Parent

    Wednesday musical beauty (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by Dadler on Wed Mar 25, 2015 at 12:40:14 PM EST
    I was looking (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 25, 2015 at 12:41:41 PM EST
    over on the right side of the blog and noticed Jeff in Alabama's name. I guess nobody has heard from him? I hope he's okay.

    Jeff has not posted nor (5.00 / 3) (#149)
    by caseyOR on Wed Mar 25, 2015 at 01:24:29 PM EST
    has he replied to emails in a very long time. I hope he is doing all right.

    Parent
    Police clear UVA fraternity of rape...sort of (none / 0) (#1)
    by McBain on Mon Mar 23, 2015 at 08:30:15 PM EST
    http://tinyurl.com/qcdj78y

    Charlottesville police found no "substantive basis" to support the gang rape accusation against UVA's Phi Kappa Psi house by a woman known as "Jackie".

    On CNN TV the lead investigator went on to say he's not convinced the main alleged rapist ever existed. Yet, he's still not ready to say the obvious..... "Jackie" lied.

    The campus rape epidemic myth continues.

    And you define this as a myth -- how, exactly? (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 06:26:00 AM EST
    I'd say it's less myth and more your typical right-wing misogynist nonsense as conjured up by sexually frustrated male wingbats, who are likely expressing aloud their lingering resentment over that traumatic and humiliating time one spring semester when their "inflatable datable" was discovered by their college roommate, filled with helium and then floated on a string outside their dorm room window.

    Parent
    From the TV Today... (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 08:36:07 AM EST
    ...the lead investigator basically said what was reported in Rolling Stone did not happen, but that he is not convinced that something did not happen to Jackie.

    It's a shame all around, not only is there a possibility something bad happened to her, but her lies are surely going to aid in the slow response to other women.

    Parent

    Tag for saving and (2.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Wile ECoyote on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 04:05:46 PM EST
    dragging up later.

    Parent
    I'm not exactly sure... (none / 0) (#8)
    by unitron on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 09:19:26 AM EST
    ...above what statistical bar one can authoritatively say "This means it's an epidemic.", but I do know that just below that bar is not "This means there's no problem whatsoever."

    Whether she actually was raped is one question.

    Whether she believes she was is a different one.

    Whether, if she did experience some trauma, it was such that it caused her to mis-remember details, including where it happened and who was involved, is yet another question, but I''m willing to accept it as within the realm of the possible.

    But I wonder if those who would claim "She was traumatized, she can't be expected to get every single detail right." came quite so readily to that viewpoint where George Zimmerman or Officer Wilson were involved.

    Parent

    I'm not sure what you mean. (5.00 / 5) (#9)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 09:54:06 AM EST
    Neither Zimmerman nor Wilson were victims, and those who died as a result of being shot by these men cannot supply any details against which Zimmerman's and Wilson's recollections can be compared.

    In the UVA case, no one is dead.  All parties can provide details of the extent of their involvement, if any.  

    What I heard the police spokesman say is that "something" happened to Jackie, it just cannot be proved through the evidence they have what that "something" was.  And as such, they cannot charge anyone with anything.

    In any event, I do have a problem with someone characterizing this incident as proof that the statistics on college campus rapes are some kind of myth.  Perhaps it is "proof" that events did not transpire as originally reported, but that proof applies only to this incident, not all reported incidents.  

    Parent

    Apparently, the statistics show (2.00 / 2) (#15)
    by McBain on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 11:23:36 AM EST
    college sexual assault is on the decline.  And college students are less likely to be sexually assaulted than non college students.
    http://tinyurl.com/n67an7q

    As to your first point..... to say that Zimmerman wasn't a victim means you didn't pay attention to the trial.

    Parent

    Good Gravy... (5.00 / 5) (#20)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 11:47:17 AM EST
    ...rape on campus "doesn't fit the left's narrative"  ?

    Yeah us lefties have some sort secret plot to plump up rape numbers so females can get elected.

    Are you fricken kidding me ?

    Parent

    Less likely to be raped, or less likely (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 12:07:33 PM EST
    to report being raped?

    I'd advise you to not make assumptions about how closely someone followed the Zimmerman trial on the basis of an opinion about his alleged victim status.  

    Not interested in a GZ discussion, just took issue with unitron's question, which seemed rather apples/oranges to me.

    Parent

    You made a silly comment about Zimmerman (2.00 / 5) (#26)
    by McBain on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 12:15:41 PM EST
    so I responded to that.

    You made a better point about rapes vs. reported rapes.  

    Parent

    Yeah, right. Anne made a silly statement. (5.00 / 6) (#116)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Mar 25, 2015 at 09:46:14 AM EST
    This, from someone who just spewed contemptible nonsense about the "myth" of campus rape.

    Call us when your space shuttle lands.

    Parent

    How can (none / 0) (#22)
    by FlJoe on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 11:59:35 AM EST
    Zimmerman be a victim
    "I believe God has his plans, and for me to second-guess them would be hypocritical, almost blasphemous," he said when asked if he wished the encounter that ended Martin's life would have turned out differently.
    when he was only following God's plan ?

    Parent
    "Alleviated," he says. What (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 09:35:20 PM EST
    the hell does that mean?  I just read that Mr. Zimmerman compared himself to Anne Frank.

    Parent
    I don't believe in God (none / 0) (#23)
    by McBain on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 12:05:16 PM EST
     so I don't really care about the God's plan philosophy.  I care more about the physical evidence and credible eye witness testimony.

    Parent
    So (none / 0) (#27)
    by FlJoe on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 12:17:24 PM EST
    sketchy  contradictory eye witness accounts and inconclusive forensic evidence that were unable to prove Zimmerman's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt some how morphs to conclusive proof that he was a "victim". Do you always give the killer of unarmed teenagers the benefit of the doubt?

    Parent
    There was nothing sketchy about (2.00 / 1) (#30)
    by McBain on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 12:55:56 PM EST
    witness John Good.  He saw Martin on top of Zimmerman and was very credible.  The witnesses who changed their opinion after seeing media reports were sketchy and discredited on the witness stand.  Jeralyn wrote some good blog posts about that.  

    The forensic evidence showed injuries on Zimmerman consistent with being the victim of an assault.

    In a criminal trial, I give all defendants the benefit of the doubt.  In the court of public opinion, I call them like I see them. On that night Trayvon Martin was the bad guy.  

    Parent

    Of course (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by FlJoe on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 01:01:46 PM EST
    you are convicting TM of being the "bad guy" without the benefit of a trial. Funny how you assign the most credibility to the witness who backs your narrative and completely dismiss the others.

    Parent
    Nothing funny about it (2.00 / 1) (#33)
    by McBain on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 01:31:40 PM EST
    John Good was, without a doubt, the only credible witness who saw any part of the struggle that night. To pretend otherwise shows you either weren't paying attention or can't get past your bias.

    Zimmerman didn't just scream once and then shoot TM.  He screamed for over 30 seconds, hoping someone would help. TM's attack was vicious and cruel.  I wish he was still alive but his actions resulted in his own death.

    Parent

    And you have only Zimmerman's (5.00 / 5) (#37)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 01:55:16 PM EST
    word for what transpired in the minutes before Good saw Martin on top of Zimmerman; I'm not sure that seeing part of the end of something is enough information to draw an accurate conclusion about the totality of these - or any - events, or what one means without all of the other.

    Zimmerman's playing that victim card for all it's worth now, for sure.  Given his track record in the period post-Trayvon, it's hard not to see that the man has significant anger issues.  

    But, hey - at least he hasn't killed anyone else, right?

    Parent

    Exactly (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by FlJoe on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 03:24:33 PM EST
    Way too many people are ready to "convict" Trayvon without a trial. They proclaim Zimmermman a victim but at least he had his day in court. Meanwhile they proclaim Trayvon a "criminal" when he had no such privilege. If he had lived, maybe his story would make more sense then Z's. There is exactly zero evidence that Trayvon was not "standing his ground".

    Parent
    The fact (none / 0) (#56)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 03:33:00 PM EST
    that conservatives defend this scum is amazing. I have a feeling he is going to kill somebody else and the next time he's going to spend time in jail perhaps even get the death penalty that conservatives love to dole out.

    Parent
    Although GZ's word was compelling (he passed (1.00 / 1) (#47)
    by McBain on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 02:51:15 PM EST
    two lie detector tests) we have more than just his word.  We know he called the police because he suspected TM was up to no good. We also know about his other calls to the police. He wasn't looking for a confrontation, he wanted them to handle things.  

    If I was GZ, I would have serious anger issues.  He was made public enemy #1 but the Crump PR team and an all to complicit media.  Obama's comments were dumb and Holder's behavior irresponsible, but I don't fully agree with GZ that those things played a big part in his public image. I believe the damage was done before the president first spoke.

    Parent

    Regardless of whether he spoke to (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 03:20:19 PM EST
    police, or a dispatcher, it was still just his word about what was happening - we don't have Martin to speak to what he was seeing or doing or feeling.

    THE POINT IS - and I really don't want to talk about godforsaken George Zimmerman anymore - unitron's original question, whether those attributing Jackie's ever-changing story to the effects of trauma on her memory felt the same way or would say the same thing about Zimmerman and Wilson, was an apples/oranges question that made no sense.

    Parent

    Beyond the Court Case... (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 03:28:44 PM EST
    ...and the law.

    GZ followed someone into the darkness with a loaded weapon because he looked suspicious, even after the operator told him to not to.  To me, he went looking for trouble and found it.

    I will never understand why no one made the claim that TM was acting in self defense from the man who was following him.  What if some idiot decides you or I look suspicious and decides to follow us at night in a city we don't know.  Are we not without our rights to protect ourselves from a stranger following us ?

    I guarantee if a white person was being followed by a black person into a dark area and then attacked that black person, the black person would not be considered a hero, a victim, and all the other BS people attribute to GZ.  It would be framed as a white guy scared of the thug following him.

    Had GZ done what most rational people do, listen to what the 911 operator advises, TM would be alive and GZ would be living an entirely different life.

    I don't want to go back and forth, that is my opinion and unless there is some new revelation, like the entire thing on video, my opinion will remain pretty solid.

    Parent

    wow (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Yman on Wed Mar 25, 2015 at 07:54:30 AM EST
    He did?!?!

    Oh, ... you mean the tests where they only asked him nine questions, most of which were control questions and only two of which were substantive?

    Assuming you accept the results of such tests as collusive, they only show that he was afraid and that he did not confront TM, as he defines it.

    Parent

    An assault (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by Chuck0 on Wed Mar 25, 2015 at 07:59:50 AM EST
    he brought upon himself by confronting an innocent boy. In what world do you get to start a fight, start to lose that fight, then claim to be the victim and kill the other combatant? Oh, yeah, Florida. Bastion of truth, justice and the American way. I lived in Florida, twice, Jax and Tampa. Suffice to say, I understand fully why the state is likened to the US's sewer pipe. The place where all the dregs end up.

    Parent
    Doesn't look like you followed the case (2.00 / 1) (#133)
    by McBain on Wed Mar 25, 2015 at 11:48:52 AM EST
    There's no evidence GZ started a fight.

    It's amazing how effective Crump and co. were at brainwashing so many people.

    Parent

    "Brainwashing"? Enough, already. (5.00 / 4) (#140)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Mar 25, 2015 at 12:31:28 PM EST
    Regular TL posters likely know more about the details of this case than you can ever possibly imagine. You're the one who happens to be clearly misinformed about many of its particulars -- which is again perfectly understandable, given that your antennae are regularly attuned to Wingbat Central on AM squawk radio and Fox News from inside your white-wing cocoon.

    If you want to hold up the hopelessly disturbed George Zimmerman as your poster child for white victimhood in the 21st century, then please knock yourself out. But don't tell people here that they don't know what happened that night in Sanford, FL unless you desire to be treated like a piñata at a children's birthday party.

    :-|

    Parent

    I got a lot of my info from Jeralyn (2.00 / 1) (#153)
    by McBain on Wed Mar 25, 2015 at 02:39:05 PM EST
    She has been one of best bloggers on this case.  Is she a misinformed Wingbat?  Who are the "regular" TL posters? Those who tend to agree with you?  

    Maybe you could back up your claims with facts or info instead of insults.  

    Parent

    Only a white man with a gun (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by jondee on Wed Mar 25, 2015 at 02:59:37 PM EST
    can ever feel threatened enough to be justified in "standing his ground". Right?

    In reality, only genuine threat in that situation was the man (using the term loosely) who confronted an unarmed young man at night with a loaded gun..

    Martin stood his ground and Zimmerman responded in the murdereous way cowards and bullies all-too-often respond.  

    Parent

    Where's the evidence TM (none / 0) (#156)
    by McBain on Wed Mar 25, 2015 at 03:18:28 PM EST
    was "standing his ground"?  Did you follow the trial? Did you read any of Jeralyn's posts?

    You can make it a race thing if you want.  Some want to make it a political thing.  I think the entire situation has more to do with law and money.

    Parent

    Where's the evidence (5.00 / 2) (#157)
    by jondee on Wed Mar 25, 2015 at 03:37:07 PM EST
    that a strange man approaching anyone at night isn't a threat?

    People who are adamant in assuming that Zimmerman was the one who could possibly have felt threatened in that situation are operating under the prejudice that young black men are always the violent aggressor..

    That the armed Z was put on his back by the unarmed Martin proves nothing about who threatened who or who the initial aggressor was.

    And yes, after reading your "Tamir Rice should've cooperated" post, I'm even more convinced in my considered opinion that if Martin had been a white H.S football player, most of the gun-fondling, Stand Your Ground crowd would've been resoundingly silent about assuming his guilt.    

    Parent

    Just as I thought, you don't have any evidence (2.00 / 1) (#159)
    by McBain on Wed Mar 25, 2015 at 04:06:37 PM EST
    " if Martin had been a white H.S football player, most of the gun-fondling, Stand Your Ground crowd would've been resoundingly silent about assuming his guilt."

    Would we have ever heard about this case if TM was white? The media ran with it because they thought a large white man had killed a small black boy. That's the kind of story that drives ratings and media careers.  

    Parent

    I Can Tell You This... (5.00 / 2) (#160)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Mar 25, 2015 at 04:38:06 PM EST
    ...had GZ followed a white 17 year old girl into the dark area, there isn't a soul that wouldn't believe the girl could have feared for her safety.

    It's just plain creepy to think someone can follow you on a hunch, that was proven later to be absolutely wrong.

    And stop with the you know more non-sense, it's a child's response to a legitimate discussion.

    Parent

    How do you know that, Scott? (2.00 / 3) (#161)
    by McBain on Wed Mar 25, 2015 at 06:18:34 PM EST
    "It's just plain creepy to think someone can follow you on a hunch, that was proven later to be absolutely wrong."

    I assume you're talking about the hunch that TM "looked like he was on drugs" and "was up to no good"?  How has that been proven wrong?  We do know TM was on drugs. We do know he was involved in a burglary before his mom shipped him out of town for bad behavior. We don't know what his intentions were that night.  Don't tell me he was buying Skittles and iced tea for his brother.  If you do, I'll know you didn't follow the case.

    "And stop with the you know more non-sense, it's a child's response to a legitimate discussion."

    You're the one acting immature with the insults. It doesn't help your argument.


    Parent

    No - "we" don't (5.00 / 3) (#162)
    by Yman on Wed Mar 25, 2015 at 06:49:00 PM EST
    ... know any such things.  We know he had trace amounts of chemical indicating he had used marijuana in the past, not that he was "on drugs" that night.  Moreover, we do not know he "was involved in a burglary", and he was never even charged with any such thing.

    Blatant, right-wing lies ...

    Parent

    If you want to argue that TM (1.67 / 3) (#164)
    by McBain on Wed Mar 25, 2015 at 07:05:58 PM EST
    might not have been significantly impaired that night, I'll listen to that argument.  Given GZ's description of TM on the police call and and the appearance of TM in the 7/11 video, it will be a tough sell, but I'll listen.  

    However, don't tell me he wasn't involved in a burglary. Stolen jewelery and a "burglary tool"  were found in his locker. And don't make this a right wing/left wing issue.  

    Parent

    I just told you (5.00 / 3) (#165)
    by Yman on Wed Mar 25, 2015 at 07:25:51 PM EST
    Deal with it.

    And what you claimed was "we know" he was involved in a burglary, which is complete and utter BS.  Your personal, silly beliefs are not something "we know".

    OTOH - if you want to apply your same standard to GZ, we "know" a lot of things about him ...

    Parent

    As usual you don't want to have real discussion (2.00 / 2) (#167)
    by McBain on Wed Mar 25, 2015 at 08:07:17 PM EST
    I asked you to expand your you comments but you couldn't.  I'm sure you have some good points to make... I'd like to hear them.

    My comment to Scott was that GZ thought TM was up to no good and on drugs.  I believe there is evidence to support at least one of those claims.  Here's what Jeralyn wrote about the Marijuana.

    "The marijuana in Martin's system, whatever the level, is supportive of Zimmerman's perception that Martin was on drugs, which in turn supports his argument that he reported Martin because of his actions, not his appearance."
    http://tinyurl.com/o6yrq9p

    As for the "up to no good claim".... I'm not sure, maybe he was just walking back to his dad's house.  But maybe he was doing something illegal.  He did have stole property in his school locker. He claimed he was holding it for a friend.  I doubt that's true but even if it was, he was still involved in a serious crime.

    If you don't want to discuss this... that's cool... but I'm always up for a friendly debate. No insults, please.  


    Parent

    Am I supposed to care ... (5.00 / 3) (#169)
    by Yman on Wed Mar 25, 2015 at 09:12:18 PM EST
    ... that you think "it's cool"?

    That's funny.

    Actually, it was very clear what comments of yours I was responding to.  You claimed:

    I assume you're talking about the hunch that TM "looked like he was on drugs" and "was up to no good"?  How has that been proven wrong?  We do know TM was on drugs.

    No, "we" don't "know" he was "on drugs" that night (or even "looked like" he was on drugs), because the toxicology report indicates he had trace amounts of THC:

    For one, they are so low as to almost certainly not be connected to recent intoxication:  1.5 nanograms of THC were found as well as 7.3 nanograms of THC-COOH, a metabolite of THC that can stay in the system for weeks after cannabis has been smoked. Immediately after inhaling, THC levels typically rise to 100 to 200 nanograms per milliter of blood, although there can be a great deal of variation.

    We do know he was involved in a burglary before his mom shipped him out of town for bad behavior.

    No - you think he was "involved in a burglary".  BTW - By "burglary tool", you mean a screwdriver?  How many "burglary tools" do you have around your house?  I have at least 20 in my basement, one in my backpack, 3 in my shed, 1 in my desk drawer, 4 in my kitchen drawer, 1 in each car, etc., etc.  But it sure sounds scarier when you call  it a "burglary tool".  Not to mention the fact that you have absolutely no idea whether the jewelry was even stolen, let alone part of a burglary (hint - "burglary" is a specific crime which requires several elements - for which you haven't the slightest bit of evidence).

    But if you want to claim "we know" things based on claims of bad conduct for which Martin wasn't even charged, you should be consistent and apply that same standard to GZ.  Because then we also "know" a whole LOT about him ...

    Parent

    Now that's more like it (2.00 / 2) (#171)
    by McBain on Wed Mar 25, 2015 at 10:13:49 PM EST
    Good points on the marijuana.  I'm not buying your burglary excuse.  A police officer called the screwdriver a "burglary tool", I didn't make that up.

     

    Parent

    No, you made up the part ... (5.00 / 3) (#172)
    by Yman on Wed Mar 25, 2015 at 10:32:04 PM EST
    ... about how "we know TM was involved in a burglary" when, in fact, "we know" no such thing.  We DO know you have no evidence to back up your faux-fact that there was a burglary or that TM had anything to do with a burglary.  The jewelry in question wasn't even identified as stolen, let alone evidence in a burglary.  As for what you're "buying", that's not evidence ... it's just funny.

    Don't want to apply that standard to GZ, huh?

    Can't blame you.

    BTW - Do tell - what makes that "burglary tool" different from any other screwdriver?  Bet your place is loaded with "burglary tools".

    Parent

    I'm going by what the police officer said (1.67 / 3) (#173)
    by McBain on Wed Mar 25, 2015 at 10:53:24 PM EST
    He called it a "burglary tool".

    "Don't want to apply that standard to GZ, huh?"

    I don't understand. GZ was found not guilty. I'm not convinced everything he said was true but I believe he acted in self defense.  I'm willing to listen to you if you disagree.  Or maybe you're talking about events before and after the trial? I don't think he's a hero or a perfect person but I do think he's been a victim or civil lawyers, the media and special interest groups.    

    Parent

    The police officer's ... (5.00 / 4) (#174)
    by Yman on Thu Mar 26, 2015 at 06:30:56 AM EST
    ... suspicions are not facts.

    During a search of his backpack, the report said, campus security officers found 12 pieces of women's jewelry, a watch and a screwdriver that they felt could be used as a burglary tool.

    Link.

    Like Zimmerman, TM also wasn't convicted.  He//, he wasn't even charged with what you claim "we know", but in reality is just a police officers description based on his suspicions.  It's certainly not something the officer claimed "we know" as a fact.

    As for your silly, specious opinion that he was a victim of the media and civil rights lawyers, I know a guy who believes the earth is flat.  Your opinion is worth about the same.

    Parent

    If my opinion wasn't worth much (2.00 / 1) (#175)
    by McBain on Thu Mar 26, 2015 at 05:25:01 PM EST
    you wouldn't spend so much time responding to my comments.  It obviously matters a lot to you.  You seem obsessed with moving the goal posts back.  First you'll say I don't have any evidence to support my opinions.  Then I'll show you evidence but you'll say it's not good enough.  

    Zimmerman was thrown under the bus by a lot people.  Crump and co. did it for money.   The media did it for ratings.  I don't expect you to feel sorry for GZ but even you can acknowledge the unfair treatment he received.  Fortunately, the jury was carefully picked and sequestered during his trial.  They weren't influenced by the media or mislead by unethical lawyers and a horrible judge.  They deserve a lot of credit.  

    TM was not convicted of any crime I know of but he was committing a brutal assault right before he died.  If you want to defend him, I can respect that.  


    Parent

    Just because your (5.00 / 2) (#176)
    by sj on Thu Mar 26, 2015 at 05:46:28 PM EST
    opinion is worthless doesn't mean it shouldn't be addressed. Without pushback, the implication is that such dross is acceptable.

    That might be why you get responses.

    Parent

    You really haven't shown any evidence (5.00 / 2) (#177)
    by MO Blue on Thu Mar 26, 2015 at 05:50:59 PM EST
    You misstated what the police officer said and made a false accusation about a burglary that was never charged because there never was any proof that the jewelry was stolen.

    ...The report said the jewelry was confiscated and a photo of it was sent to Miami-Dade Police burglary detectives. Miami-Dade school officials declined Tuesday to confirm the report when contacted by The Associated Press, citing federal privacy laws regarding students.

    Miami-Dade Police confirmed that it had been asked by school police to help identify the property taken from Martin's backpack. It notified school police that the jewelry did not match any that had been reported stolen.  



    Parent
    Blah, blah, blah ... (5.00 / 3) (#178)
    by Yman on Thu Mar 26, 2015 at 07:23:27 PM EST
    No - I'm not the one "moving the goalposts.  You made a ridiculous statement that "we know" (i.e. it's an established fact) that TM was on drugs and involved in a burglary.

    My point was that those are simply your own opinions, which - along with a dollar - will get you a cup of coffee at McDonalds.  And don't flatter yourself - pointing out the obvious/glaring holes and hypocrisy in your claims does not mean I value your opinions.

    Parent

    You (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by FlJoe on Thu Mar 26, 2015 at 08:12:48 PM EST
    just seem obsessed with proving to yourself that Trayvon was a thug who somehow deserved what he got. You "graciously" say
    TM was not convicted of any crime I know of
    but you immediately proclaim you self judge and jury,  
    but he was committing a brutal assault right before he died.
    .  You whine about GZ being a victim but at least he got his day and court, you accuse the media of rushing to judgement while you do not hesitate to convict Trayvon in your own mind.

    Parent
    I don't believe people deserve to die (2.00 / 3) (#180)
    by McBain on Thu Mar 26, 2015 at 08:53:33 PM EST
    I do believe TM was responsible for his death.  GZ was found not guilty but he's far from a free man. Idiots, racists and greedy opportunists made sure of that.

    Was TM a thug? I'm assuming thug means violent criminal.  On that night he was.  

    Parent

    Actual Arrests & Accusations of thuggery (5.00 / 3) (#183)
    by MO Blue on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 08:20:50 AM EST
    In 2005, a woman filed a petition for an injunction against Zimmerman, claiming that he came to her house and became violent when she told him to leave, the Orlando Sentinel reports. Zimmerman, 21 at the time, filed a petition of his own in response.

    Just a month before that, the paper reports, Zimmerman was at a bar near the University of Central Florida when a friend was arrested on suspicion of serving minors. Zimmerman became profane and pushed a law enforcement agent who tried to escort him away. He was arrested after a short struggle. That arrest had been reported previously.

    11/2013
    George Zimmerman was charged Monday with felony aggravated assault after allegedly pointing a shotgun at his girlfriend, according to Dennis Lemma, chief deputy with the Seminole County, Florida, Sheriff's Office.

    9/2014
    WSVN reports that his latest brush with the law came on Tuesday when Zimmerman allegedly threatened to kill a man during a road rage incident in Lake Mary, Florida.

    The man, whose name has not been reported, also told police Zimmerman was waiting for him at his work.

    1/2015
    The Seminole County Sheriff's Office says the 31-year-old Zimmerman was arrested for aggravated assault at his home in Lake Mary about 10 p.m. Friday.

    George Zimmerman continues to be in the news due to his own actions.

    Parent

    Bunch of he said/she said (none / 0) (#184)
    by McBain on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 01:27:55 PM EST
    Looks to me like GZ has bad taste in women.

    Do I think GZ is a thug? No
    Would I set him up with my sister? No
    Do I think he's a hero? No
    Do I think he got a bad rap.  Yes

    Parent

    George Zimmerman has an arrest record (5.00 / 3) (#187)
    by MO Blue on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 02:22:39 PM EST
    Trayvon Martin had no criminal record.

    Fact: Over a period of 10 years he has been arrested numerous times in connection with violent actions. Complaints of domestic violence were made by at least 4 separate women. Men, as well as women, were involved in some cases so your claim that his actions were only because he had poor taste in women is weak tea.

    Yet, while you defend Zimmerman as nothing more than a poor victim, you contend that Martin was a thug who was involved in a burglary. The basis of your accusation was not even a he said/she said situation but a complete distortion of the facts as illustrated below.

    McBain: However, don't tell me he wasn't involved in a burglary. Stolen jewelery and a "burglary tool"  were found in his locker.
    ...
    A police officer called the screwdriver a "burglary tool"

    Facts: Trayvon Martin had no criminal record.

    Campus Security officers: "a screwdriver that they felt could be used as a burglary tool." (qualifier left completely out of your comment)  

    Miami-Dade Police confirmed that it had been asked by school police to help identify the property taken from Martin's backpack. It notified school police that the jewelry did not match any that had been reported stolen.  


    Parent
    Links? (none / 0) (#190)
    by McBain on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 08:39:27 PM EST
    Here's an article I read...
    http://tinyurl.com/7dcdves

    "Trayvon's backpack contained 12 pieces of jewelry, in addition to a watch and a large flathead screwdriver, according to the report, which described the screwdriver as a burglary tool.
    Trayvon was asked if the jewelry, which was mostly women's rings and earrings, belonged to his family or a girlfriend.
    "Martin replied it's not mine. A friend gave it to me," according to the report. Trayvon declined to name the friend."

    Care to explain?

    Parent

    Explain what? (5.00 / 2) (#191)
    by Yman on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 08:53:50 PM EST
    The school police officers suspicions and characterization of the screwdriver?

    Those aren't facts.

    Not to mention that you have no evidence that the jewelry was even stolen, let alone that TM was "involved in a burglary".

    And links to what?

    Parent

    Sure, I will be happy to explain it to you (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by MO Blue on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 11:39:05 PM EST
    once again since you appear to be struggling with understanding the concept of evidence and the statement of the Miami-Dade Police regarding the jewelry.

    Explanation: Trayvon Martin did not have a criminal record. He was not arrested for burglary because there was no evidence that a burglary occurred. The police confirmed that the jewelry did not match any that had been reported stolen.

    SANFORD, Fla. -- Women's jewelry and a watch found in Trayvon Martin's school backpack last fall could not be tied to any reported thefts, the Miami-Dade Police Department said Tuesday.
    ...
    Miami-Dade Police confirmed that it had been asked by school police to help identify the property taken from Martin's backpack. It notified school police that the jewelry did not match any that had been reported stolen.  


    Parent
    A 17 year old kid had women's jewelry (1.00 / 1) (#193)
    by McBain on Sat Mar 28, 2015 at 01:17:31 AM EST
    and a "burglary tool" in his school backpack.  Explain that.  Why was it there? It's obvious why is was there. It was stolen. Perhaps to support his drug habit.

    GZ suspected TM of being on drugs and up to no good. He was correct about the drugs. Probably correct about the other thing too.

    I was asking for links to the GZ domestic abuse claims.  If I'm not mistaken, the women changed their stories and declined to press charges? I didn't follow those incidents very closely.

    Parent

    The police said there was no evidence (5.00 / 3) (#194)
    by MO Blue on Sat Mar 28, 2015 at 07:22:53 AM EST
    of a burglary and you keep making false accusations against Martin. Trayvon Martin was not arrested for burglary because there was no evidence that one of occurred. Without evidence of a burglary, a screwdriver is a screwdriver and not a burglary tool.

    You continue to make stuff up and make accusations for which no proof exists. This has been pointed out to you several times and on several occasions. Yet, you keep on digging that hole even after you have reached rock bottom.

    Parent

    He was NOT "correct ... (5.00 / 3) (#195)
    by Yman on Sat Mar 28, 2015 at 07:25:40 AM EST
    ... about the drugs".  Having trace amounts of THC in your system (which can remain there for days or weeks) does not mean he was on drugs that night.  The obligation is not on others to prove TM's innocence.  YOU are the one claiming that it was a fact that he was "on drugs" that night and "involved in a burglary".  You're the one who insists on calling a screwdriver a "burglary tool" while pointing your finger at not a single actual burglary, but just one officer's suspicions.  BTW - You never answered.  How many "burglary tools" do you have?  Have you had any alcohol in the past few weeks?  Uh, oh ... you're "on alcohol", by your standard.

    Your hypocritical, double-standard is too funny.  TM is guilty of criminal offenses for which he wasn't even charged, while GZ is innocent of numerous acts of violence (domestic and otherwise) because his victims declined to press charges.  Just "bad taste in women" ... 4 times.  Oh - and bad taste in cops, too...  And other male drivers ... And fathers-in-law ...

    Heh.

    Parent

    Wow - YOO think so. (none / 0) (#181)
    by Yman on Thu Mar 26, 2015 at 09:35:07 PM EST
    Pffftttttt ...

    Parent
    You keep doing (none / 0) (#182)
    by FlJoe on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 06:20:05 AM EST
    it. What gives you the right to declare Trayvon guilty of anything? You are being totally hypocritical.

    Parent
    The same right you have (2.00 / 1) (#185)
    by McBain on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 01:32:17 PM EST
    If you don't like my comments you can ignore them.

    The truth about TM was hidden/ignored by Crump and the media until the damage was done. Almost the same thing with Michael Brown.    

    Parent

    Yes sir (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by FlJoe on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 01:45:06 PM EST
    The great McBain has declared what is truth, us mere mortals must just sit back in awe.

    Parent
    So far you haven't said much that was true (5.00 / 3) (#188)
    by MO Blue on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 02:26:24 PM EST
    Erroneous claims not substantiated by facts.

     

    Parent

    Your OPINIONS ... (5.00 / 3) (#189)
    by Yman on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 05:42:29 PM EST
    ... particularly when you state them as facts "we know", are far from "the truth".

    Parent
    Making this claim ... (5.00 / 2) (#163)
    by Yman on Wed Mar 25, 2015 at 06:53:26 PM EST
    Would we have ever heard about this case if TM was white? The media ran with it because they thought a large white man had killed a small black boy. That's the kind of story that drives ratings and media careers.

    ... while simultaneously complaining about a lack of evidence is seriously funny.

    Parent

    strange man with a gun.. (none / 0) (#158)
    by jondee on Wed Mar 25, 2015 at 03:37:58 PM EST
    Put on your big boy pants. (5.00 / 2) (#170)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Mar 25, 2015 at 09:47:27 PM EST
    You're the one telling everyone else how ignorant they are, as though you're the sole arbiter of fact and truth. Deal with it.

    Parent
    Easy Chuck... (none / 0) (#108)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Mar 25, 2015 at 09:05:19 AM EST
    ...we have same very cool cats from Florida that post pretty regularly.

    Don't confuse the dementia of one case and a messed up law with the entire state.

    Parent

    I think... (none / 0) (#112)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 25, 2015 at 09:32:06 AM EST
    the good Floridians are the first to admit their state is f&ckin' strange.

    I lived there too...I know it.  

    But Texas still has them beat! ;)

    Parent

    According to their contentions... (none / 0) (#166)
    by unitron on Wed Mar 25, 2015 at 07:46:46 PM EST
    ...that they were attacked first, they were victims.

    If there's any actual proof that they were not attacked first, I'd be most interested.

    And even if one, or the other, or both, instigated the physical struggle, that doesn't prevent being in that struggle from being traumatic enough to affect memory.

    Parent

    You know what else affects memory? (5.00 / 5) (#168)
    by Anne on Wed Mar 25, 2015 at 08:19:27 PM EST
    Bullets.  The kind that kill people who then cannot remember anything, can't dispute what is said about them, can't counter the shooter's version of the events.

    Now, that's a trauma...


    Parent

    That really doesn't seem.... (none / 0) (#196)
    by unitron on Sat Mar 28, 2015 at 05:15:03 PM EST
    ...like an actual counter-argument.

    Parent
    Of course it is (5.00 / 2) (#197)
    by Yman on Sun Mar 29, 2015 at 07:18:23 AM EST
    It's what happens when you only have one version of the events.

    Parent
    I was trying to make a point.... (none / 0) (#198)
    by unitron on Mon Mar 30, 2015 at 09:48:43 PM EST
    ...about memory problems possibly being caused by trauma.

    If you have any proof that trauma doesn't cause memory problems ever, or can't cause them under certain circumstances, or if you have proof that neither Zimmerman nor Wilson suffered any trauma, feel free to present it.

    But first allow me to point out that one person suffering trauma does not prevent someone else from suffering trauma.

    Parent

    I know - and it was silly (none / 0) (#199)
    by Yman on Mon Mar 30, 2015 at 09:59:25 PM EST
    As silly as your ridiculous request for "proof" that trauma never causes memory problems.  But that last bit of wisdom?  Heh.  The pièce de résistance.

    Parent
    On Netflix... (none / 0) (#200)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 04:08:42 PM EST
    ...they have a series about plane crashes.  Interestingly enough, about half of them have survivors.  And they all have one thing in common, they don't remember a GD thing from impact to waking up in the hospital.

    They discuss it a little, it's a self defense mechanism, the brain protects itself from reliving horrific events.  Scientists aren't sure if it purges them or doesn't allow access to those memories.

    -----------------
    Stalin Quote:

    Death solves all problems - no man, no problem.


    Parent
    It sounds like "Jackie's" trauma had (none / 0) (#12)
    by McBain on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 11:04:18 AM EST
    something to do with her being interested in a guy, "Randall", who wasn't interested in her. So she made up a good looking, fictional upperclassman  (Drew) to try to make "Randall" jealous.  
    http://tinyurl.com/krfr4qf

    Parent
    You are so very, very (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by sj on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 11:40:55 AM EST
    ...invested in campus rape denial that it makes me seriously wonder if you were ever a member of a fraternity.

    Parent
    Not Just Him... (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 11:54:32 AM EST
    ...it's republican males in general, they couldn't be happier than when a rape allegation turns out to be false or even unprovable.

    For a party that generally likes to hang and ask questions later, they sure pull a 180 when the rape hits the fan, or a black person gets shot by a white one.

    Then they all go into full on Colombo mode.

    Parent

    I was never in a frat (none / 0) (#25)
    by McBain on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 12:09:59 PM EST
    I can't think of anyone I know who was.  I don't really know much about that scene.

    Parent
    You don't really know very much ... (5.00 / 3) (#117)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Mar 25, 2015 at 09:52:37 AM EST
    ... about a lot of scenes, which is perfectly understandable given that white-wing cocoon you've spun tightly around yourself.

    Parent
    To Mordiggian 88 from the last Open Thread: (none / 0) (#2)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 12:47:36 AM EST
    Mordiggian 88: "Yes, unfortunately there weren't scandals about [Hetch Hetchy Reservoir] like the taking of water from the Owens Valley by Mulholland & etc., were there?"

    Actually, the proposal to flood Hetch Hetchy Valley for a reservoir was a big environmental scandal at the time. The battle to save that valley was the last great conservation campaign led by the legendary John Muir, who founded the Sierra Club. People across the country were genuinely appalled that the federal government would allow the desecration of national park land in such a thoughtless and shortsighted manner.

    Muir ultimately lost that fight in 1913 when Congress passed the Raker Act, which authorized the City and County of San Francisco to not only dam the Tuolumne River with the construction of O'Shaughnessy Dam in Yosemite National Park, but to clear cut Hetch Hetchy Valley prior to its flooding for the reservoir, and sell off the lumber!

    (John Muir died the following year, allegedly of a broken heart, although truth be told, he was pushing 80 and died of pneumonia while visiting his daughter in Los Angeles.)

    In fact, the destruction of Hetch Hetchy Valley caused such a huge public outcry and backlash that Congress was subsequently compelled to pass -- and President Woodrow Wilson driven to sign into law -- the Organic Act of 1916, aka the National Parks Preservation Act.

    This landmark legislation formally defined statutorily what a U.S. national park was supposed to be, and further created the National Park Service with a designated mission to prevent such a plundering of duly recognized public treasures from ever happening again.

    Aloha.

    Tell it to the descendants (none / 0) (#5)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 06:33:51 AM EST
    of the farmers in Owens Valley who still believe their water was stolen to this day.

    Parent
    Look, the original point I was making ... (none / 0) (#11)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 11:00:45 AM EST
    ... in the previous Open Thread was that people who live in northern California have no business acting as though their attitudes and behavior regarding water are so superior to their state brethren down south, when the historical record shows that their own actions regarding water procurement have been equally questionable and historically egregious.

    In both cases, the cities of Los Ahgeles and San Francisco were allowed to buy water rights elsewhere 100 years ago, to the ultimate detriment of the state as a whole. They didn't "steal" anything; what each city did was perfectly legitimate given the prevailing laws at the time. Even today, the city of L.A. remains the largest landowner in the Owens Valley watershed.

    In obvious hindsight, the twin failures of a century ago to protect Owens Valley and Hetch Hetchy from environmental plunder represented a monumental blunder on the part of the then-prevailing political leadership at both the state and federal levels.

    Today, at least L.A. is trying to make amends for what happened to Owens Valley, while San Francisco remains officially unapologetic regarding the ultimate fate of Hetch Hetchy.

    So, like I said, NorCal residents really have no business putting on airs regarding water procurement and conservation. This is a statewide problem in California, which demands resolution on a statewide basis.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    When I was a small childn (none / 0) (#14)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 11:19:49 AM EST
    visiting my grandparents in Napa in the early '60s, I was introduced to the drought bath, were you only have a few inches of water in the tub. Napa, as you may remember, has a river running thru it, so it must have been serious for such measures back then. If you went to almost any Southern California long-time resident and asked him what a drought bath was, they'd probably think you came from an alternate universe, or at least somewhere north of Cambria. My natal city, San Jose has had to ban all outdoor watering between 8 AM and 8 PM. It also gets some water from HH, btw. As a friend of mine pointed out, the people with swimming pools are in a sticky wicket, as a pool needs water for the pumps to keep working, and unless they have a covering system of some sort, they lose at least several inches of water a week due to evaporation,. Good luck to the folks in Southern CA ab

    Parent
    Dude, we are superior to SoCal (none / 0) (#41)
    by nycstray on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 02:12:54 PM EST
    and nothing you can say will change that :D

    Parent
    The Owens Valley is an interesting story. (none / 0) (#13)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 11:13:16 AM EST
    It is also one of my favorite areas in CA.

    And I suspect that if LA had not purchased the water rights, the valley today would look much like Bakersfield or Fresno.

    I'm OK with what went down.

    Parent

    They managed to recover Lake Mono (none / 0) (#16)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 11:25:43 AM EST
    from getting shrunken due to water diversion to L.A. so the picture isn't entirely black, even though L.A. fought tooth and nail to keep it from happening.

    Parent
    While we'll never know that for certain, ... (none / 0) (#17)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 11:31:00 AM EST
    ... I'll not disagree with your contention that L.A.'s majority ownership of the Owens Valley watershed likely prevented a comparable rise of Bishop as the eastern California equivalent of Fresno.

    Parent
    yup. (none / 0) (#18)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 11:40:05 AM EST
    There have been more murders (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by fishcamp on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 02:30:48 PM EST
    committed in the West over water than women and gold combined.  I read that in the Readers Digest.

    Parent
    My mother frequently cited that (none / 0) (#44)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 02:37:06 PM EST
    unimpeachable source.

    Parent
    And, (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by KeysDan on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 02:53:20 PM EST
    a favorite of Ronald Reagan.

    Parent
    "Whiskey is for drinking.... (none / 0) (#46)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 02:49:42 PM EST
    water is for fighting over."

    - Mark Twain, maybe

    Parent

    Water has always been a huge problem (none / 0) (#49)
    by Zorba on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 02:54:07 PM EST
    in the Western United States, not just in California.
    I'm sure that you are knowledgable about the flooding of the unique and wonderful Glen Canyon to produce Lake Powell and provide water storage.   Link.
    The ground water depletion in the West and the subsequent lowering of the water table has also been an ongoing problem.
    Link.
    There are too many people and too many economic interests vying for the limited water available.
    At some point, and it may not be all that far in the future, we're going to have to "pay the piper."


    Parent
    Water Quantity and Water Quality (none / 0) (#63)
    by christinep on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 04:41:51 PM EST
    In Colorado, Water Quantity issues/debates/fights have had a legal avenue for settlement through the long-established Water Courts. Water diversion and appropriation claims made the Hatfields-McCoys almost tame in their differences.

    Precisely because of the limitation and droughts in these semi-arid parts, the disputes were in even fought out between states (see Colorado and Kansas, e.g.) Even the language of disputes has a unique ring to it ... from the senior vs junior appropriators to the "water wars" to that almost clique-like group of players and experts known as the "water buffaloes." Then, of course, there is the ever-present politics of same ... a big reason for the built-in political tension between east slope and west slope, which becomes pronounced when moves are made to divert even more water for the developing & populated areas on the east slope.  You can guess that the high-stakes where water quantity is concerned has fueled its own industry of specialists, experts.

    Parent

    The whole water issue (none / 0) (#68)
    by Zorba on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 05:08:22 PM EST
    is very different in the Eastern US, where water is plentiful and riparian water rights have been the norm.  This gives all land-owners whose property is next to the water basically the same rights to that water, based on their water frontage, no matter who owns the land or when they bought it.
    In the West, where water is a scarce resource, they have prior appropriation water rights, what is also known as "first in time, first in right."  If you were the first to use the water resource, you get priority for that water usage, and that priority goes with that land when you sell it.
    It's all way complicated, and I don't begin to understand all the intricacies of all the water rights.
    But it certainly has made for disputes among the Western states and water wars between land owners.

    Parent
    Not sure (none / 0) (#72)
    by ragebot on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 05:42:03 PM EST
    if you consider Florida, Georgia, and Alabama in the East but there is an on going fight about water rights between the three states.

    Historically fresh water has flowed South to the Apalachicola Bay reducing the salinity to a level conducive to producing those great Apalachicola oysters.  The Apalachicola River provides 35% of the fresh water inflow to the Eastern Gulf of Mexico so there are other environmental issues.  Alabama has upstream environmental issues as well and favors limits on how much water Georgia can divert to Atlanta.

    As Atlanta grew its water needs grew as well.  Georgia has argued it should be able to limit the flow South to provide water to its citizens.  Both Alabama and Florida have sued in Federal Court and the Corps has been granted power to regulate the flow.

    The case is ongoing but the wiki link has lots of secondary links with more intel.

    Parent

    Correct. (none / 0) (#75)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 06:12:57 PM EST
    This fight has been raging since the 90's IIRC.

    Parent
    Oy, the water wars (none / 0) (#74)
    by sj on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 06:04:14 PM EST
    The Colorado River Compact was a none-too-shrewd deal made in the 1920s among a number (seven apparently) states regarding use of the Colorado River water. This wiki page inadvertently displays one of the primary issues (from Colorado residents' perspective).
    The compact requires the Upper Basin states not to deplete the flow of the river below 7,500,000 acre feet (9.3 km3) during any period of ten consecutive years. Based on rainfall patterns observed in the years before the treaty's signing in 1922, the amount specified in the compact was assumed to allow a roughly equal division of water between the two regions.
    It then blithely goes on to say:
    Since the development of the Colorado River Compact, California has been using the surplus water that has been left over from other states.
    Emphasis mine.

    That's a misrepresentation if there ever was one. There have been drought years (forget surplus) in Colorado with water restrictions, while downstream in California water was just going down the drain. And incredibly (it seems to us) California's legal claim on that water had precedence over Colorado's need.

    Apparently that's better now, but there is still bitterness. To some of my Coloradoan family (I think we are working on our 8th generation? Maybe 9th) Californians aren't any better than Tejanos are to my New Mexican family.

    The article mentions one other relevant thing.

    Many analysts have concluded that when the compact was negotiated, the period used as the basis for "average" flow of the river (1905-1922) included periods of abnormally high rainfall,
    It wasn't until 2012 that this was formally addressed, although interim guidelines were put in place in 2007. Still, 80 years of conflict don't go away easily...

    Parent
    Personally, were I the President, ... (none / 0) (#3)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 06:04:59 AM EST
    ... I'd first crack wise with a deliberately offensive pun, when informing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu personally that he's about to experience a rather profound "Come to Jesus" moment regarding his present conduct toward Israel's closest ally and primary benefactor. Then I'd give Ambassador Ron Dermer the boot, and see if that doesn't grab his attention.

    But that's just me, when someone's rude behavior  really p!$$es me off.

    McCain calls it a "tantrum" (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by christinep on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 09:11:40 PM EST
    But ... I wonder, as we have come to see in the case of this President, if President Obama isn't using his pinpoint methodology. That is: There have been a number of provocative leaders--here & abroad (think McConnell & Putin, respectively) that have acted in ways deliberately calculated to provoke the President, and--true to the depiction of his public persona--he remained cool as strong steel. The Putin provocations, with presidential measured responses, are a prime example.

    For some reason, I've been imagining: President Obama's intended audience for the open and continuing remonstrance in response to Netanyahu's behavior may not really be Netanyahu.  What if his message that the US has limits, which will be expressed when needed at the UN, really goes to the recently elected parliament components in Israel ... those members are still forming the government (requiring 61 supporting members) and the harsh response of the US could well have an impact such as to influence the claims/negotiations/expectations as the new Israeli government in formed.  Additionally: What is the real message to Iran ... could that country consider accepting conditions on the table <as presented by SOS Kerry> in view of the push from Netanyahu and the victory that resulted. IOW, Iran needs some form of relief--via agreement--and, if their take is that this President has two more years and then things could well deteriorate in terms of finding such economic relief, the incentive for taking the deal may be greater than realized.

    Why bring this up?  For one thing, it is distinctly possible that President Obama--who is not known for prolonged public castigations and other carrying on about another--is engaged in one of the things no one sees coming.  I think that the odds are that there are multi-layers to this whole situation.

    Parent

    Meanwhile, Boehner is going to Israel. (none / 0) (#85)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 09:31:03 PM EST
    Agreed. The "tantrum" (none / 0) (#152)
    by KeysDan on Wed Mar 25, 2015 at 02:09:11 PM EST
    is only something that McCain can identify with, but McCain's  reading of "fever" is really fervor toward accomplishing an acceptable Iranian nuclear agreement.   President Obama's castigation of Bibi is hoped to serve a purpose in the Iranian talks.  If if were other, the back-tracking and apologies would have been quickly accepted, no matter how disingenuous they  registered.  President Obama does not, nor can he afford to, take affronts from  Bibi personally.  It is a strategy that Bibi dropped into his lap.  

    Parent
    personally, were i the president, . . . (1.67 / 3) (#66)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 04:55:58 PM EST
    i would issue an executive order annulling the results of the Israeli election

    Parent
    Unfortunately... (none / 0) (#31)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 12:59:27 PM EST
    we have no moral leg to stand on regarding spying on "allies"...just ask Angela Murkel or our friends in Brazil.

    That being said, if I were the president I'd stop payment on the last check mailed to Netanyahu.  If that won't teach him to stop biting the hand that feeds him, nothing will.  Tossing an ambassador is just more child's play.

    Parent

    And if I Were Your VP... (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Mar 25, 2015 at 09:15:11 AM EST
    ...I would strongly encourage you to cut all foreign aid that isn't helping people who need it.  No guns, bombs, or anything else that is meant to harm others.

    I would also encourage to take those funds and help people who need it right here at home.  Feed, clothe, and/or shelter people who need it or want it.

    No doubt you would.

    Parent

    Amen, Mr. Vice President... (none / 0) (#115)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 25, 2015 at 09:42:06 AM EST
    the main tenet of my foreign policy platform is universal disarmament.  Not so much as a Saturday Night Special for nobody.  

    Maybe roll over the funds previously used to strap up the world into an international arms buy-back program too.

    Parent

    The Western... (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Mar 25, 2015 at 09:53:42 AM EST
    ...Switzerland, if you will Mr k-Prez.

    Any companies wanting to do business in far off lands can find their own damn security, the US military serves one purpose, defending the US, not free security to companies who take jobs out of the US.

    Parent

    Expelling Ambassador Dermer would be ... (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Mar 25, 2015 at 01:04:20 PM EST
    ... the diplomatic equivalent of a shot across Netanyahu's's bow, one which the entire country of Israel would likely hear, not just its prime minister.

    Ron Dermer was a former longtime GOP political operative prior to taking Israeli citizenship, and his unprofessional and provocative behavior since assuming his diplomatic post in Washington is clearly not in the best interest of either Israel or the United States.

    It is my contention that Dermer's expulsion would likely shake Israeli politics to its foundation, which would render it much more difficult for Netanyahu to piece together a coalition government. His Likud Party may have won a plurality in the just-concluded elections, but its 29 members still constitute only one-quarter of the 120-member Israeli Knesset.

    Therefore, Netanyahu won only a first crack at forming a government. If he fails in his attempt to corral at least 61 Knesset members into a ruling coalition, his opposition will then be afforded the opportunity to do so by Israel's president.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    speaking of the death penalty (none / 0) (#10)
    by CST on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 10:15:07 AM EST
    "62 percent of Boston voters said they would sentence Mr. Tsarnaev to prison for the rest of his life without the possibility of parole, while 27 percent said he should be put to death"

    Link

    Thanks a lot Holder.

    This is why I didn't think the defense should want to move the trial, to be honest.  Although they screen for that sort of thing in the jury selection process, which I find pretty messed up, since you could make a case that it isn't truly a "jury of peers" under those circumstances.

    You aren't really entitled (3.50 / 2) (#38)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 01:56:45 PM EST
    To a jury of your peers.  The Sixth Amendment says you are entitled to an impartial jury.  The Supreme Court has interpreted that to mean the jury pool must come from a cross-section of the surrounding community who are eligible to participate as jurors (i.e. "peers" meaning "equal").  It does not mean a defendant is entitled to a jury of all people who think like him/her, or look like him/her, etc.

    So just because someone is sitting on this jury does not mean they necessarily support the death penalty, just that they swore they could be open to the idea. In the end, you could very well have someone or some people on the jury who feel as the people in your poll do - that it would be better to sentence him to LWOP than to death.

    Parent

    Yes it Does... (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 02:15:35 PM EST
    ...if you aren't against it you are either neutral, which doesn't really apply, or you are for it.  You argue to what degree.

    When a community overwhelmingly opposes the death penalty yet you manage to dig up jury of X number of people who are for it, you are rigging the jury.

    A jury should more or less represent the communities views on matters they are suppose to decide, or rather it should not purposely exclude people who share the views of the community in which the crime occurred.

    The more important question is why would anyone seek a punishment the people who were affected and the people in which the crime was perpetrated upon, do not want.  Beyond making no sense, they are clearly pushing an agenda from outside the community, and I would imagine an agenda that involves their own careers, rather than the interests of the public they serve.

    Parent

    So the 38% (3.00 / 1) (#50)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 02:56:59 PM EST
    Of the population who is agnostic or supports the death penalty shouldn't be represented in death penalty cases?

    The more important question is why would anyone seek a punishment the people who were affected and the people in which the crime was perpetrated upon, do not want.  

    Couldn't you say that about many crime victims everywhere?  Prosecutors make deals all the time and plead down cases with defendants to give them reduced sentences or community service- what if those victims want the defendant to do jail time? (There's a reason victims don't get to decide sentencing - hence the term impartial jury.)

    Take your beef up with the Founding Fathers and the Supreme Court, because as I said, you are NOT entitled to a jury of people who think and look like you.

    And before the crazies on the board come out, and you know who you are, no, this does not mean I'm a death penalty supporter, or Republican, or whatever other nonsense you want to try and pin me with without actually reading the conversation.

    Parent

    I'm confused by this comment (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by CST on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 03:31:34 PM EST
    you think it's okay to exclude the 60% that oppose it but not the 38% who don't?  And I am pretty sure that no one suggested they shouldn't be represented in the jury pool - just that they shouldn't make up the entire pool.  Or that in this case jury of peers means "jury who think and look like you" - since I'd also be willing to bet that the defendant in question is not morally opposed to the death penalty.

    Parent
    No (2.00 / 1) (#61)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 04:25:59 PM EST
    Since those unwilling to consider the death penalty were excluded, as is the case in all capital trials, it's not like this is unusual.  And since we always talk about "fair", it wouldn't be "fair" to have the government start at a disadvantage, should the trial get to a penalty phase, because a unanimous verdict is needed to impose the death penalty, and it only takes one holdout to eliminate that possibility.  If you are already starting with people who are opposed to the death penalty, then there's virtually no chance the DP can be handed down.  And while you and I might agree that's a good thing, that isn't the law and the policy of the people and courts, as they have spoken (up to this point) as an option they want in certain criminal cases.

    It's the mirror image of not putting someone on a jury because they believe someone is guilty before they hear the evidence.

    Parent

    CST didn't ... (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by sj on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 06:15:32 PM EST
    ...say that it was unusual. He only questioned why the jury should be composed of only death penalty supporters when society is not composed of only death penalty supporters. A sentiment with which I whole heartedly concur.

    I am not at all concerned with being "fair" to the government. What kind of crap is that? I believe that the government should be fair to the governed. Not the other way around.

    Not that today's society reflects that in the slightest.

    Anyway, I don't think that's "fair" at all. I think it's heavily weighted on the side of the DP. And anything that heavily weighted on one side is "unfair" by definition.

    Just my opinion.

    Parent

    You should care (2.00 / 1) (#119)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 25, 2015 at 09:58:18 AM EST
    If a trial is fair, both to the defendant AND to the People, who sre represented by the government.  It's the way the system is supposed to work. Yes, whether you like it or not, the government is entitled to fair proceedings as well.  Allowing people who are adamantly opposed to the death penalty to sit on a death penalty case would, as Scott calls it, "stack the deck".  

    Your problem is with the death penalty itself, which is a different conversation. Like I said - take it up with James Madison.

    CST asks what is a critical mass?  I don't know, but while Massachusetts residents don't favor the DP in this case, this is a federal proceeding.  Do we go by national support for the DP - which is around 60% in favor for murderers?

    Parent

    the MA statistic matters (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by CST on Wed Mar 25, 2015 at 10:06:34 AM EST
    because even though it's a federal proceeding - the jury pool is from here.  So regardless of what the federal support for the death penalty is, we will still have the problem where you are disqualifying a majority of the jury pool on one question.

    Parent
    You are arguing (3.50 / 2) (#124)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 25, 2015 at 10:43:29 AM EST
    For what you think it should be, rather than what it is.

    See Lockhart v. McCree , where the Supreme Court held the process of death-qualification does not unconstitutionally bias juries towards a verdict of guilt.

    Now the research was questioned at the time, even by Justice Rehnquist, in that case. So maybe it's time for a fresh look,

    Parent

    From Lockhart (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 25, 2015 at 10:46:30 AM EST
    (a) "Death qualification" of a jury does not violate the fair cross section requirement of the Sixth Amendment, which applies to jury panels or venires but does not require that petit juries actually chosen reflect the composition of the community at large. Even if the requirement were extended to petit juries, the essence of a fair cross section claim is the systematic exclusion of a "distinctive group" in the community [p163] -- such as blacks, women, and Mexican-Americans -- for reasons completely unrelated to the ability of members of the group to serve as jurors in a particular case. Groups defined solely in terms of shared attitudes that would prevent or substantially impair members of the group from performing one of their duties as jurors, such as the "Witherspoon-excludables" at issue here, are not "distinctive groups" for fair cross section purposes. "Death qualification" is carefully designed to serve the State's legitimate interest in obtaining a single jury that can properly and impartially apply the law to the facts of the case at both the guilt and sentencing phases of a capital trial. Pp. 173-177.

    (b) Nor does "death qualification" of a jury violate the constitutional right to an impartial jury on the theory asserted by respondent that, because all individual jurors are to some extent predisposed towards one result or another, a constitutionally impartial jury can be constructed only by "balancing" the various predispositions of the individual jurors, and when the State "tips the scales" by excluding prospective jurors with a particular viewpoint, an impermissibly partial jury results. An impartial jury consists of nothing more than jurors who will conscientiously apply the law and find the facts.....



    Parent
    You just noticed? (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by sj on Wed Mar 25, 2015 at 11:15:00 AM EST
    You are arguing (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 25, 2015 at 09:43:29 AM MDT

    For what you think it should be, rather than what it is.



    Parent
    Don't be absurd (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by sj on Wed Mar 25, 2015 at 11:14:16 AM EST
    That takes the conversation completely sideways.
    You should care (none / 0) (#119)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 25, 2015 at 08:58:18 AM MDT

    If a trial is fair, both to the defendant AND to the People, who sre represented by the government.

    The trial is a completely different part of the process from the penalty phase.
    Allowing people who are adamantly opposed to the death penalty to sit on a death penalty case would, as Scott calls it, "stack the deck".  
    Compared to now, you mean? In case you hadn't noticed the deck is already stacked.  In the opposite direction. If you are so concerned with "fair", then "fair" would be that the question not be asked at all and both sides take their chances. As long as that abomination of a penalty still exists, that is.

    Parent
    Objecting to the death penalty (none / 0) (#88)
    by ragebot on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 09:59:47 PM EST
    is an excepted position that historically has excused one for jury duty in capital cases.

    I suspect the reason is the same as the reason other factors are used to excuse folks from a jury.  Once I was called for jury duty for a case involving large scale fraud (enough to qualify for a RICO charge) of jewelry.  I was excused because one of the women who bought the jewelry was the wife of a guy I had been closely working with for the last couple of years and knew socially as well.

    Even before I was excused the prospective jurors en mass were asked if anyone was currently charged and facing trial or had been convicted on a similar charge.

    Bottom line is the courts are trying to eliminate as much bias as possible.

    Parent

    invoking (none / 0) (#82)
    by CST on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 08:47:41 PM EST
    "the law and the policy of the people and courts, as they have spoken as an option they want" is a bit off in this case - I realize this is federal law and a federal court - but with all due respect it's not upholding the policy as the people have spoken in this place.

    Again though, you've never really addressed my first question which is at what point do we reach critical mass and say that the % of population that the jury pool can come from is too small to represent a cross section of society?  Is it 50? 10?  Do we even have a legal limit?  Should we?

    Because I think there is a solid argument to be made that we've passed a limit in this case.  I can't imagine what crime that 62% would consider the death penalty for if not this one.  That's worse than eliminating an entire gender from the jury pool.

    Parent

    I really don't see the problem... (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 11:27:26 PM EST
    "Danny" will live the rest of his life in SuperIsolation, on the concrete furniture of a SuperMax SuperHell.  

    Why we pretend this isn't worse than immediate execution is beyond me.  To me, this looks like forty or fifty years of torture.  

    Parent

    I'd be lying if I didn't say (none / 0) (#114)
    by CST on Wed Mar 25, 2015 at 09:39:25 AM EST
    That his youth probably has a lot to do with some portion of that poll.  For the reason you mention.  People also don't want to martyr him.

    If we could eliminate LWOP in this case I probably would.  20 years is enough to change a person.  30-40 is more than enough to get the point across.  By that time, you're probably not a danger to society anyway.  Not that he wouldn't be capable of it, but you don't see too many middle-aged men running off to join ISIS.  Some get a taste of power and are fueled by that, but after 40 years in supermax you're not coming out with anything to speak of.

    In any event, that's obviously not going to happen, but I would think that at some point he'd come out of isolation if he manages to play nice with the guards.  And live what remains of a wasted life with some form of meaning, whatever that entails in a prison.

    Personally I just don't think the justice system should be in the business of killing people.  If he really wants to he can find a way to kill himself.

    Parent

    So You Would Have No Problem... (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Mar 25, 2015 at 09:33:32 AM EST
    ...with a drug smuggler's jury made up of people who want to make drugs legal ?

    Sure they could find him guilty, but in reality it's a stacked deck.  And if the community overwhelmingly believes drugs are really bad, the stacked deck would be shameful.

    I said nothing about anyone looking like anyone else.  What I did say is they should be a representation of the community in which the crime was committed.  I meant in thought, not in appearance.

    Obviously the law is on your side, but it doesn't make it right.  I am not saying remove death penalty supporters, only that the other isn't excluded.

    If that's 60% then it means the community in general doesn't want it to happen and by having them in the jury, it most likely will not.

    I would also think people who support DP are probably more prone to other related issues the jury is tasked to address.  

    They are essentially removing compassion from the jury pool IMO, which means on other matters unrelated to the DP the deck is stacked as well, and that ain't right.

    Parent

    You assume (2.00 / 1) (#121)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 25, 2015 at 10:06:17 AM EST
    That everyone on the jury "supports the death penalty," which just isn't true. Some could have no strong opinion one way or the other.  

    And your way actually stacks the deck, as you want to put people on a jury who will sit there with their arms crossed, who will not have an open mind (and will have their minds already made up) and who will never vote to impose the DP. Again, that may be agreeable to you and may be better policy in the long run, but that is not the case in this present situation.

    Parent

    I Would Love to Meet a Person... (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Mar 25, 2015 at 10:27:59 AM EST
    ...with no opinion about executions.  They can take it or leave it, huh ?

    That is funny.

    We disagree and unfortunately for me, the law is on your side.

    Parent

    General opposition to the death penalty (none / 0) (#126)
    by Anne on Wed Mar 25, 2015 at 10:58:41 AM EST
    does not automatically disqualify someone from serving on a jury in a capital case - there's more to this than "no, I'm opposed to the death penalty," - and that's what the voir dire process is designed to explore with potential jurors.  And jurors can be struck by either side using a peremptory challenge - but since those are limited, have to be used with caution.

    If the death penalty is one of the sentencing options set by law, it is not fair to the process or to the law to seat jurors who are categorically opposed and would not vote to convict even if the prosecution made its case.

    The real problem is the death penalty itself, of course, for so many reasons.  But I fail to see what is gained by seating jurors who would acquit people they believe to be guilty on the basis of the evidence, just to save them from the needle.


    Parent

    there are two phases to the trial (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by CST on Wed Mar 25, 2015 at 11:20:00 AM EST
    one to determine guilt, one to determine sentencing.  They happen separately and the jury deliberates on both separately.  You don't need a "not guilty" verdict to avoid the death penalty.

    Parent
    ... in which the death penalty was on the table, even though public opinion in Hawaii -- like that in Massachusetts -- definitively rejects the use of capital punishment. The local jurors voted to convict the defendant of first degree murder, yet categorically rejected the prosecution's demand that he be sentenced to death during the penalty phase of the trial. He instead got life without parole.

    Parent
    but it is the same jury (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by CST on Wed Mar 25, 2015 at 11:22:09 AM EST
    so you are disqualifying all the non-death penalty people from the guilty/not-guilty phase of the trial as well.

    Not that it really matters in this case, the very first thing the defense attorney said was that the defendant was guilty.  The only reason he pleaded not guilty was so they would have more time and are  using that part of the trial to try to influence the eventual sentencing proceedings.

    Parent

    true (none / 0) (#39)
    by CST on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 02:05:42 PM EST
    but one potential consequence - and it's not necessarily shown in the poll - what happens when you reach a critical mass of people who aren't open to the idea?  At some point it stops being a valid cross-section of the surrounding community.  I'm not saying we're at that point, or that the poll is indicative of that (if anything, the fact that the percent who want LWOP instead of the death penalty has increased is evidence that some people at least are swayable) - but anytime you have a question that potentially eliminates a significant portion of the jury pool I think it's a problem.

    Probably not all of the 67% fall into that category - but at what point is the number too high?  50%?  Because it might be 50%.

    Parent

    sorry 62 not 67 percent (none / 0) (#40)
    by CST on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 02:06:13 PM EST
    Secret Service (none / 0) (#29)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 12:54:05 PM EST
    HERE is the video, nothing like I had imagined.  But it appears that had the bomb scare actually been a bomb, the two drunk agents would have been blown to bits.

    Ferguson shooting suspect confessed (none / 0) (#34)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 01:37:12 PM EST
    Hummelstown (none / 0) (#62)
    by Uncle Chip on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 04:40:01 PM EST
    Seems pretty open-and-shut, no? (none / 0) (#65)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 04:47:04 PM EST
    Oscar Grant (none / 0) (#69)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 05:11:39 PM EST
    ...might beg to differ, except that he's dead. shot by a police officer while lying face down and handcuffed.

    "Involuntary manslaughter" was all they could pin on the cop.  Two years.

    Parent

    open n shut??? (none / 0) (#70)
    by Uncle Chip on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 05:18:25 PM EST
    That self defense "afraid for my life" right to go home safely to my family after my shift defense claim can cover a whole lot of killings with some juries.

    Atleast they indicted and arrested her.

    Parent

    The new motto (none / 0) (#71)
    by FlJoe on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 05:37:19 PM EST
    "shoot first, play victim later", it works more often then not.

    Parent
    She was charged, no? (none / 0) (#77)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 07:51:48 PM EST
    Sounds to me like they feel they have a pretty good case against her, her being (was at the time) a cop and all. But, hey, if you want to argue they don't have a good case, have at it!

    Parent
    throw down (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Uncle Chip on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 11:33:22 PM EST
    In the olden days all cops had throwdown guns for killings like this.

    Nowadays they don't need them. They have been replaced with throwdown fear card that they carry with them at all time.

    All the officer has to do is claim he/she feared that the suspect had a gun, or feared that he was reaching for the officer's gun, or feared that he was thinking about reaching for it, or feared that he was thinking about thinking about it.

    And those thoughts were then picked up on by the perceptive officer who of course then had to use deadly force on the dangerous thinker.

    The fear -- real or unreal, reasonable or unreasonable -- has replaced the gun as the new throwdown.

    It's taught in basic training -- play the victim card at any time.

    Parent

    News to me - from that article: (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 11:45:29 PM EST
    The stun gun recorded portions of the encounter, and District Attorney Ed Marsico called it the strongest evidence in the case.

    In other words, the taser keeps a record of its victims.

    Note the tasers on the belts of two of the uniforms escorting the "authority figure" from her court appearance.

    Parent

    Taser (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by Uncle Chip on Wed Mar 25, 2015 at 08:25:59 AM EST
    So then her very own Taser turned on her and turned state's evidence.

    It will be ostracized and never work another day for that department or any other.

    Count on it :)

    Parent

    Taser has a GoPro on it? (none / 0) (#93)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Mar 25, 2015 at 12:12:44 AM EST
    From taser.com: (none / 0) (#94)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 25, 2015 at 12:45:26 AM EST
    Event Logs

    Records every user action (safety activation, trigger event duration with times,dates and battery life)

    Parent

    charges are a result of "race & gender." White female cop killing white male.

    Did not occur to me, maybe this will be more interesting than I originally thought.

    Parent

    Kind of like the training for (none / 0) (#104)
    by Chuck0 on Wed Mar 25, 2015 at 08:10:04 AM EST
    yelling "STOP RESISTING" while they beat you senseless whilst you're covering up your head to protect yourself.

    Parent
    Not cruising the Med (none / 0) (#67)
    by ragebot on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 05:06:34 PM EST
    Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water.

    ISIS does it again.

    Well the US 6th Fleet... (none / 0) (#120)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Mar 25, 2015 at 10:03:05 AM EST
    ...is located in Italy, that is roughly 1/7th of the US Navy.  Add in the  Navies of the Mediterranean, I am guessing 7, and it's probably the safest body of water outside the Gulf.

    Parent
    Critique of Michelle Obama's (none / 0) (#87)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 09:47:50 PM EST
    wardrobe choices for her trip to Japan and Cambodia:

    NYT

    The writer says these outfits don't sync with the message of empowering girls. Kind of petty.

    Your link is broken. (none / 0) (#95)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 25, 2015 at 06:27:31 AM EST
    I found (none / 0) (#96)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 25, 2015 at 06:36:11 AM EST
    the article and the writer has a point albeit a stupid one. IMO the biggest problem with the dress is not that it harkens back to the 50's so much as it was not flattering to Mrs. Obama.

    Parent
    Did not think the dress was particurly (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by MO Blue on Wed Mar 25, 2015 at 07:28:27 AM EST
    Flattering either but I do agree with this:

    In choosing to meet young women in clothes that, perhaps, make her look like them -- or how they may want to look if they didn't have to wear school uniforms -- Mrs. Obama was implying: You can dress like a girl and dream about getting a Ph.D. (or a law degree, if we are being picayune), too.

    As one San Francisco blog wrote about the "Kimmy Schmidt" fashions: "By putting Kimmy in florals and bright colors, the stylists for `Unbreakable' prove that feminine outfits can represent strength as much as they represents whimsicality. Home girl may be wearing flowers but you know she can kick butt."

    LINK

    I think that the preconceived notion that a woman must dress like a man to be taken seriously, is sexist in the extreme and I wish powerful women would stop feeding into that meme. Good for Michelle.

    Parent

    The NYT author opined Michelle Obama (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 25, 2015 at 07:38:37 AM EST
    might better have chosen to wear "power" red. Which reminds me of a morning in court (civil cases; no clients or no jury) when most almost every female lawyer was wearing a red dress or suit.

    Parent
    "Stepford Wives" (none / 0) (#100)
    by MO Blue on Wed Mar 25, 2015 at 07:56:38 AM EST
    In power red? Still a stereotype IMO.

    Much, much prefer something on this order:

    You can dress like a girl and be president, a PHD or CEO of a Fortune 500 company.

    Well in the U.S. maybe not president no matter what you wear.


    Parent

    I think (none / 0) (#102)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 25, 2015 at 08:01:28 AM EST
    that is left over from the 1980's when women had to dress in suits to be taken seriously.

    Parent
    The 80s was 35 years ago (none / 0) (#103)
    by MO Blue on Wed Mar 25, 2015 at 08:08:52 AM EST
    Time IMO to stop that NONSENSE.

    Good for Michelle for finally starting to break that mold.

    Parent

    Mainly (none / 0) (#107)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 25, 2015 at 08:48:39 AM EST
    I was talking about the writer being stuck in the 1980's. A lot of the press seems to still be there for whatever reason.

    Parent
    Bergdahl charged with deserting (none / 0) (#147)
    by ragebot on Wed Mar 25, 2015 at 01:13:07 PM EST
    NYT link

    Presser at 3:30 PM EST

    SITE VIOLATOR (none / 0) (#202)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Nov 01, 2015 at 03:56:27 PM EST
    #201