Why were the bartender and waitress not arrested for serving a drunk who killed two teenagers in a wrong-way crash?
Shortly before 3 a.m. June 29, 2012, Nicole Baukus, 23, drove south in the northbound lanes of Interstate 45 in Montgomery Count, Texas, crashing her Ford F-150 pickup truck head-on into another vehicle. Two teenagers in the car were killed and another passenger critically injured. Baukus had just left the On the Rox Sports Bar and Grille in Woodlands, a suburb of Houston. An hour after the deadly wreck, her blood alcohol level was .286, more than three times the legal limit.
Baukus had consumed 17 shots and 4 beers in about four-and-a-half hours at the bar - from 9:19 p.m. through 1:46 a.m.. Surveillance videos clearly show her having a great time consuming all those drinks, staggering badly around inside the bar and later outside in the parking lot as she left to get into her truck.
Baukus is currently on trial, charged with two counts of second-degree felony manslaughter and one count of third-degree intoxication assault. She faces up to 50 years in prison if convicted on all three charges.
In April, the bar’s insurance carrier made a settlement of $1 million dollars to be split evenly between the injured passenger and the families of the two dead teens.
My question is, why did the authorities fail to arrest the bartender and the waitress who served a visibly drunken Baukus? It’s against the law for bar employees to serve a drunk. On the Rox and its employees are just as responsible for the deaths of the two teenagers as is Baukus.
Wednesday, July 31, 2013
OFF-DUTY + BOOZE = DIARRHEA OF THE MOUTH
Will cops ever learn that drinking too much when off-duty can lead to serious trouble?
By telling officers from another police department that "We have a lesbian fucking chief that's looking to fire people for any reason," two cops have given their chief a good reason to fire them.
OFF-DUTY MINN. COPS INSULT WIS. POLICE IN HOSTILE EXCHANGE
2 Minn. officers have been suspended with pay while an investigation is conducted of the incident
By Matt McKinney
Star Tribune
July 30, 2013
MINNEAPOLIS — A pair of off-duty Minneapolis police officers disparaged their police chief as a lesbian and insulted members of the Green Bay Police Department during an expletive-laden rant that included racial slurs, according to a police report from Green Bay, Wis.
The officers used a slur to describe a group of men they scuffled with early that morning, called the local police a "clown show" and said Green Bay was "too [racial slur] friendly," the 40-page report said in the first details released of the incident.
When they didn't feel the officers at the scene were taking them seriously, the report said the two went to the Green Bay police station, where they pointed out several times that they were full-time SWAT officers.
The Minneapolis officers, whom Star Tribune sources have identified as Brian Thole and Shawn Powell, were suspended with pay last week while an Internal Affairs investigation reviews the June 29 incident. The officers were not arrested at the time, but were warned by Green Bay police they faced arrest if they didn't stop creating a disturbance, according to the report.
The Minneapolis officers were upset their names were taken, saying they didn't want their names put in any reports. "We have a lesbian [expletive] chief that's looking to fire people for any reason," one told the Green Bay police.
Powell, who served on the Green Bay Police Department, and Thole were in Green Bay for personal reasons.
According to the report: Powell and Thole said they had gone out drinking when they passed a group of nine black men on the sidewalk shortly after 1 a.m. One of them bumped into one of the officers, who then traded words with the group. One of the black men then approached the officers with his chest puffed out and more words were spoken. Saying he feared for his safety, one of the Minneapolis officers punched the man in the face.
Several Green Bay officers responded to the confrontation in downtown Green Bay. The Minneapolis officers were agitated and complained that the local police weren't doing enough to find the men involved in the confrontation.
"We're police officers," one said. "I punched him in the face and I will do it again."
One of the Minneapolis officers said the men involved in the altercation "were doing their monkey thing."
A Green Bay police officer reported afterward that the Minneapolis cops "expected preferential treatment" and had pointed out "several times that they were full-time SWAT officers." The Minneapolis officers were told to go back to their hotel, but as they left they told Green Bay police officers to [expletive] off and gave one of them the finger.
An hour later, Thole and Powell went to the Green Bay police station, where the shift commander met them in the lobby. They complained about their treatment, saying they were the victims and the police hadn't done anything.
Green Bay Police Lt. Steve Mahoney told the Minneapolis cops that if anyone was going to get charged, it would be them for disorderly conduct, the report said.
One of the Minneapolis cops called that "bullshit" and said he had a First Amendment right to use a racial slur. The conversation was very animated and Lt. Mahoney wrote he grew concerned that it would turn physical.
Thole and Powell left and returned to their hotel.
Minneapolis Police Chief Janee Harteau, the city's first gay police chief, sent out a statement Friday that said two officers had been suspended pending an internal affairs investigation. She has not commented publicly.
The sources said the officers have been removed from the SWAT team. Neither officer could be reached for comment Monday night.
Thole and Powell are named in separate, ongoing misconduct suits. Thole was one of seven officers sued over a "no-knock" warrant served Sept. 13 at a house. Powell was one of six officers sued over the 2009 shooting death of Ahmed Mohamed Guled, whose family said police used "excessive, unreasonable and deadly force" in the shooting.
By telling officers from another police department that "We have a lesbian fucking chief that's looking to fire people for any reason," two cops have given their chief a good reason to fire them.
OFF-DUTY MINN. COPS INSULT WIS. POLICE IN HOSTILE EXCHANGE
2 Minn. officers have been suspended with pay while an investigation is conducted of the incident
By Matt McKinney
Star Tribune
July 30, 2013
MINNEAPOLIS — A pair of off-duty Minneapolis police officers disparaged their police chief as a lesbian and insulted members of the Green Bay Police Department during an expletive-laden rant that included racial slurs, according to a police report from Green Bay, Wis.
The officers used a slur to describe a group of men they scuffled with early that morning, called the local police a "clown show" and said Green Bay was "too [racial slur] friendly," the 40-page report said in the first details released of the incident.
When they didn't feel the officers at the scene were taking them seriously, the report said the two went to the Green Bay police station, where they pointed out several times that they were full-time SWAT officers.
The Minneapolis officers, whom Star Tribune sources have identified as Brian Thole and Shawn Powell, were suspended with pay last week while an Internal Affairs investigation reviews the June 29 incident. The officers were not arrested at the time, but were warned by Green Bay police they faced arrest if they didn't stop creating a disturbance, according to the report.
The Minneapolis officers were upset their names were taken, saying they didn't want their names put in any reports. "We have a lesbian [expletive] chief that's looking to fire people for any reason," one told the Green Bay police.
Powell, who served on the Green Bay Police Department, and Thole were in Green Bay for personal reasons.
According to the report: Powell and Thole said they had gone out drinking when they passed a group of nine black men on the sidewalk shortly after 1 a.m. One of them bumped into one of the officers, who then traded words with the group. One of the black men then approached the officers with his chest puffed out and more words were spoken. Saying he feared for his safety, one of the Minneapolis officers punched the man in the face.
Several Green Bay officers responded to the confrontation in downtown Green Bay. The Minneapolis officers were agitated and complained that the local police weren't doing enough to find the men involved in the confrontation.
"We're police officers," one said. "I punched him in the face and I will do it again."
One of the Minneapolis officers said the men involved in the altercation "were doing their monkey thing."
A Green Bay police officer reported afterward that the Minneapolis cops "expected preferential treatment" and had pointed out "several times that they were full-time SWAT officers." The Minneapolis officers were told to go back to their hotel, but as they left they told Green Bay police officers to [expletive] off and gave one of them the finger.
An hour later, Thole and Powell went to the Green Bay police station, where the shift commander met them in the lobby. They complained about their treatment, saying they were the victims and the police hadn't done anything.
Green Bay Police Lt. Steve Mahoney told the Minneapolis cops that if anyone was going to get charged, it would be them for disorderly conduct, the report said.
One of the Minneapolis cops called that "bullshit" and said he had a First Amendment right to use a racial slur. The conversation was very animated and Lt. Mahoney wrote he grew concerned that it would turn physical.
Thole and Powell left and returned to their hotel.
Minneapolis Police Chief Janee Harteau, the city's first gay police chief, sent out a statement Friday that said two officers had been suspended pending an internal affairs investigation. She has not commented publicly.
The sources said the officers have been removed from the SWAT team. Neither officer could be reached for comment Monday night.
Thole and Powell are named in separate, ongoing misconduct suits. Thole was one of seven officers sued over a "no-knock" warrant served Sept. 13 at a house. Powell was one of six officers sued over the 2009 shooting death of Ahmed Mohamed Guled, whose family said police used "excessive, unreasonable and deadly force" in the shooting.
SEND UNWANTED NAZI WAR CRIMINALS TO GITMO
Ordered out of the U.S. but allowed to remain here because no other country would accept them, Nazi war criminals ought to be sent to Guantanamo where the would be welcomed by Arab terrorist detainees who celebrate Hitler as a hero for exterminating six million Jews.
NAZI WAR CRIMINALS REMAIN IN UNITED STATES
By Courtney Coren
Newsmax
July 30, 2013
At least 10 suspected Nazi war criminals who were ordered to leave the United States never left the country, and four are still living here, according to the Justice Department.
Data reviewed by The Associated Press also revealed that the war criminals were eligible for public benefits such as Social Security until they used up their appeals, Fox News reports.
The reason they never left the United States is because no other country wanted them. That still is the case for Vladas Zajanckauskas, who lives in Sutton, Mass.; Theodor Szehinskyj in West Chester, Penn.; Jakiw Palij in New York City; and John Kalymon in Troy, Mich.
The United States has the right to deport suspected war criminals if there is evidence of their involvement in the alleged crime. However, they can't be tried here since the crimes did not take place on American soil.
Thirty-four years ago, when the Justice Department created an office to find and deport those suspected in Nazi crimes, there were 137 people against whom they filed legal action. At least 66 have either been deported, extradited or left voluntarily. At least another 20 have died while waiting for their cases to be decided.
In some cases, the U.S. government has allowed them to stay in exchange for information on other investigations.
The main reason, officials say, they are still here is that no one wants them.
"Without any doubt, the greatest single frustration has been our inability, in quite a number of cases now, to carry out the deportation orders that we've won in federal courts," said Eli Rosenbaum in the 2011 documentary "Elusive Justice: The Search for Nazi War Criminals." Rosenbaum heads the Justice Department office responsible for investigating the Nazi war criminals residing here.
"We can't carry them out," he said, "because governments of Europe refuse to take these people back."
NAZI WAR CRIMINALS REMAIN IN UNITED STATES
By Courtney Coren
Newsmax
July 30, 2013
At least 10 suspected Nazi war criminals who were ordered to leave the United States never left the country, and four are still living here, according to the Justice Department.
Data reviewed by The Associated Press also revealed that the war criminals were eligible for public benefits such as Social Security until they used up their appeals, Fox News reports.
The reason they never left the United States is because no other country wanted them. That still is the case for Vladas Zajanckauskas, who lives in Sutton, Mass.; Theodor Szehinskyj in West Chester, Penn.; Jakiw Palij in New York City; and John Kalymon in Troy, Mich.
The United States has the right to deport suspected war criminals if there is evidence of their involvement in the alleged crime. However, they can't be tried here since the crimes did not take place on American soil.
Thirty-four years ago, when the Justice Department created an office to find and deport those suspected in Nazi crimes, there were 137 people against whom they filed legal action. At least 66 have either been deported, extradited or left voluntarily. At least another 20 have died while waiting for their cases to be decided.
In some cases, the U.S. government has allowed them to stay in exchange for information on other investigations.
The main reason, officials say, they are still here is that no one wants them.
"Without any doubt, the greatest single frustration has been our inability, in quite a number of cases now, to carry out the deportation orders that we've won in federal courts," said Eli Rosenbaum in the 2011 documentary "Elusive Justice: The Search for Nazi War Criminals." Rosenbaum heads the Justice Department office responsible for investigating the Nazi war criminals residing here.
"We can't carry them out," he said, "because governments of Europe refuse to take these people back."
CELEBRITIES PROTEST SOLITARY CONFINEMENT OF PRISON INMATES
Claiming that isolation is torture, they demand an end to solitary confinement of inmates belonging to violent prison gangs
Gloria Steinem, Jesse Jackson, Bonnie Raitt, Jay Leno and his wife Mavis, political critic Noam Chomsky, Angela Davis, scholar Robert Thurman and actor Peter Coyote are notables who have sent a letter to Gov. Jerry Brown demanding an end to solitary confinement.
These do-gooders have never walked in the shoes of correctional officers that have to deal daily with scores of unruly, rebellious and violent prison inmates. As a fan of Jay Leno, my advice is for Jay to stick to his expertise as a late-night TV show host and to keep his prominent nose out of matters about which he knows little if anything about.
I see where Angela Davis is one of the participants demanding an end to solitary confinement. This is the same Angela Davis who was the former leader of the Communist Party USA and a groupie of the original Black Panther Party. In 1970 Davis purchased and supplied the guns that were used by two black convicts in in a Marin County, California courtroom to escape with hostages, including the judge, the prosecutor and three women jurors. A subsequent shootout with police resulted in the deaths of the judge, the prosecutor, one of the jurors, the two convicts and a black high school student who delivered the guns to the courtroom.
I suggest that we invite the likes of Jesse Jackson, Angela Davis and the Lenos to work as correctional officers for at least one year. I doubt they would last more than a couple of weeks and I believe the experience would cause them to change their do-gooder tune. Oh shit, did I include Angela Davis? She's much more suited as a prison inmate than a correctional officer!
HOLLYWOOD STARS, CIVIL RIGHTS ICONS PROTEST SOLITARY CONFINEMENT
By Paige St. John
Los Angeles Times
July 30, 2013
SACRAMENTO -- Gloria Steinem, Jesse Jackson, Bonnie Raitt and Jay Leno have all joined prison hunger strikers in calling for an end to California's use of solitary confinement to control prison gang violence.
The civil rights crusaders, rock singer and late-night comedian are among those signing two letters addressed to Gov. Jerry Brown. The letters call Security Housing Units "extensions of the same inhumanity practiced at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay."
The letters to Brown, to be delivered during Tuesday's demonstration at the Capitol, were pulled together by the National Religion Campaign Against Torture and local supporters of the California prison protesters.
The Washington-based organization is involved in a push to close down solitary confinement units at prisons in 13 states on the premise that such isolation is torture, said its executive director, the Rev. Richard Killmer.
"There is that in the human body that needs companionship," said Killmer, a Presbyterian minister.
Other notables signing the letter to Brown include political critic Noam Chomsky, activist Angela Davis, Columbia Buddhist scholar Robert Thurman and actor/activist Peter Coyote.
Some of the signers have been inside California prisons. Raitt performed once at San Quentin and her interactions with the warden and inmates there "made a profound impact on her," said spokeswoman Annie Heller-Gutwillig.
Others said they learned of the issue more recently through activists. "I was appalled at this unlimited, indiscriminate use [of isolation] by prison administrators, so I rallied my network," said UCLA psychiatry professor Susan Smalley. Those contacts included her friend, Mavis Leno, the feminist wife of Jay Leno.
Supporters began to gather those signatures more than a month before the hunger strike itself.
Prison officials Monday said 385 inmates have been on hunger strike continuously since July 8, with several hundred more inmates on shorter protests.
Prison medical staff reported six inmates required treatment since Saturday, including three who were sent to outside hospitals for care and returned the next day to their cells.
Inmate advocacy groups called for an investigation into the death a week earlier of a protester at the state prison in Corcoran.
Corrections officials said that inmate, Billy Sell, had already resumed eating when he apparently killed himself in his cell.
King County Chief Deputy Coroner Tom Edmonds said Monday he had ruled Sell's death a suicide by strangulation, but was awaiting toxicology results before issuing a coroner's report.
Gloria Steinem, Jesse Jackson, Bonnie Raitt, Jay Leno and his wife Mavis, political critic Noam Chomsky, Angela Davis, scholar Robert Thurman and actor Peter Coyote are notables who have sent a letter to Gov. Jerry Brown demanding an end to solitary confinement.
These do-gooders have never walked in the shoes of correctional officers that have to deal daily with scores of unruly, rebellious and violent prison inmates. As a fan of Jay Leno, my advice is for Jay to stick to his expertise as a late-night TV show host and to keep his prominent nose out of matters about which he knows little if anything about.
I see where Angela Davis is one of the participants demanding an end to solitary confinement. This is the same Angela Davis who was the former leader of the Communist Party USA and a groupie of the original Black Panther Party. In 1970 Davis purchased and supplied the guns that were used by two black convicts in in a Marin County, California courtroom to escape with hostages, including the judge, the prosecutor and three women jurors. A subsequent shootout with police resulted in the deaths of the judge, the prosecutor, one of the jurors, the two convicts and a black high school student who delivered the guns to the courtroom.
I suggest that we invite the likes of Jesse Jackson, Angela Davis and the Lenos to work as correctional officers for at least one year. I doubt they would last more than a couple of weeks and I believe the experience would cause them to change their do-gooder tune. Oh shit, did I include Angela Davis? She's much more suited as a prison inmate than a correctional officer!
HOLLYWOOD STARS, CIVIL RIGHTS ICONS PROTEST SOLITARY CONFINEMENT
By Paige St. John
Los Angeles Times
July 30, 2013
SACRAMENTO -- Gloria Steinem, Jesse Jackson, Bonnie Raitt and Jay Leno have all joined prison hunger strikers in calling for an end to California's use of solitary confinement to control prison gang violence.
The civil rights crusaders, rock singer and late-night comedian are among those signing two letters addressed to Gov. Jerry Brown. The letters call Security Housing Units "extensions of the same inhumanity practiced at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay."
The letters to Brown, to be delivered during Tuesday's demonstration at the Capitol, were pulled together by the National Religion Campaign Against Torture and local supporters of the California prison protesters.
The Washington-based organization is involved in a push to close down solitary confinement units at prisons in 13 states on the premise that such isolation is torture, said its executive director, the Rev. Richard Killmer.
"There is that in the human body that needs companionship," said Killmer, a Presbyterian minister.
Other notables signing the letter to Brown include political critic Noam Chomsky, activist Angela Davis, Columbia Buddhist scholar Robert Thurman and actor/activist Peter Coyote.
Some of the signers have been inside California prisons. Raitt performed once at San Quentin and her interactions with the warden and inmates there "made a profound impact on her," said spokeswoman Annie Heller-Gutwillig.
Others said they learned of the issue more recently through activists. "I was appalled at this unlimited, indiscriminate use [of isolation] by prison administrators, so I rallied my network," said UCLA psychiatry professor Susan Smalley. Those contacts included her friend, Mavis Leno, the feminist wife of Jay Leno.
Supporters began to gather those signatures more than a month before the hunger strike itself.
Prison officials Monday said 385 inmates have been on hunger strike continuously since July 8, with several hundred more inmates on shorter protests.
Prison medical staff reported six inmates required treatment since Saturday, including three who were sent to outside hospitals for care and returned the next day to their cells.
Inmate advocacy groups called for an investigation into the death a week earlier of a protester at the state prison in Corcoran.
Corrections officials said that inmate, Billy Sell, had already resumed eating when he apparently killed himself in his cell.
King County Chief Deputy Coroner Tom Edmonds said Monday he had ruled Sell's death a suicide by strangulation, but was awaiting toxicology results before issuing a coroner's report.
GOING TO BAT IN A GUNFIGHT
By Bob Walsh
PACOVILLA Corrections blog
July 30, 2013
Last week a man in Beaverton, Oregon, attempted to rob a gun store. He was armed at the time……with a baseball bat. He was unsuccessful, though he did survive the attempt.
Derrick Mosley, 22, walked into the store Thursday of last week carrying a baseball bat and a 9″ toad sticker. He walked up to the counter, smashed the glass, and grabbed for a gun. The manager, who was carrying a gun that was already loaded, drew down on Mosley and directed him to drop the bat and hit the deck. He wisely did so, perhaps the only smart thing he did that day.
The cops arrived and cuffed up the not overly bright Mosley and hauled his happy ass to the slammer where he is facing various charges of criminal stupidity.
PACOVILLA Corrections blog
July 30, 2013
Last week a man in Beaverton, Oregon, attempted to rob a gun store. He was armed at the time……with a baseball bat. He was unsuccessful, though he did survive the attempt.
Derrick Mosley, 22, walked into the store Thursday of last week carrying a baseball bat and a 9″ toad sticker. He walked up to the counter, smashed the glass, and grabbed for a gun. The manager, who was carrying a gun that was already loaded, drew down on Mosley and directed him to drop the bat and hit the deck. He wisely did so, perhaps the only smart thing he did that day.
The cops arrived and cuffed up the not overly bright Mosley and hauled his happy ass to the slammer where he is facing various charges of criminal stupidity.
Tuesday, July 30, 2013
WHY WHITE PEOPLE FEAR BLACK PEOPLE
In response to a recent post on PACOVILLA Corrections blog, ‘WordTruthLight’ commented that white people had no reason to fear black people because the majority of crimes are white-on-white and If you are white, you are more likely to be robbed or murdered by a white person. He blamed the media for ‘teaching’ whites to fear blacks.
Here is what WordTruthLight wrote and some responses:
WTL: Here’s a little spoken of truth: Overall, there are more black men in college than there are in prison. The media loves to focus on the negative when it comes to talking about black men and there are those who profit from painting the black community as being in a perpetual state of crisis. Some make political spokesperson careers out of it.
And there is a lot of talk of black-on-black crime, but this ignores that fact that though black men do commit a disproportionate amount of the crimes (probably has something to do with living with a disproportionate amount of poverty), the majority of crimes are actually white-on-white, and most people in prison are white, even if black men are overrepresented for their population. If you are white, you are more likely to be robbed or murdered by a white person simply due to the fact that there are much more white people than black people, and the overwhelming white victims of crime have white aggressors. And yet, the media teaches white people that they are to fear black people for some reason.
BGB: WordTruthLight, let me shine some light on your well-written comment.
Now here is the truth with some excerpts from a recent Pat Buchanan column:
In New York from January to June 2008, 83 percent of all gun assailants were black, according to witnesses and victims, though blacks were only 24 percent of the population. Blacks and Hispanics together accounted for 98 percent of all gun assailants. Forty-nine of every 50 muggings and murders in the Big Apple were the work of black or Hispanic criminals. Blacks and Hispanics commit 96 percent of all crimes in the cit
After researching the FBI numbers for “Suicide of a Superpower,” this writer concluded: “An analysis of ‘single offender victimization figures’ from the FBI for 2007 finds blacks committed 433,934 crimes against whites, eight times the 55,685 whites committed against blacks. Interracial rape is almost exclusively black on white — with 14,000 assaults on white women by African Americans in 2007. Not one case of a white sexual assault on a black female was found in the FBI study.”
Though blacks are outnumbered 5-to-1 in the population by whites, they commit eight times as many crimes against whites as the reverse. By those 2007 numbers, a black male was 40 times as likely to assault a white person as the reverse.
Let me add, …and that is why white people fear black people.
PACOVILLA: “More than 60% of the people in prison are now racial and ethnic minorities. For Black males in their thirties, 1 in every 10 is in prison or jail on any given day…” - The Sentencing Project
Facts-1
WordTruthLight-0
BGB: And they are not in jail or prison because they are victims of a racist criminal justice system. Nor are they in prison for singing off-key in the church choir.
Here is what WordTruthLight wrote and some responses:
WTL: Here’s a little spoken of truth: Overall, there are more black men in college than there are in prison. The media loves to focus on the negative when it comes to talking about black men and there are those who profit from painting the black community as being in a perpetual state of crisis. Some make political spokesperson careers out of it.
And there is a lot of talk of black-on-black crime, but this ignores that fact that though black men do commit a disproportionate amount of the crimes (probably has something to do with living with a disproportionate amount of poverty), the majority of crimes are actually white-on-white, and most people in prison are white, even if black men are overrepresented for their population. If you are white, you are more likely to be robbed or murdered by a white person simply due to the fact that there are much more white people than black people, and the overwhelming white victims of crime have white aggressors. And yet, the media teaches white people that they are to fear black people for some reason.
BGB: WordTruthLight, let me shine some light on your well-written comment.
Now here is the truth with some excerpts from a recent Pat Buchanan column:
In New York from January to June 2008, 83 percent of all gun assailants were black, according to witnesses and victims, though blacks were only 24 percent of the population. Blacks and Hispanics together accounted for 98 percent of all gun assailants. Forty-nine of every 50 muggings and murders in the Big Apple were the work of black or Hispanic criminals. Blacks and Hispanics commit 96 percent of all crimes in the cit
After researching the FBI numbers for “Suicide of a Superpower,” this writer concluded: “An analysis of ‘single offender victimization figures’ from the FBI for 2007 finds blacks committed 433,934 crimes against whites, eight times the 55,685 whites committed against blacks. Interracial rape is almost exclusively black on white — with 14,000 assaults on white women by African Americans in 2007. Not one case of a white sexual assault on a black female was found in the FBI study.”
Though blacks are outnumbered 5-to-1 in the population by whites, they commit eight times as many crimes against whites as the reverse. By those 2007 numbers, a black male was 40 times as likely to assault a white person as the reverse.
Let me add, …and that is why white people fear black people.
PACOVILLA: “More than 60% of the people in prison are now racial and ethnic minorities. For Black males in their thirties, 1 in every 10 is in prison or jail on any given day…” - The Sentencing Project
Facts-1
WordTruthLight-0
BGB: And they are not in jail or prison because they are victims of a racist criminal justice system. Nor are they in prison for singing off-key in the church choir.
ARIZONA WATERMELON FRUIT JUICE COCKTAIL + ROBITUSSIN OR CODEINE + SKITTLES = LEAN
Much has been made in the media about Trayvon Martin getting shot while walking home after buying some ice tea and Skittles. While Martin did buy some skittles, he did not buy any ice tea. He bought a can of Arizona Watermelon Fruit Juice Cocktail and the media deliberately lied about it because that drink and Skittles along with codeine or Robitussin are the concoctions making up Lean, a popular hip-hop drug.
The American Thinker was the first to reveal that Martin did not buy any ice tea and that he probably bought the Arizona Watermelon juice and Skittles for making Lean. So, I set about to do some research to see whether these allegations might be true.
First I looked up the crime scene photos of Martin’s body and the surrounding area. And those photos definitely show a can of Arizona Watermelon Fruit Juice Cocktail, as well as a bag of Skittles found near the body. I also watched a video of a crime scene investigator testifying in court about finding and collecting the can of Arizona Watermelon juice and the Skittles.
Then I checked out Lean and this is what I found:
__Arizona Watermelon juice and skittles. Both are ingredients in a drug cocktail used in the southern rap/hip-hop scene. The drug cocktail is made using Arizona Watermelon juice, Robitussin or codeine, and a few skittles or jolly rancher candies. The concoction is known as “lean,” “watermellon sizzurp,” “purple lean,” “purple sizzurp,” and other names. Other versions of the cocktail are made with Sprite.
Now everyone has seen the angelic pictures of Martin alongside Zimmerman’s mug shot - the Boy Scout vs. the criminal. That nice child had a Twitter account, tweeting with the name NO_LIMIT_NIGGA. Some of Martin’s tweets suggest that he was using Lean, with codeine as one of the ingredients.
These facts would lead a reasonable person to conclude that angelic Trayvon was a user of Lean and that the Arizona Watermelon Fruit Juice Cocktail and Skittles were purchased with the intent of concocting up a batch of Lean the night he was killed.
The American Thinker was the first to reveal that Martin did not buy any ice tea and that he probably bought the Arizona Watermelon juice and Skittles for making Lean. So, I set about to do some research to see whether these allegations might be true.
First I looked up the crime scene photos of Martin’s body and the surrounding area. And those photos definitely show a can of Arizona Watermelon Fruit Juice Cocktail, as well as a bag of Skittles found near the body. I also watched a video of a crime scene investigator testifying in court about finding and collecting the can of Arizona Watermelon juice and the Skittles.
Then I checked out Lean and this is what I found:
__Arizona Watermelon juice and skittles. Both are ingredients in a drug cocktail used in the southern rap/hip-hop scene. The drug cocktail is made using Arizona Watermelon juice, Robitussin or codeine, and a few skittles or jolly rancher candies. The concoction is known as “lean,” “watermellon sizzurp,” “purple lean,” “purple sizzurp,” and other names. Other versions of the cocktail are made with Sprite.
Now everyone has seen the angelic pictures of Martin alongside Zimmerman’s mug shot - the Boy Scout vs. the criminal. That nice child had a Twitter account, tweeting with the name NO_LIMIT_NIGGA. Some of Martin’s tweets suggest that he was using Lean, with codeine as one of the ingredients.
These facts would lead a reasonable person to conclude that angelic Trayvon was a user of Lean and that the Arizona Watermelon Fruit Juice Cocktail and Skittles were purchased with the intent of concocting up a batch of Lean the night he was killed.
PALESTINIAN OFFICIALS REVEAL REAL REASON BEHIND RESUMING NEGOTIATIONS WITH ISRAELIS
The peace process is just a ruse, and part of a larger scheme to defeat their enemy
By releasing 140 dangerous terrorists, Israel in enabling the Palestinians in their avowed goal of obliterating the Jewish state. And with the pressure put on Israel by John Kerry and the Obama administration, the United States is also enabling the Palestinians to achieve their avowed goal.
P.A. MINISTER: NEW PEACE TALKS WILL HELP US CONQUER ISRAEL LATER
By Ryan Jones
Israel Today
July 29, 2013
There are more than a few in the Palestinian Authority who are upset over the pending renewal of peace talks with Israel. Hamas in particular believes the move to be a detriment to the Palestinian cause.
But Palestinian Authority Minister of Religious Affairs Mahmoud Al-Habbash reassured everyone last week that the political peace process is just a ruse, and part of a larger scheme to defeat their enemy.
In a sermon delivered in the presence of Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas and broadcast on official Palestinian Authority TV, Al-Habbash compared the US-driven peace negotiations to the Hudaybiyyah Peace Treaty concluded between Islam's prophet Mohammed and the Quraish tribe of Mecca.
Peace talks with Israel at this time are "the right path, which leads to achievement, exactly like the Prophet [Mohammed] did in the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah," Al-Habbash stated, noting that all of the Palestinians' achievements to date "never would have happened through Hamas' impulsive adventure."
Al-Habbash explained that, like Hamas, many of Mohammed's companions burned with anger that their leader was negotiating with the Quraish tribe rather than attacking Mecca. But Mohammed knew that only a more measured approach would lead to ultimate victory.
Two years after signing the treaty, Mohammed's forces had gained enough strength and he launched the brutal conquest of Mecca.
"This is the example and this is the model" that the Palestinian leadership is following, Al-Habbash acknowledged.
Amazingly, all of the doe-eyed Israeli commentators who believe that this round of negotiations is for some reason going to be different from all the previous fail to take the simple step of listening to what the Palestinians themselves are saying.
"Abbas is a real peace partner," they shout, while willfully ignoring what Abbas' own ministers are telling the public, in his name and in his presence, without any refutation by the "president."
[Translation of Al-Habbash's televised speech courtesy of Palestinian Media Watch]
By releasing 140 dangerous terrorists, Israel in enabling the Palestinians in their avowed goal of obliterating the Jewish state. And with the pressure put on Israel by John Kerry and the Obama administration, the United States is also enabling the Palestinians to achieve their avowed goal.
P.A. MINISTER: NEW PEACE TALKS WILL HELP US CONQUER ISRAEL LATER
By Ryan Jones
Israel Today
July 29, 2013
There are more than a few in the Palestinian Authority who are upset over the pending renewal of peace talks with Israel. Hamas in particular believes the move to be a detriment to the Palestinian cause.
But Palestinian Authority Minister of Religious Affairs Mahmoud Al-Habbash reassured everyone last week that the political peace process is just a ruse, and part of a larger scheme to defeat their enemy.
In a sermon delivered in the presence of Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas and broadcast on official Palestinian Authority TV, Al-Habbash compared the US-driven peace negotiations to the Hudaybiyyah Peace Treaty concluded between Islam's prophet Mohammed and the Quraish tribe of Mecca.
Peace talks with Israel at this time are "the right path, which leads to achievement, exactly like the Prophet [Mohammed] did in the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah," Al-Habbash stated, noting that all of the Palestinians' achievements to date "never would have happened through Hamas' impulsive adventure."
Al-Habbash explained that, like Hamas, many of Mohammed's companions burned with anger that their leader was negotiating with the Quraish tribe rather than attacking Mecca. But Mohammed knew that only a more measured approach would lead to ultimate victory.
Two years after signing the treaty, Mohammed's forces had gained enough strength and he launched the brutal conquest of Mecca.
"This is the example and this is the model" that the Palestinian leadership is following, Al-Habbash acknowledged.
Amazingly, all of the doe-eyed Israeli commentators who believe that this round of negotiations is for some reason going to be different from all the previous fail to take the simple step of listening to what the Palestinians themselves are saying.
"Abbas is a real peace partner," they shout, while willfully ignoring what Abbas' own ministers are telling the public, in his name and in his presence, without any refutation by the "president."
[Translation of Al-Habbash's televised speech courtesy of Palestinian Media Watch]
KING NU ZU
‘King nu zu’ is not the name of some African potentate, but it is the phrase coined by Chinese airline attendants to describe unruly passengers that attack them over anger at frequent delays. ‘King nu zu’ literally means ‘air rage tribe.’ Chinese airlines have the worst on-time records of all the world’s air carriers and passengers take their rage out on flight attendants and airport staff with an average of three physical attacks per week.
CHINESE AIR CREWS LEARN KUNG FU TO COMBAT ATTACKS FROM ANGRY PASSENGERS DUBBED THE ‘AIR RAGE TRIBE’ WHO ARE INCENSED BY DELAYS
Hong Kong Airlines will teach cabin crews wing chun, a form of Kung Fu, because they have experienced on average three attacks from passengers a week
By Jaymi McCann
Mail Online
July 29, 2013
A Chinese airline has introduced Kung Fu training for their staff after a series of attacks on air stewards.
Hong Kong Airlines said that they will teach their cabin crews wing chun, a form of Kung Fu after they experienced on average three attacks per week, reported.
Attacks have been reported at airports across the country as they struggle to maintain flight times.
Frustrated passengers have taken their anger out on airport staff and cabin crew after a summer of delays.
The staff have even invented a new phrase to describe the irate passengers, ‘king nu zu’, which translates as ‘air rage tribe’, reported The Telegraph.
Only 18 per cent of the 22,000 flights from Beijing’s Capital airport ran on time, according to the aviation research company FlightStats, the worst in the world.
No Chinese airports managed to get more than 50 per cent of flights to run on time.
There have been at least eight protests at departure gates in two months.
More than 30 passengers stormed security and ran onto the runway on July 18 after bad weather caused seven hours of delays.
In another incident, two airport staff were injured when a passenger attempted to rip off an attendant’s name badge.
One of the injured staff members Ni Xuying said: ‘The passengers were very emotional and unstable.’
A primary teacher, Liu Weiwei, also reportedly lost control in June, when her flight from Wenzhou to Beijing was cancelled. She slapped and kicked an Air China attendant.
She said the reason she did it was that no one offered her any refreshments.
Sudden air traffic flowing into air ways that are controlled by the People’s Liberation Army is one of the reasons for the issue.
This is aggravated when bad weather forces airlines to delay or cancel flights.
CHINESE AIR CREWS LEARN KUNG FU TO COMBAT ATTACKS FROM ANGRY PASSENGERS DUBBED THE ‘AIR RAGE TRIBE’ WHO ARE INCENSED BY DELAYS
Hong Kong Airlines will teach cabin crews wing chun, a form of Kung Fu, because they have experienced on average three attacks from passengers a week
By Jaymi McCann
Mail Online
July 29, 2013
A Chinese airline has introduced Kung Fu training for their staff after a series of attacks on air stewards.
Hong Kong Airlines said that they will teach their cabin crews wing chun, a form of Kung Fu after they experienced on average three attacks per week, reported.
Attacks have been reported at airports across the country as they struggle to maintain flight times.
Frustrated passengers have taken their anger out on airport staff and cabin crew after a summer of delays.
The staff have even invented a new phrase to describe the irate passengers, ‘king nu zu’, which translates as ‘air rage tribe’, reported The Telegraph.
Only 18 per cent of the 22,000 flights from Beijing’s Capital airport ran on time, according to the aviation research company FlightStats, the worst in the world.
No Chinese airports managed to get more than 50 per cent of flights to run on time.
There have been at least eight protests at departure gates in two months.
More than 30 passengers stormed security and ran onto the runway on July 18 after bad weather caused seven hours of delays.
In another incident, two airport staff were injured when a passenger attempted to rip off an attendant’s name badge.
One of the injured staff members Ni Xuying said: ‘The passengers were very emotional and unstable.’
A primary teacher, Liu Weiwei, also reportedly lost control in June, when her flight from Wenzhou to Beijing was cancelled. She slapped and kicked an Air China attendant.
She said the reason she did it was that no one offered her any refreshments.
Sudden air traffic flowing into air ways that are controlled by the People’s Liberation Army is one of the reasons for the issue.
This is aggravated when bad weather forces airlines to delay or cancel flights.
Monday, July 29, 2013
VATICAN QUICKLY PERFORMS DAMAGE CONTROL ON POPE’S TOLERANT REMARKS
The Onion
July 29, 2013
VATICAN CITY—Following Pope Francis’ tolerant remarks Sunday about homosexuals and the Catholic Church, Vatican officials reportedly went into crisis mode, announcing that the Pope’s thoughtful message of understanding was clearly taken out of context.
“It is not the official stance of the Pope or the Catholic Church that all people of good will who seek the Lord, especially gay people, should be accepted by Christ,” a visibly nervous Vatican spokesman told reporters, adding that the Holy Father was clearly tired after his long trip to Brazil and never meant for his comments to sound caring or realistic. “Homosexuality is a disorder. And this in no way means that, going forward, the Catholic Church will be an open-minded, more sensible organization. I assure you we are just as prejudiced and backward today as we were yesterday. Thank you.”
According to an anonymous source close to the Vatican, the Pope is currently being yelled at by Church officials, who are telling him, “You don’t just go off script like that. Who the fuck do you think you are?”
July 29, 2013
VATICAN CITY—Following Pope Francis’ tolerant remarks Sunday about homosexuals and the Catholic Church, Vatican officials reportedly went into crisis mode, announcing that the Pope’s thoughtful message of understanding was clearly taken out of context.
“It is not the official stance of the Pope or the Catholic Church that all people of good will who seek the Lord, especially gay people, should be accepted by Christ,” a visibly nervous Vatican spokesman told reporters, adding that the Holy Father was clearly tired after his long trip to Brazil and never meant for his comments to sound caring or realistic. “Homosexuality is a disorder. And this in no way means that, going forward, the Catholic Church will be an open-minded, more sensible organization. I assure you we are just as prejudiced and backward today as we were yesterday. Thank you.”
According to an anonymous source close to the Vatican, the Pope is currently being yelled at by Church officials, who are telling him, “You don’t just go off script like that. Who the fuck do you think you are?”
DETROIT BANKRUPTCY A CULTURAL COLLAPSE, NOT A FISCAL PROBLEM
Sunday on ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos, , during a discussion of whether the government should bail out bankrupt Detroit, Washington Post columnist George Will got into it with Katrina vanden Heuvel, the far-left editor of The Nation magazine, and Steve Rattner, Obama’s former auto-bailout czar.
Rattner: ….. you have got a situation where 80 percent of the pain from this restructuring is being borne by the workers and the retirees if this plan goes through. You have a situation -- where I have read that whole plan, and I don't believe it can solve Detroit's problems. Detroit needs investment, and that's where the federal government and the state, particularly, can and should help.
Will: [Detroit] can't solve the problems, because their problems are cultural. You have a city, 139 square miles, you can graze cattle in vast portions of it, dangerous herds of feral dogs roam in there. 3 percent of fourth graders reading at the national math standards, 47 percent of Detroit residents are functionally illiterate, 79 percent of Detroit children are born to unmarried mothers. They don't have a fiscal problem, Steve, they have a cultural collapse.
vanden Heuvel: I find that really insulting to the people of Detroit. I think there is a serious discussion about the future of cities in a time of deindustrialization. But in many ways, Detroit has been a victim of market forces, and I think that what Steve said is so critical, that retirees and workers should not bear this. And this story should not be hijacked as one of about greedy public unions and fiscal responsibility.
Will: But Steve said in his op-ed [The New York Times, 7-20-13] was the people of Detroit are no more to blame than the victims of Hurricane Sandy, because apart from voting, he said. Well, what did they vote for? For 60 years, they voted for incompetents, malcontents and in some cases, criminals.
Rattner: ….. you have got a situation where 80 percent of the pain from this restructuring is being borne by the workers and the retirees if this plan goes through. You have a situation -- where I have read that whole plan, and I don't believe it can solve Detroit's problems. Detroit needs investment, and that's where the federal government and the state, particularly, can and should help.
Will: [Detroit] can't solve the problems, because their problems are cultural. You have a city, 139 square miles, you can graze cattle in vast portions of it, dangerous herds of feral dogs roam in there. 3 percent of fourth graders reading at the national math standards, 47 percent of Detroit residents are functionally illiterate, 79 percent of Detroit children are born to unmarried mothers. They don't have a fiscal problem, Steve, they have a cultural collapse.
vanden Heuvel: I find that really insulting to the people of Detroit. I think there is a serious discussion about the future of cities in a time of deindustrialization. But in many ways, Detroit has been a victim of market forces, and I think that what Steve said is so critical, that retirees and workers should not bear this. And this story should not be hijacked as one of about greedy public unions and fiscal responsibility.
Will: But Steve said in his op-ed [The New York Times, 7-20-13] was the people of Detroit are no more to blame than the victims of Hurricane Sandy, because apart from voting, he said. Well, what did they vote for? For 60 years, they voted for incompetents, malcontents and in some cases, criminals.
RELEASE OF TERRORISTS AN ACT OF COWARDICE
After declaring that Israel wanted to resume peace negotiation, but without preconditions, Netanyahu capitulates to Palestinian demands
I was an ardent supporter of Netanyahu while he was out of office and celebrated his election as prime minister. However, I’ve been sorely disappointed in him since then.
Netanyahu knows the Palestinians are not really interested in peace, yet he is willing to release 140 dangerous terrorists from prison just so Mahmoud Abbas will send some officials to Washington, not to negotiate for peace, but just to talk about resuming negotiations. He keeps caving in to the demands of the Europeans and the United States for a resumption of long-stalled peace negotiations.
Netanyahu has turned out to be just another typical politician more concerned about his legacy than what’s best for his country. The problem is that if Israel were to choose a new prime minister, he or she would probably turn out to be worse than Netanyahu.
As for the prisoner release, Israeli Interior Minister Gideon Saar put it this way: "I don't believe we can get a peace agreement with the Palestinians, but I want to preserve Israel's international standing. If we don't vote for the prisoner release our last few friends around the world might not support us anymore in the UN."
WITH ‘HEAVY HEART’ ISRAEL SET TO FREE MORE TERRORISTS
By Connie Fieraru
Israel Today
July 28, 2013
"From time to time, prime ministers are called on to make decisions that go against public opinion – when the matter is important for the country." These were the words of the opening paragraph of Benjamin Netanyahu’s open letter to the Israeli public concerning the release of Palestinian terrorist prisoners as a precondition for resuming peace negotiations.
Netanyhau has agreed to release 104 Palestinian and Arab-Israeli prisoners arrested before the Oslo Accords were signed in 1993. Why? Because the Palestinian Authority told US Secretary of State John Kerry that that it would not attend resumed peace talks in Washington this week unless this pre-condition was met.
A "reluctant" decision on Netanyahu’s part, he states in his letter that it was one of pain not only for the nation but also for him (having lost his brother to terrorism 37 years ago), and that the decision made "collides with the incomparably important value of justice."
As expected, the decision was met with frustration by much of the Israeli public, especially those who have lost family members to terrorist activity and those who continue to fight against it today. Dozens of families protested against the prisoner release by protesting outside the Prime Minister's Residence as Netanyahu and his cabinet were voting on the measure.
“We have enough pain and loss. We will not agree that more and more families will be forced to join the ranks of the bereaved families and victims of terrorism,” they said.
Many more were embittered by what was termed an act of cowardice after Netanyahu issued "repeated assurances" that Israel would not free terrorists as a precondition to talks.
Within his own government, Netanyahu faced stiff opposition. "You kill terrorists, you don't free them," insisted Trade Minister Naftali Bennett.
Deputy Foreign Minister Ze'ev Elkin, echoing the views of many of his colleagues, added: "Experience has taught us that every prisoner release encourages terror, and has never brought peace. It informs the next generation of terrorists that someone will work to release them. All the democracies in the world have learned this lesson. They don’t release terrorists even in exchange for captured citizens. They won’t even negotiate."
Returning to this paradox of "justice," it appears that when it comes to the Arab-Israeli conflict the definition of the term has yet to be understood.
As Rabbi Eliezer Weiss questioned, “Why does the Weisenthal Center track down Nazis who murdered Jews, while here we have Muslim Nazis who murdered Jews, who spilled blood as if it were water, who burned a mother and three children and an unborn baby alive – and they are released? Is there a difference between them and the Nazis criminals?”
Rabbi Eliezer’s wife and three children were burned to death in a fire bomb attack 22 years ago. Their murderer is set to be released.
Many Israeli lawmakers were left questioning the morality and motive behind such a move, with some questioning, given a similar situation, would America loose the jailed murderers of its citizens?
As MK Motti Yogev (Bayit Yehudi) made clear, "Negotiations based on releasing killers have nothing to do with peace, or security, or morality, or truth."
In the words of those that have been exposed to the outcome of terrorist activity, "The murderers of our loved ones have faces and names, they are not numbers. They cannot hide behind long lists and government meetings." Unfortunately it seems that this lack of sensitivity has become reality, and justice somehow dissipates into the milieu of political diplomacy and efforts of "peace."
The release of prisoners is set to take place in four phases over the next 9 months.
I was an ardent supporter of Netanyahu while he was out of office and celebrated his election as prime minister. However, I’ve been sorely disappointed in him since then.
Netanyahu knows the Palestinians are not really interested in peace, yet he is willing to release 140 dangerous terrorists from prison just so Mahmoud Abbas will send some officials to Washington, not to negotiate for peace, but just to talk about resuming negotiations. He keeps caving in to the demands of the Europeans and the United States for a resumption of long-stalled peace negotiations.
Netanyahu has turned out to be just another typical politician more concerned about his legacy than what’s best for his country. The problem is that if Israel were to choose a new prime minister, he or she would probably turn out to be worse than Netanyahu.
As for the prisoner release, Israeli Interior Minister Gideon Saar put it this way: "I don't believe we can get a peace agreement with the Palestinians, but I want to preserve Israel's international standing. If we don't vote for the prisoner release our last few friends around the world might not support us anymore in the UN."
WITH ‘HEAVY HEART’ ISRAEL SET TO FREE MORE TERRORISTS
By Connie Fieraru
Israel Today
July 28, 2013
"From time to time, prime ministers are called on to make decisions that go against public opinion – when the matter is important for the country." These were the words of the opening paragraph of Benjamin Netanyahu’s open letter to the Israeli public concerning the release of Palestinian terrorist prisoners as a precondition for resuming peace negotiations.
Netanyhau has agreed to release 104 Palestinian and Arab-Israeli prisoners arrested before the Oslo Accords were signed in 1993. Why? Because the Palestinian Authority told US Secretary of State John Kerry that that it would not attend resumed peace talks in Washington this week unless this pre-condition was met.
A "reluctant" decision on Netanyahu’s part, he states in his letter that it was one of pain not only for the nation but also for him (having lost his brother to terrorism 37 years ago), and that the decision made "collides with the incomparably important value of justice."
As expected, the decision was met with frustration by much of the Israeli public, especially those who have lost family members to terrorist activity and those who continue to fight against it today. Dozens of families protested against the prisoner release by protesting outside the Prime Minister's Residence as Netanyahu and his cabinet were voting on the measure.
“We have enough pain and loss. We will not agree that more and more families will be forced to join the ranks of the bereaved families and victims of terrorism,” they said.
Many more were embittered by what was termed an act of cowardice after Netanyahu issued "repeated assurances" that Israel would not free terrorists as a precondition to talks.
Within his own government, Netanyahu faced stiff opposition. "You kill terrorists, you don't free them," insisted Trade Minister Naftali Bennett.
Deputy Foreign Minister Ze'ev Elkin, echoing the views of many of his colleagues, added: "Experience has taught us that every prisoner release encourages terror, and has never brought peace. It informs the next generation of terrorists that someone will work to release them. All the democracies in the world have learned this lesson. They don’t release terrorists even in exchange for captured citizens. They won’t even negotiate."
Returning to this paradox of "justice," it appears that when it comes to the Arab-Israeli conflict the definition of the term has yet to be understood.
As Rabbi Eliezer Weiss questioned, “Why does the Weisenthal Center track down Nazis who murdered Jews, while here we have Muslim Nazis who murdered Jews, who spilled blood as if it were water, who burned a mother and three children and an unborn baby alive – and they are released? Is there a difference between them and the Nazis criminals?”
Rabbi Eliezer’s wife and three children were burned to death in a fire bomb attack 22 years ago. Their murderer is set to be released.
Many Israeli lawmakers were left questioning the morality and motive behind such a move, with some questioning, given a similar situation, would America loose the jailed murderers of its citizens?
As MK Motti Yogev (Bayit Yehudi) made clear, "Negotiations based on releasing killers have nothing to do with peace, or security, or morality, or truth."
In the words of those that have been exposed to the outcome of terrorist activity, "The murderers of our loved ones have faces and names, they are not numbers. They cannot hide behind long lists and government meetings." Unfortunately it seems that this lack of sensitivity has become reality, and justice somehow dissipates into the milieu of political diplomacy and efforts of "peace."
The release of prisoners is set to take place in four phases over the next 9 months.
JOB APPLICANTS WITH ARREST RECORD NOW A PROTECTED CLASS
While I am a firm believer in giving ex-cons another chance, especially when it comes to employment, I also understand why employers are reluctant to hire anyone with a criminal history. My problem with employers is that they refuse to hire an applicant with an arrest history, or they will fire an employee when they learn he has an arrest record, without considering the charges for which he was arrested or the time that has elapsed since his last unlawful act.
Because blacks and Latinos are impacted more by criminal background checks than whites, the EEOC is banning employers from running those checks on job applicants. While I do not want employers to turn away job applicants just because they have an arrest record, I do not think the government should be able to bar them from running criminal background checks.
STATES CHALLENGE EEOC REGULATIONS ON CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECKS
By Amy Woods
Newsmax
July 28, 2013
Federal regulations curbing criminal-background checks by employers have prompted nine attorneys general to file a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, according to a report by Fox News.
The guidelines were put into place last year by the Obama administration in an effort to curtail discrimination, especially against African-Americans, Fox News said. The attorneys general described the rules as "a quintessential example of gross federal overreach."
Two lawsuits have resulted from the new EEOC guidelines. Dollar General is being sued by two job applicants, one of whom said her civil rights were violated when she was denied a job based on an erroneous finding of a felony conviction.
The other lawsuit involves a South Carolina BMW dealership that terminated a disproportionate number of black workers based on criminal histories without considering the details or the nature of the crimes, including when the crimes were committed.
According to the Fox News story, the EEOC updated the policies because more African-Americans, as well as Hispanics, are arrested than other populations in the country. All of the job applicants in the lawsuits are black.
In West Virginia, where Dollar General is one of the largest employers, Attorney General Patrick Morrisey said the EEOC's guidelines constitute "aggressive overreach." The other attorneys general in the fight represent Alabama, Colorado, Georgia, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, South Carolina and Utah.
"We believe that these lawsuits and your application of the law, as articulated through your enforcement guidance, are misguided and a quintessential example of gross federal overreach," wrote the attorneys general in a letter to Jacqueline Berrien, chairwoman of the EEOC.
Kevin Connell, who heads an employment-screening company in Florida, told Fox News the EEOC probably will not reverse its course.
"My concern is the EEOC is trying to create a protected class, which is former criminals," Connell said. "Anybody with some intelligence can see that."
Because blacks and Latinos are impacted more by criminal background checks than whites, the EEOC is banning employers from running those checks on job applicants. While I do not want employers to turn away job applicants just because they have an arrest record, I do not think the government should be able to bar them from running criminal background checks.
STATES CHALLENGE EEOC REGULATIONS ON CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECKS
By Amy Woods
Newsmax
July 28, 2013
Federal regulations curbing criminal-background checks by employers have prompted nine attorneys general to file a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, according to a report by Fox News.
The guidelines were put into place last year by the Obama administration in an effort to curtail discrimination, especially against African-Americans, Fox News said. The attorneys general described the rules as "a quintessential example of gross federal overreach."
Two lawsuits have resulted from the new EEOC guidelines. Dollar General is being sued by two job applicants, one of whom said her civil rights were violated when she was denied a job based on an erroneous finding of a felony conviction.
The other lawsuit involves a South Carolina BMW dealership that terminated a disproportionate number of black workers based on criminal histories without considering the details or the nature of the crimes, including when the crimes were committed.
According to the Fox News story, the EEOC updated the policies because more African-Americans, as well as Hispanics, are arrested than other populations in the country. All of the job applicants in the lawsuits are black.
In West Virginia, where Dollar General is one of the largest employers, Attorney General Patrick Morrisey said the EEOC's guidelines constitute "aggressive overreach." The other attorneys general in the fight represent Alabama, Colorado, Georgia, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, South Carolina and Utah.
"We believe that these lawsuits and your application of the law, as articulated through your enforcement guidance, are misguided and a quintessential example of gross federal overreach," wrote the attorneys general in a letter to Jacqueline Berrien, chairwoman of the EEOC.
Kevin Connell, who heads an employment-screening company in Florida, told Fox News the EEOC probably will not reverse its course.
"My concern is the EEOC is trying to create a protected class, which is former criminals," Connell said. "Anybody with some intelligence can see that."
Sunday, July 28, 2013
ARCHITECTS OPPOSE DESIGNING PRISONS
Group claims America’s prisons violate human rights and they want to make sure that architects are not complicit in designing them
THE ARCHITECTURE OF INCARCERATION: CAN DESIGN AFFECT THE PRISON SYSTEM?
by Rory Stott
ArchDaily
July 26, 2013
On July 9th, 30,000 prison inmates across California took part in a hunger strike to show solidarity with those incarcerated in Pelican Bay State Prison, a ‘Solitary Housing Unit’ in which prisoners are incarcerated – some supposedly for years at a time – in solitary confinement.
Architects/Designers/Planners for Social Responsibility (ADPSR) and its founder Raphael Sperry have made it their mission to make sure that architects are not complicit in designing prisons, even going so far as to form a petition asking the AIA to forbid members from designing execution chambers, ‘supermax’ prison facilities or solitary confinement facilities, as part of their statement that “members should uphold human rights in all their professional endeavors.”
At ArchDaily we have already questioned whether it may actually be beneficial for architects to design prisons, rather than allowing them to be designed by less-trained people who could end up designing a space that is even less humane. Now, an article on Blouin Art Info seems to take a similar position: rather than retreating from the business of prison design altogether, architects should try to encourage prison design that facilitates rehabilitation rather than emphasizing punishment.
Historically, architecture’s ability to express and enhance relationships of power might never have been more obvious than in Jeremy Bentham’s concept of the Panopticon, a prison typology which he designed in the late 18th century. Bentham described his Panopticon as “a mill for grinding rogues honest” – since then, architecture’s relationship with the judicial system has been fraught with tension.
While rehabilitation has ostensibly been the goal of many prison systems for centuries, nowadays, it is generally acknowledged that rehabilitation is unlikely when prisons ‘grind’ their inmates, that prisons ought to be more humane to encourage rehabilitation. That is the principle behind the Halden Prison in Norway, designed by Erik Møller Arkitekter. This approach to humane prison design is supported by Norway’s crime statistics, where only 20% of released prisoners are arrested for re-offending, compared to 43% in the US.
Though the issue is complex, this suggests that (rather than the AIA’s code of ethics), the problem might lie in the US prison system, which is neither open to this progressive form of incarceration nor prison design.
__________
EDITOR'S NOTE: Here we have another group of far-left do-gooders far removed from reality. They do not want their fellow architects to design any prisons unless they can design country-club style lockups. They point to Norway’s prisons and its low recidivism rate as an example of how we should build our prisons.
Of course, they fail to point out why Norway has a low recidivism rate. To begin with, Norway has a low crime rate. Norway does not have the crime infested ghettos and barrios that are found in this country. Norway does not have a notable problem with inner city gangs and gangbangers like we have. Its inmates are not anything like the violent thugs sent to our prisons. That is why Norway can design and build country-club style lockups with little fear of internal violence or prison escapes.
THE ARCHITECTURE OF INCARCERATION: CAN DESIGN AFFECT THE PRISON SYSTEM?
by Rory Stott
ArchDaily
July 26, 2013
On July 9th, 30,000 prison inmates across California took part in a hunger strike to show solidarity with those incarcerated in Pelican Bay State Prison, a ‘Solitary Housing Unit’ in which prisoners are incarcerated – some supposedly for years at a time – in solitary confinement.
Architects/Designers/Planners for Social Responsibility (ADPSR) and its founder Raphael Sperry have made it their mission to make sure that architects are not complicit in designing prisons, even going so far as to form a petition asking the AIA to forbid members from designing execution chambers, ‘supermax’ prison facilities or solitary confinement facilities, as part of their statement that “members should uphold human rights in all their professional endeavors.”
At ArchDaily we have already questioned whether it may actually be beneficial for architects to design prisons, rather than allowing them to be designed by less-trained people who could end up designing a space that is even less humane. Now, an article on Blouin Art Info seems to take a similar position: rather than retreating from the business of prison design altogether, architects should try to encourage prison design that facilitates rehabilitation rather than emphasizing punishment.
Historically, architecture’s ability to express and enhance relationships of power might never have been more obvious than in Jeremy Bentham’s concept of the Panopticon, a prison typology which he designed in the late 18th century. Bentham described his Panopticon as “a mill for grinding rogues honest” – since then, architecture’s relationship with the judicial system has been fraught with tension.
While rehabilitation has ostensibly been the goal of many prison systems for centuries, nowadays, it is generally acknowledged that rehabilitation is unlikely when prisons ‘grind’ their inmates, that prisons ought to be more humane to encourage rehabilitation. That is the principle behind the Halden Prison in Norway, designed by Erik Møller Arkitekter. This approach to humane prison design is supported by Norway’s crime statistics, where only 20% of released prisoners are arrested for re-offending, compared to 43% in the US.
Though the issue is complex, this suggests that (rather than the AIA’s code of ethics), the problem might lie in the US prison system, which is neither open to this progressive form of incarceration nor prison design.
__________
EDITOR'S NOTE: Here we have another group of far-left do-gooders far removed from reality. They do not want their fellow architects to design any prisons unless they can design country-club style lockups. They point to Norway’s prisons and its low recidivism rate as an example of how we should build our prisons.
Of course, they fail to point out why Norway has a low recidivism rate. To begin with, Norway has a low crime rate. Norway does not have the crime infested ghettos and barrios that are found in this country. Norway does not have a notable problem with inner city gangs and gangbangers like we have. Its inmates are not anything like the violent thugs sent to our prisons. That is why Norway can design and build country-club style lockups with little fear of internal violence or prison escapes.
U.S. MILITARY LEADERS UNHAPPY WITH ISRAELI SETTLEMENTS
The U.S. defense establishment considers Israeli settlements a pain-in-the-ass, but it’s Israel’s ass that’s on the line in its conflict with the Palestinians
I can understand why the generals are unhappy with Israel, but they and the Obama administration ignore the ultimate goal to obliterate the Jewish state as vowed over and over again by Palestinian leaders. If Israel were to give up its well-established settlements on the West Bank, it would be dispossessing 500,000 Israelis of their homes and be left without defensible borders.
AN AMERICAN GENERAL WARNS ISRAELI RIGHT
By Jeffrey Goldberg
Newsmax
July 26, 2013
Last weekend, Marine Corps General James Mattis, the recently retired leader of U.S. Central Command and a man known inside the White House for his sharp opinions (which is one reason he’s no longer leading Central Command) issued a very sharp opinion about Israel’s future.
Speaking at a security conference in Aspen, Colorado, Mattis warned Israel that time was running out for it to reverse its West Bank settlement project.
“We have got to find a way to make the two-state solution that Democrat and Republican administrations have supported, we’ve got to get there,” he said. “And the chances for it, as the king of Jordan has pointed out, are starting to ebb because of the settlements and where they’re at, are going to make it impossible to maintain the two-state option.”
After blaming the lack of peace squarely on the settlements, he went a step further, and raised the incendiary question of apartheid: “If I’m Jerusalem and I put 500 Jewish settlers out here to the east and there’s 10,000 Arab settlers in here, if we draw the border to include them, either it ceases to be a Jewish state or you say the Arabs don’t get to vote — apartheid. That didn’t work too well the last time I saw that practiced in a country.”
Mattis has homed in on the precise issue that alienates liberal-minded Americans and Israelis: the West Bank double standard.
Although Israel, within its 1967 borders, is a democracy in which Arabs have legal and voting rights, the West Bank is a two-tiered political entity: Jewish settlers in Hebron have the rights of Israeli citizens, but their Arab neighbors — people who sometimes live mere yards away — are under military occupation, without the same rights. This is a politically and morally untenable arrangement, and Mattis was right to call it out.
He was wrong to blame the lack of peace solely on Israel — the Palestinians have rejected one compromise offer after another, and the Gaza Strip, which would make up about half the future Palestinian state, is under the control of Hamas, which seeks Israel’s elimination — but he isn't wrong to identify the settlements as an enormous impediment to compromise.
Mattis is also conveying conventional Pentagon wisdom, and this is why the settlers, and their advocates in the cabinet of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, ought to be paying close attention, because they can't forever stand against the opinions of men like Mattis (who, by the way, couldn't be considered “anti-Israel” by any stretch of the imagination).
Mattis went on to make another assertion that Netanyahu’s cabinet ought to heed: “I paid a military security price every day as the commander of Centcom because the Americans were seen as biased in support of Israel and that moderates all the moderate Arabs who want to be with us, because they can’t come out publicly in support of people who don’t show respect for the Arab Palestinians." He went on to say that John Kerry, the U.S. secretary of state who's trying to restart peace talks, "is right on target with what he’s doing. And I just hope the protagonists want peace and a two-state solution as much as he does.”
Arab rulers who complain about U.S. support for Israel to generals like Mattis are playing their American counterparts a bit: It’s very hard to imagine the Saudis and the Emiratis and the Kuwaitis and the Jordanians not taking American help — or not providing bases to the U.S. — because they’re upset by settlements.
The Arabs uniformly fear and loathe Iran more than they fear and loathe Israel. Still, it's true that American military commanders wouldn’t have to sit through quite so many lectures about Palestinian rights if there was movement on the peace process. It's also true that men like Mattis make their own weather — that is, whether he’s right or wrong, this is what he believes, and it would be foolish for the Israelis, a dependent power, to ignore the feelings of powerful American generals.
What Israeli army generals know — and what many of their political leaders don’t seem to recognize — is that Mattis's views are commonplace in the American defense establishment. The Israeli right can only ignore this reality for so long without doing its country permanent damage.
I can understand why the generals are unhappy with Israel, but they and the Obama administration ignore the ultimate goal to obliterate the Jewish state as vowed over and over again by Palestinian leaders. If Israel were to give up its well-established settlements on the West Bank, it would be dispossessing 500,000 Israelis of their homes and be left without defensible borders.
AN AMERICAN GENERAL WARNS ISRAELI RIGHT
By Jeffrey Goldberg
Newsmax
July 26, 2013
Last weekend, Marine Corps General James Mattis, the recently retired leader of U.S. Central Command and a man known inside the White House for his sharp opinions (which is one reason he’s no longer leading Central Command) issued a very sharp opinion about Israel’s future.
Speaking at a security conference in Aspen, Colorado, Mattis warned Israel that time was running out for it to reverse its West Bank settlement project.
“We have got to find a way to make the two-state solution that Democrat and Republican administrations have supported, we’ve got to get there,” he said. “And the chances for it, as the king of Jordan has pointed out, are starting to ebb because of the settlements and where they’re at, are going to make it impossible to maintain the two-state option.”
After blaming the lack of peace squarely on the settlements, he went a step further, and raised the incendiary question of apartheid: “If I’m Jerusalem and I put 500 Jewish settlers out here to the east and there’s 10,000 Arab settlers in here, if we draw the border to include them, either it ceases to be a Jewish state or you say the Arabs don’t get to vote — apartheid. That didn’t work too well the last time I saw that practiced in a country.”
Mattis has homed in on the precise issue that alienates liberal-minded Americans and Israelis: the West Bank double standard.
Although Israel, within its 1967 borders, is a democracy in which Arabs have legal and voting rights, the West Bank is a two-tiered political entity: Jewish settlers in Hebron have the rights of Israeli citizens, but their Arab neighbors — people who sometimes live mere yards away — are under military occupation, without the same rights. This is a politically and morally untenable arrangement, and Mattis was right to call it out.
He was wrong to blame the lack of peace solely on Israel — the Palestinians have rejected one compromise offer after another, and the Gaza Strip, which would make up about half the future Palestinian state, is under the control of Hamas, which seeks Israel’s elimination — but he isn't wrong to identify the settlements as an enormous impediment to compromise.
Mattis is also conveying conventional Pentagon wisdom, and this is why the settlers, and their advocates in the cabinet of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, ought to be paying close attention, because they can't forever stand against the opinions of men like Mattis (who, by the way, couldn't be considered “anti-Israel” by any stretch of the imagination).
Mattis went on to make another assertion that Netanyahu’s cabinet ought to heed: “I paid a military security price every day as the commander of Centcom because the Americans were seen as biased in support of Israel and that moderates all the moderate Arabs who want to be with us, because they can’t come out publicly in support of people who don’t show respect for the Arab Palestinians." He went on to say that John Kerry, the U.S. secretary of state who's trying to restart peace talks, "is right on target with what he’s doing. And I just hope the protagonists want peace and a two-state solution as much as he does.”
Arab rulers who complain about U.S. support for Israel to generals like Mattis are playing their American counterparts a bit: It’s very hard to imagine the Saudis and the Emiratis and the Kuwaitis and the Jordanians not taking American help — or not providing bases to the U.S. — because they’re upset by settlements.
The Arabs uniformly fear and loathe Iran more than they fear and loathe Israel. Still, it's true that American military commanders wouldn’t have to sit through quite so many lectures about Palestinian rights if there was movement on the peace process. It's also true that men like Mattis make their own weather — that is, whether he’s right or wrong, this is what he believes, and it would be foolish for the Israelis, a dependent power, to ignore the feelings of powerful American generals.
What Israeli army generals know — and what many of their political leaders don’t seem to recognize — is that Mattis's views are commonplace in the American defense establishment. The Israeli right can only ignore this reality for so long without doing its country permanent damage.
Saturday, July 27, 2013
EXTRAMARITAL AFFAIRS COMMON AMONG COPS
Outgoing Albuquerque, N.M. Police Chief Ray Schultz is being excoriated for saying that cops engage in extramarital affairs because that was ‘nature at play.’ He included affairs between officers within the department.
All the criticism aside, Chief Schultz was merely stating a fact of life within the police service. During my years as a cop and during my association with cops as a criminal justice educator, I found that many if not most married police officers engage in sex with women other than their wives.
Patrol officers are confronted almost daily by ‘uniform groupies’ and when these women draw attention to themselves with a seductive come-on, they can make cops melt like butter. And it’s no secret that when you partner up a male and female officer, ‘nature at play’ can take over because of the extraordinary close bonds police partners, regardless of their sex, form with each other.
Police partners often spend more time with each other than with their spouses. They share each other’s innermost secrets. They are more comfortable sharing their problems with each other than with their spouses. And during every shift, they depend on each other for their lives. Sooner or later, cops working as male-female partners also often find themselves getting into a sexual relationship with each other.
Prominent and highly regarded police psychologist Michael D. Roberts informed an inter-agency law enforcement seminar at Sam Houston State University that a good number of police wives are also unfaithful to their husbands. Dr. Roberts, the recipient of the International Association of Chiefs of Police’s ‘2010 Outstanding Practice Award in Police Psychology,’ found that when a cop’s wife has an affair, it is often with another police officer, usually her husband's closest friend.
The Albuquerque Journal reports that in his criticism of Chief Schultz, City Council President Dan Lewis said: "Absolutely, it's not OK for our Albuquerque Police Department officers, public servants, to commit adultery with one another. I would expect a new chief would say that's not OK and that we're going to hold our officers to a higher standard than that."
“We’re going to hold our officers to a higher standard.” Fine and dandy, but if all the officers in Albuquerque were to be disciplined at the same time for having extramarital affairs, there would probably be less than half of the department’s officers left to protect the city’s residents and businesses from criminals. And you could say the same for any other city in this country.
It seems apparent that most police officers don’t view marital fidelity as a ‘higher standard’ to be adhered to. This is not a post-’60s phenomenon. It was happening in my day. And the presentation by Dr. Roberts that I referred to occurred in 1969.
I believe that it is the unique stressful nature of police work that contributes to marital infidelity and because of that, it occurs in the law enforcement profession at a higher rate than in other occupations.
All the criticism aside, Chief Schultz was merely stating a fact of life within the police service. During my years as a cop and during my association with cops as a criminal justice educator, I found that many if not most married police officers engage in sex with women other than their wives.
Patrol officers are confronted almost daily by ‘uniform groupies’ and when these women draw attention to themselves with a seductive come-on, they can make cops melt like butter. And it’s no secret that when you partner up a male and female officer, ‘nature at play’ can take over because of the extraordinary close bonds police partners, regardless of their sex, form with each other.
Police partners often spend more time with each other than with their spouses. They share each other’s innermost secrets. They are more comfortable sharing their problems with each other than with their spouses. And during every shift, they depend on each other for their lives. Sooner or later, cops working as male-female partners also often find themselves getting into a sexual relationship with each other.
Prominent and highly regarded police psychologist Michael D. Roberts informed an inter-agency law enforcement seminar at Sam Houston State University that a good number of police wives are also unfaithful to their husbands. Dr. Roberts, the recipient of the International Association of Chiefs of Police’s ‘2010 Outstanding Practice Award in Police Psychology,’ found that when a cop’s wife has an affair, it is often with another police officer, usually her husband's closest friend.
The Albuquerque Journal reports that in his criticism of Chief Schultz, City Council President Dan Lewis said: "Absolutely, it's not OK for our Albuquerque Police Department officers, public servants, to commit adultery with one another. I would expect a new chief would say that's not OK and that we're going to hold our officers to a higher standard than that."
“We’re going to hold our officers to a higher standard.” Fine and dandy, but if all the officers in Albuquerque were to be disciplined at the same time for having extramarital affairs, there would probably be less than half of the department’s officers left to protect the city’s residents and businesses from criminals. And you could say the same for any other city in this country.
It seems apparent that most police officers don’t view marital fidelity as a ‘higher standard’ to be adhered to. This is not a post-’60s phenomenon. It was happening in my day. And the presentation by Dr. Roberts that I referred to occurred in 1969.
I believe that it is the unique stressful nature of police work that contributes to marital infidelity and because of that, it occurs in the law enforcement profession at a higher rate than in other occupations.
WEINER KEPT RIGHT ON THINKING WITH HIS WIENER
‘Carlos Danger’ is too stupid to be mayor of New York or to hold any other public officer for that matter
Anthony Weiner resigned from Congress in 2011 after it came to light that he had been texting and sexting a number of women on the internet. It had also been revealed that he sent cell phone photos of his penis along with the messages he sent to women.
Weiner recently became a candidate for mayor of New York. You would think that his 2011 fall from grace would have taught him a lesson. But it turned out that Weiner kept right on thinking with his wiener. The liberal Democrat has had to admit that he continued texting and sexting with a number of women, using the name ‘Carlos Danger’ and sending them pictures of his wiener.
There is an old saying: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
New York needs a mayor who will think with his brains, not one who thinks with his dick. If the voters are foolish enough to elect Carlos Danger as their mayor, shame on them.
Anthony Weiner resigned from Congress in 2011 after it came to light that he had been texting and sexting a number of women on the internet. It had also been revealed that he sent cell phone photos of his penis along with the messages he sent to women.
Weiner recently became a candidate for mayor of New York. You would think that his 2011 fall from grace would have taught him a lesson. But it turned out that Weiner kept right on thinking with his wiener. The liberal Democrat has had to admit that he continued texting and sexting with a number of women, using the name ‘Carlos Danger’ and sending them pictures of his wiener.
There is an old saying: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
New York needs a mayor who will think with his brains, not one who thinks with his dick. If the voters are foolish enough to elect Carlos Danger as their mayor, shame on them.
MURDERER PROVED JUDGE WRONG, DEAD WRONG!
Judge reduced bail from $120,000 to $5,000, thus setting free a man charged with ‘assault with a dangerous weapon’ to murder two women
Out on $125,000 bail for an ‘assault with a dangerous weapon’ charge, Barry White Jr. appeared in court for a preliminary hearing during which he approached an officer testifying against him with a clenched fist. He was rearrested with bail set at $120,000. Superior Court Judge Lewis Davis reduced White’s bail to $5,000, saying, "I hope you don't prove me wrong," Well, good old Barry proved Judge Davis wrong, dead wrong!
MURDER DEFENDANT HAD BAIL REDUCED IN EARLIER CASE
By Vivian Ho
San Francisco Chronicle
July 24, 2013
An Antioch man accused of murdering two women in a San Francisco jewelry store this month in a dispute over the price of an item was released from Contra Costa County jail a year and a half ago after a judge cut his bail in an assault case, records show.
"I hope you don't prove me wrong," Superior Court Judge Lewis Davis told Barry White Jr. in December 2011, according to a court transcript.
White, 23, had been charged with assault with a deadly weapon in connection with a 2009 confrontation with Antioch police officers, who reported that they had to shoot White after he tried to run them over.
The officers had been investigating reports that White and two friends had threatened a club bouncer with a pump-action shotgun.
White was released on $125,000 bail in that case, records show. But at a preliminary hearing in August 2011, he was taken into custody again for allegedly approaching an officer testifying against him with clenched fists, prompting bailiffs to restrain him.
White faced a new charge of threatening police, with an additional $120,000 bail. But Davis lowered it to $5,000 and White posted the amount.
The Contra Costa County case is still pending. It's not clear whether a higher bail amount would have kept White behind bars.
At the time, Contra Costa County Deputy District Attorney Kevin Bell argued that White deserved a higher bail because he had displayed a pattern of threatening behavior toward police officers.
Steve Taxman, White's attorney, said at the time that White was "not a threat" and that the extra charges against him were enough to keep him from misbehaving.
"I think Mr. White knows that he's on a thin leash until this has been resolved and even after it's been resolved," Taxman said. "He will be in court, and he's not going to be committing new offenses."
Davis agreed that White was a threat, but still cut his bail. Davis did not respond Wednesday to an e-mail request for comment.
"Although I think there is a public safety threat to some degree from his conduct, I do think given the length of these proceedings and the fact that he currently faces another charge that I think there's sufficient disincentive for him to commit any other violations of the law," Davis said.
"I may be mistaken," the judge said. "I hope I'm not."
White returned to San Francisco Superior Court Wednesday for an appearance related to the July 12 killings at the jewelry store Victoga in the Gift Center and Jewelry Mart on Brannan Street.
Police said he used a revolver and a knife to kill the clerks and wound the shop's owner, then reloaded and fired at police officers responding to the scene before surrendering.
He is charged with murder and attempted murder in a case that District Attorney George Gascón called "one of the most brutal, most calculating homicides I've viewed in my career." White is being held without bail.
He was appointed an attorney from the city public defender's office, Steven Gayle, who said outside court that his client may have had a "mental breakdown."
Also outside court on Wednesday, the extended family of 51-year-old Lina Lim, one of the store clerks, called for justice.
"I want my sister back," Lim's younger sister Joiane Zhao said through tears, leaning on cousin Annie Sin.
Sin expressed anger that White was freed in the earlier case.
"I'm speechless," she said. "A lot of these judges, they are too soft-hearted and just let them go. This needs to change."
Out on $125,000 bail for an ‘assault with a dangerous weapon’ charge, Barry White Jr. appeared in court for a preliminary hearing during which he approached an officer testifying against him with a clenched fist. He was rearrested with bail set at $120,000. Superior Court Judge Lewis Davis reduced White’s bail to $5,000, saying, "I hope you don't prove me wrong," Well, good old Barry proved Judge Davis wrong, dead wrong!
MURDER DEFENDANT HAD BAIL REDUCED IN EARLIER CASE
By Vivian Ho
San Francisco Chronicle
July 24, 2013
An Antioch man accused of murdering two women in a San Francisco jewelry store this month in a dispute over the price of an item was released from Contra Costa County jail a year and a half ago after a judge cut his bail in an assault case, records show.
"I hope you don't prove me wrong," Superior Court Judge Lewis Davis told Barry White Jr. in December 2011, according to a court transcript.
White, 23, had been charged with assault with a deadly weapon in connection with a 2009 confrontation with Antioch police officers, who reported that they had to shoot White after he tried to run them over.
The officers had been investigating reports that White and two friends had threatened a club bouncer with a pump-action shotgun.
White was released on $125,000 bail in that case, records show. But at a preliminary hearing in August 2011, he was taken into custody again for allegedly approaching an officer testifying against him with clenched fists, prompting bailiffs to restrain him.
White faced a new charge of threatening police, with an additional $120,000 bail. But Davis lowered it to $5,000 and White posted the amount.
The Contra Costa County case is still pending. It's not clear whether a higher bail amount would have kept White behind bars.
At the time, Contra Costa County Deputy District Attorney Kevin Bell argued that White deserved a higher bail because he had displayed a pattern of threatening behavior toward police officers.
Steve Taxman, White's attorney, said at the time that White was "not a threat" and that the extra charges against him were enough to keep him from misbehaving.
"I think Mr. White knows that he's on a thin leash until this has been resolved and even after it's been resolved," Taxman said. "He will be in court, and he's not going to be committing new offenses."
Davis agreed that White was a threat, but still cut his bail. Davis did not respond Wednesday to an e-mail request for comment.
"Although I think there is a public safety threat to some degree from his conduct, I do think given the length of these proceedings and the fact that he currently faces another charge that I think there's sufficient disincentive for him to commit any other violations of the law," Davis said.
"I may be mistaken," the judge said. "I hope I'm not."
White returned to San Francisco Superior Court Wednesday for an appearance related to the July 12 killings at the jewelry store Victoga in the Gift Center and Jewelry Mart on Brannan Street.
Police said he used a revolver and a knife to kill the clerks and wound the shop's owner, then reloaded and fired at police officers responding to the scene before surrendering.
He is charged with murder and attempted murder in a case that District Attorney George Gascón called "one of the most brutal, most calculating homicides I've viewed in my career." White is being held without bail.
He was appointed an attorney from the city public defender's office, Steven Gayle, who said outside court that his client may have had a "mental breakdown."
Also outside court on Wednesday, the extended family of 51-year-old Lina Lim, one of the store clerks, called for justice.
"I want my sister back," Lim's younger sister Joiane Zhao said through tears, leaning on cousin Annie Sin.
Sin expressed anger that White was freed in the earlier case.
"I'm speechless," she said. "A lot of these judges, they are too soft-hearted and just let them go. This needs to change."
DRIVER CRASHED, CHARGED IN ELECTROCUTION DEATHS OF TWO WOMEN WHO CAME TO HIS AID
Bob Walsh says, “I admit I have never heard of one quite like this before.” And I’ll be surprised if a jury will actually hold this guy directly responsible for the deaths of those good Samaritans.
DRIVER ORDERED TO STAND TRIAL IN ELECTROCUTION DEATHS
By Veronica Rocha and Jason Wells
Los Angeles Times
July 25, 2013
A 19-year-old driver who crashed into a utility pole in Valley Village has been ordered to stand trial for manslaughter in the deaths of two women who tried to come to his aid, only to be electrocuted by downed power lines.
Arman Samsonian of Glendale slammed his sport utility vehicle into a light pole and nearby fire hydrant last Aug. 22. After the violent crash, two women ran toward the SUV to render aid, officials said.
Both of the would-be rescuers, Irma Zamora and Stacey Schreiber, were killed instantly when they stepped into a pool of water that had been electrified by 4,800 volts from the fallen power line.
Six others were injured when they also made contact with the water and were shocked.
On Wednesday, a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge ruled that there was enough evidence for Samsonian to be tried on two felony counts of vehicular manslaughter with gross negligence.
“He was definitely driving negligently, he definitely had disregard for others,” Superior Court Judge Karen Nudell said.
She made the ruling after witnesses took the stand to relay the horrible, fast-moving events of that summer night.
Daniel Woloszyn testified that he had pulled over to call 911 after witnessing the crash. Meanwhile, his wife, Irma Zamora, jumped out of their vehicle to see if “whoever was in the accident was OK.”
As he got out to investigate, Woloszyn said he saw his 40-year-old wife lying on the ground, dead after stepping into the electrified water.
He stepped in to grab her, but was immediately shocked himself.
“My train of thought wasn't about the motorist, it was about my wife's death,” Woloszyn said during the preliminary hearing.
Schreiber, 39, of Valley Village was electrocuted trying to assist Samsonian.
Samsonian, who was 19 at the time of the incident, offered little reaction as he sat in the Van Nuys courtroom.
Officials allege Samsonian was driving at a high rate of speed on Magnolia Boulevard that night at about 8:20 p.m. before losing control and striking the light pole and fire hydrant at Ben Avenue in Valley Village, officials said.
Witnesses testified seeing Samsonian’s Chevrolet Traverse driving recklessly prior to the crash.
Samsonian’s attorney, Andrew Flier, didn’t argue that his client may have been driving recklessly on Magnolia, but said there was no way to know that the “intervening acts” would occur once he turned onto Ben and crashed.
The defense attorney also argued that the people on the scene should have known the inherent dangers associated with downed power lines and standing water.
DRIVER ORDERED TO STAND TRIAL IN ELECTROCUTION DEATHS
By Veronica Rocha and Jason Wells
Los Angeles Times
July 25, 2013
A 19-year-old driver who crashed into a utility pole in Valley Village has been ordered to stand trial for manslaughter in the deaths of two women who tried to come to his aid, only to be electrocuted by downed power lines.
Arman Samsonian of Glendale slammed his sport utility vehicle into a light pole and nearby fire hydrant last Aug. 22. After the violent crash, two women ran toward the SUV to render aid, officials said.
Both of the would-be rescuers, Irma Zamora and Stacey Schreiber, were killed instantly when they stepped into a pool of water that had been electrified by 4,800 volts from the fallen power line.
Six others were injured when they also made contact with the water and were shocked.
On Wednesday, a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge ruled that there was enough evidence for Samsonian to be tried on two felony counts of vehicular manslaughter with gross negligence.
“He was definitely driving negligently, he definitely had disregard for others,” Superior Court Judge Karen Nudell said.
She made the ruling after witnesses took the stand to relay the horrible, fast-moving events of that summer night.
Daniel Woloszyn testified that he had pulled over to call 911 after witnessing the crash. Meanwhile, his wife, Irma Zamora, jumped out of their vehicle to see if “whoever was in the accident was OK.”
As he got out to investigate, Woloszyn said he saw his 40-year-old wife lying on the ground, dead after stepping into the electrified water.
He stepped in to grab her, but was immediately shocked himself.
“My train of thought wasn't about the motorist, it was about my wife's death,” Woloszyn said during the preliminary hearing.
Schreiber, 39, of Valley Village was electrocuted trying to assist Samsonian.
Samsonian, who was 19 at the time of the incident, offered little reaction as he sat in the Van Nuys courtroom.
Officials allege Samsonian was driving at a high rate of speed on Magnolia Boulevard that night at about 8:20 p.m. before losing control and striking the light pole and fire hydrant at Ben Avenue in Valley Village, officials said.
Witnesses testified seeing Samsonian’s Chevrolet Traverse driving recklessly prior to the crash.
Samsonian’s attorney, Andrew Flier, didn’t argue that his client may have been driving recklessly on Magnolia, but said there was no way to know that the “intervening acts” would occur once he turned onto Ben and crashed.
The defense attorney also argued that the people on the scene should have known the inherent dangers associated with downed power lines and standing water.
TEXANS INFURIATED AT OBAMA ADMINISTRATION’S WAR ON TEXAS
Because Texans have twice voted overwhelmingly against Obama, his administration has been waging a War on Texas. That war has included a petty spiteful act of denying Houston’s NASA Space Center one of the space shuttles for a permanent exhibit, giving the shuttles to other cities, including New York which had nothing to do with the space program. The War on Texas has been waged against the Lone Star State in energy, federal disasters, IRS abuses and now voting rights.
GOP LEGISLATORS TO HOLDER: ‘DON’T MESS WITH TEXAS’
By Todd Beamon
Newsmax
July 25, 2013
Under the unified message of "Don't Mess With Texas," the state's Capitol Hill Republicans on Thursday blasted Attorney General Eric Holder's plan to ask a federal court to reinstate the Justice Department's authority over voting laws in Texas.
The legislators charge that President Barack Obama administration's is ignoring the U.S. Supreme Court, playing partisan politics, and deliberately targeting the Lone Star State.
"By first going around the voters and now the Supreme Court, Attorney General Holder and President Obama’s intentions are readily transparent," said Senate Minority Whip John Cornyn. "This decision has nothing to do with protecting voting rights and everything to do with advancing a partisan political agenda.
“Texans should not — and will not — stand for the continued bullying of our state by the Obama administration,” he said.
"The Obama administration's war on Texas knows no bounds," said Rep. Ted Poe, who sits on the House Foreign Affairs and Judiciary committees. "Once again, this administration is singling out Texas — and the actions of the attorney general are being taken without just cause.
"The Supreme Court has already ruled that Texas was not in violation of the Voting Rights Act, but ironically, the attorney general who has been found in contempt of Congress holds the law in contempt.
"Whether in energy, federal disasters, IRS abuses or voting rights, this administration is at war with Texas," Poe said.
And Rep. Steve Stockman, also a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, declared: "The attorney general is supposed to enforce the law, not make it up as he goes. The Supreme Court was clear in its ruling — and he is bound to obey it."
Holder said on Thursday that the Texas effort was part of a new Obama administration strategy to challenge state and local election laws it says discriminate by race.
"Based on the evidence of intentional racial discrimination that was presented last year in the redistricting case, Texas v. Holder . . . we believe that the state of Texas should be required to go through a pre-clearance process whenever it changes its voting laws and practices," Holder told the annual conference of the National Urban League, a civil rights organization, in Philadelphia.
The White House has been seeking ways to attack voting discrimination since the U.S. Supreme Court in June invalidated a key part of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
The 5-4 conservative majority on the high court ruled that a formula used to determine which states and localities were subject to extra federal scrutiny was outdated.
The ruling freed Texas and certain other jurisdictions from having to submit their voting laws to the Justice Department before they could take effect.
The covered jurisdictions were primarily in the South, where a history existed of denying minorities the right to vote. But Chief Justice John Roberts noted in the majority opinion that the South had changed dramatically.
“In June, the Supreme Court found that it was unconstitutional to hold Texas and several other states to a different standard in the Voting Rights Act," said Rep. Lamar Smith, a member of the Homeland Security and Judiciary Committees. "The court found that the actions of the past could not be held against current and future generations.
"The result of the decision is that Texas is no longer required to seek pre-clearance from the Justice Department before voting-rights laws can be implemented.
“In other words," Smith continued, "the Supreme Court's message to the Justice Department was clear: Don’t mess with Texas. But Eric Holder and the Justice Department aren’t listening. They have decided to continue their vendetta against Texas by asking a federal judge to reinstate the pre-clearance requirement.
“Texas has a right to pass and implement laws that protect the integrity of its elections. Citizens are required to show a valid form of identification to open a bank account, drive a car or board a plane.
"In fact, the Justice Department’s own policy requires visitors to show valid photo IDs before being allowed to enter some buildings," Smith said. "It is not discriminatory for Texas to require individuals to show a valid ID in order to vote.”
Rep. Blake Farenthold, whose committee assignments include Oversight and Government Reform, charged: “Once again, it's the federal government telling the states what they can and can't do. Even after some defeats on the Voting Rights Act in the Supreme Court, the administration still continues to thwart the will of the people of Texas.
"We're ending up wasting the taxpayers' money when the court has already telegraphed that the Voting Rights Act is constitutionally infirm,” he said.
Rep. Pete Sessions, chairman of the Rules Committee, was among several legislators who predicted that "the rule of law will prevail over politics and that the leaders of our great state will continue to preserve our fair election laws that represent the interests of all Texans."
“For a supposed constitutional law professor, President Obama and his administration sure seem to have trouble understanding and following the constitution — especially when it comes to the separation of powers," said Rep. Jeb Hensarling, chairman of the Financial Services Committee. "If I were one of the president’s students, I think I’d ask for my money back.
"The Obama Administration’s decision to circumvent the ruling of the Supreme Court and the will of the voters in Texas is nothing more than brazen attempt to advance the president’s stated political agenda."
And Rep. Joe Barton referenced Army Gen. Anthony McAuliffe's response when the Germans asked him to surrender at the Battle of the Bulge during World War II in 1945: "Nuts!"
"The people of Texas voted, elected officials acted and the Supreme Court ruled," said Barton, a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee. "Yet, once again, the Obama administration is ignoring the systems of checks and balances set up by the Constitution.
"The Voting Rights Act is still there to protect people from discrimination and protects every citizen’s right to vote.
"If an attorney general with a clear political agenda wants to waste millions of taxpayer dollars on a frivolous lawsuit, it is his decision," Barton added. "But I think it is wrong.”
GOP LEGISLATORS TO HOLDER: ‘DON’T MESS WITH TEXAS’
By Todd Beamon
Newsmax
July 25, 2013
Under the unified message of "Don't Mess With Texas," the state's Capitol Hill Republicans on Thursday blasted Attorney General Eric Holder's plan to ask a federal court to reinstate the Justice Department's authority over voting laws in Texas.
The legislators charge that President Barack Obama administration's is ignoring the U.S. Supreme Court, playing partisan politics, and deliberately targeting the Lone Star State.
"By first going around the voters and now the Supreme Court, Attorney General Holder and President Obama’s intentions are readily transparent," said Senate Minority Whip John Cornyn. "This decision has nothing to do with protecting voting rights and everything to do with advancing a partisan political agenda.
“Texans should not — and will not — stand for the continued bullying of our state by the Obama administration,” he said.
"The Obama administration's war on Texas knows no bounds," said Rep. Ted Poe, who sits on the House Foreign Affairs and Judiciary committees. "Once again, this administration is singling out Texas — and the actions of the attorney general are being taken without just cause.
"The Supreme Court has already ruled that Texas was not in violation of the Voting Rights Act, but ironically, the attorney general who has been found in contempt of Congress holds the law in contempt.
"Whether in energy, federal disasters, IRS abuses or voting rights, this administration is at war with Texas," Poe said.
And Rep. Steve Stockman, also a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, declared: "The attorney general is supposed to enforce the law, not make it up as he goes. The Supreme Court was clear in its ruling — and he is bound to obey it."
Holder said on Thursday that the Texas effort was part of a new Obama administration strategy to challenge state and local election laws it says discriminate by race.
"Based on the evidence of intentional racial discrimination that was presented last year in the redistricting case, Texas v. Holder . . . we believe that the state of Texas should be required to go through a pre-clearance process whenever it changes its voting laws and practices," Holder told the annual conference of the National Urban League, a civil rights organization, in Philadelphia.
The White House has been seeking ways to attack voting discrimination since the U.S. Supreme Court in June invalidated a key part of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
The 5-4 conservative majority on the high court ruled that a formula used to determine which states and localities were subject to extra federal scrutiny was outdated.
The ruling freed Texas and certain other jurisdictions from having to submit their voting laws to the Justice Department before they could take effect.
The covered jurisdictions were primarily in the South, where a history existed of denying minorities the right to vote. But Chief Justice John Roberts noted in the majority opinion that the South had changed dramatically.
“In June, the Supreme Court found that it was unconstitutional to hold Texas and several other states to a different standard in the Voting Rights Act," said Rep. Lamar Smith, a member of the Homeland Security and Judiciary Committees. "The court found that the actions of the past could not be held against current and future generations.
"The result of the decision is that Texas is no longer required to seek pre-clearance from the Justice Department before voting-rights laws can be implemented.
“In other words," Smith continued, "the Supreme Court's message to the Justice Department was clear: Don’t mess with Texas. But Eric Holder and the Justice Department aren’t listening. They have decided to continue their vendetta against Texas by asking a federal judge to reinstate the pre-clearance requirement.
“Texas has a right to pass and implement laws that protect the integrity of its elections. Citizens are required to show a valid form of identification to open a bank account, drive a car or board a plane.
"In fact, the Justice Department’s own policy requires visitors to show valid photo IDs before being allowed to enter some buildings," Smith said. "It is not discriminatory for Texas to require individuals to show a valid ID in order to vote.”
Rep. Blake Farenthold, whose committee assignments include Oversight and Government Reform, charged: “Once again, it's the federal government telling the states what they can and can't do. Even after some defeats on the Voting Rights Act in the Supreme Court, the administration still continues to thwart the will of the people of Texas.
"We're ending up wasting the taxpayers' money when the court has already telegraphed that the Voting Rights Act is constitutionally infirm,” he said.
Rep. Pete Sessions, chairman of the Rules Committee, was among several legislators who predicted that "the rule of law will prevail over politics and that the leaders of our great state will continue to preserve our fair election laws that represent the interests of all Texans."
“For a supposed constitutional law professor, President Obama and his administration sure seem to have trouble understanding and following the constitution — especially when it comes to the separation of powers," said Rep. Jeb Hensarling, chairman of the Financial Services Committee. "If I were one of the president’s students, I think I’d ask for my money back.
"The Obama Administration’s decision to circumvent the ruling of the Supreme Court and the will of the voters in Texas is nothing more than brazen attempt to advance the president’s stated political agenda."
And Rep. Joe Barton referenced Army Gen. Anthony McAuliffe's response when the Germans asked him to surrender at the Battle of the Bulge during World War II in 1945: "Nuts!"
"The people of Texas voted, elected officials acted and the Supreme Court ruled," said Barton, a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee. "Yet, once again, the Obama administration is ignoring the systems of checks and balances set up by the Constitution.
"The Voting Rights Act is still there to protect people from discrimination and protects every citizen’s right to vote.
"If an attorney general with a clear political agenda wants to waste millions of taxpayer dollars on a frivolous lawsuit, it is his decision," Barton added. "But I think it is wrong.”
Friday, July 26, 2013
SPECK OF DNA LED TO ARREST OF INNOCENT MAN IN MURDER INVESTIGATION
Injustices can occur when prosecutors place too much faith in DNA forensic technologies
A study of Arizona’s DNA database showed that profiles from different people matched at a level high enough to identify and prosecute suspects, thereby creating the possibility of a false identification when there is no additional evidence linking the accused to the crime scene.
HIGH-TECH, HIGH-RISK FORENSICS
By Osagie K. Obasogie
The New York Times
July 24, 2013
SAN FRANCISCO — WHEN the police arrived last November at the ransacked mansion of the millionaire investor Raveesh Kumra, outside of San Jose, Calif., they found Mr. Kumra had been blindfolded, tied and gagged. The robbers took cash, rare coins and ultimately Mr. Kumra’s life; he died at the scene, suffocated by the packaging tape used to stifle his screams. A forensics team found DNA on his fingernails that belonged to an unknown person, presumably one of the assailants. The sample was put into a DNA database and turned up a “hit” — a local man by the name of Lukis Anderson.
Bingo. Mr. Anderson was arrested and charged with murder.
There was one small problem: the 26-year-old Mr. Anderson couldn’t have been the culprit. During the night in question, he was at the Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, suffering from severe intoxication.
Yet he spent more than five months in jail with a possible death sentence hanging over his head. Once presented with Mr. Anderson’s hospital records, prosecutors struggled to figure out how an innocent man’s DNA could have ended up on a murder victim.
Late last month, prosecutors announced what they believe to be the answer: the paramedics who transported Mr. Anderson to the hospital were the very same individuals who responded to the crime scene at the mansion a few hours later. Prosecutors now conclude that at some point, Mr. Anderson’s DNA must have been accidentally transferred to Mr. Kumra’s body — likely by way of the paramedics’ clothing or equipment.
This theory of transference is still under investigation. Nevertheless, the certainty with which prosecutors charged Mr. Anderson with murder highlights the very real injustices that can occur when we place too much faith in DNA forensic technologies.
In the end, Mr. Anderson was lucky. His alibi was rock solid; prosecutors were forced to concede that there must have been some other explanation. It’s hard to believe that, out of the growing number of convictions based largely or exclusively on DNA evidence, there haven’t been any similar mistakes.
In one famous case of crime scene contamination, German police searched for around 15 years for a serial killer they called the “Phantom of Heilbronn” — an unknown female linked by traces of DNA to six murders across Germany and Austria. In 2009, the police found their “suspect”: a worker at a factory that produced the cotton swabs police used in their investigations had been accidentally contaminating them with her own DNA.
Contamination is not the only way DNA forensics can lead to injustice. Consider the frequent claim that it is highly unlikely, if not impossible, for two DNA profiles to match by coincidence. A 2005 audit of Arizona’s DNA database showed that, out of some 65,000 profiles, nearly 150 pairs matched at a level typically considered high enough to identify and prosecute suspects. Yet these profiles were clearly from different people.
There are also problems with the way DNA evidence is interpreted and presented to juries. In 2008, John Puckett — a California man in his 70s with a sexual assault record — was accused of a 1972 killing, after a trawl of the state database partially linked his DNA to crime scene evidence. As in the Anderson case, Mr. Puckett was identified and implicated primarily by this evidence. Jurors — told that there was only a one-in-1.1 million chance that this DNA match was pure coincidence — convicted him. He is now serving a life sentence.
But that one-in-1.1 million figure is misleading, according to two different expert committees, one convened by the F.B.I., the other by the National Research Council. It reflects the chance of a coincidental match in relation to the size of the general population (assuming that the suspect is the only one examined and is not related to the real culprit). Instead of the general population, we should be looking at only the number of profiles in the DNA database. Taking the size of the database into account in Mr. Puckett’s case (and, again, assuming the real culprit’s profile is not in the database) would have led to a dramatic change in the estimate, to one in three.
One juror was asked whether this figure would have affected the jury’s deliberations. “Of course it would have changed things,” he told reporters. “It would have changed a lot of things.”
DNA forensics is an invaluable tool for law enforcement. But it is most useful when it corroborates other evidence pointing to a suspect, or when used to determine whether any two individual samples match, like in the exonerations pursued by the Innocence Project.
But when the government gets into the business of warehousing millions of DNA profiles to seek “cold hits” as the primary basis for prosecutions, much more oversight by and accountability to the public is warranted. For far too long, we have allowed the myth of DNA infallibility to chip away at our skepticism of government’s prosecutorial power, undoubtedly leading to untold injustices.
In the Anderson case, thankfully, prosecutors acknowledged the obvious: their suspect could not have been in two places at once. But he was dangerously close to being on his way to death row because of that speck of DNA. That one piece of evidence — obtained from a technology with known limitations, and susceptible to human error and prosecutorial misuse — might mistakenly lead to execution at the hands of the state should send chills down every one of our spines. The next Lukis Anderson could be you. Better hope your alibi is as well documented as his.
A study of Arizona’s DNA database showed that profiles from different people matched at a level high enough to identify and prosecute suspects, thereby creating the possibility of a false identification when there is no additional evidence linking the accused to the crime scene.
HIGH-TECH, HIGH-RISK FORENSICS
By Osagie K. Obasogie
The New York Times
July 24, 2013
SAN FRANCISCO — WHEN the police arrived last November at the ransacked mansion of the millionaire investor Raveesh Kumra, outside of San Jose, Calif., they found Mr. Kumra had been blindfolded, tied and gagged. The robbers took cash, rare coins and ultimately Mr. Kumra’s life; he died at the scene, suffocated by the packaging tape used to stifle his screams. A forensics team found DNA on his fingernails that belonged to an unknown person, presumably one of the assailants. The sample was put into a DNA database and turned up a “hit” — a local man by the name of Lukis Anderson.
Bingo. Mr. Anderson was arrested and charged with murder.
There was one small problem: the 26-year-old Mr. Anderson couldn’t have been the culprit. During the night in question, he was at the Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, suffering from severe intoxication.
Yet he spent more than five months in jail with a possible death sentence hanging over his head. Once presented with Mr. Anderson’s hospital records, prosecutors struggled to figure out how an innocent man’s DNA could have ended up on a murder victim.
Late last month, prosecutors announced what they believe to be the answer: the paramedics who transported Mr. Anderson to the hospital were the very same individuals who responded to the crime scene at the mansion a few hours later. Prosecutors now conclude that at some point, Mr. Anderson’s DNA must have been accidentally transferred to Mr. Kumra’s body — likely by way of the paramedics’ clothing or equipment.
This theory of transference is still under investigation. Nevertheless, the certainty with which prosecutors charged Mr. Anderson with murder highlights the very real injustices that can occur when we place too much faith in DNA forensic technologies.
In the end, Mr. Anderson was lucky. His alibi was rock solid; prosecutors were forced to concede that there must have been some other explanation. It’s hard to believe that, out of the growing number of convictions based largely or exclusively on DNA evidence, there haven’t been any similar mistakes.
In one famous case of crime scene contamination, German police searched for around 15 years for a serial killer they called the “Phantom of Heilbronn” — an unknown female linked by traces of DNA to six murders across Germany and Austria. In 2009, the police found their “suspect”: a worker at a factory that produced the cotton swabs police used in their investigations had been accidentally contaminating them with her own DNA.
Contamination is not the only way DNA forensics can lead to injustice. Consider the frequent claim that it is highly unlikely, if not impossible, for two DNA profiles to match by coincidence. A 2005 audit of Arizona’s DNA database showed that, out of some 65,000 profiles, nearly 150 pairs matched at a level typically considered high enough to identify and prosecute suspects. Yet these profiles were clearly from different people.
There are also problems with the way DNA evidence is interpreted and presented to juries. In 2008, John Puckett — a California man in his 70s with a sexual assault record — was accused of a 1972 killing, after a trawl of the state database partially linked his DNA to crime scene evidence. As in the Anderson case, Mr. Puckett was identified and implicated primarily by this evidence. Jurors — told that there was only a one-in-1.1 million chance that this DNA match was pure coincidence — convicted him. He is now serving a life sentence.
But that one-in-1.1 million figure is misleading, according to two different expert committees, one convened by the F.B.I., the other by the National Research Council. It reflects the chance of a coincidental match in relation to the size of the general population (assuming that the suspect is the only one examined and is not related to the real culprit). Instead of the general population, we should be looking at only the number of profiles in the DNA database. Taking the size of the database into account in Mr. Puckett’s case (and, again, assuming the real culprit’s profile is not in the database) would have led to a dramatic change in the estimate, to one in three.
One juror was asked whether this figure would have affected the jury’s deliberations. “Of course it would have changed things,” he told reporters. “It would have changed a lot of things.”
DNA forensics is an invaluable tool for law enforcement. But it is most useful when it corroborates other evidence pointing to a suspect, or when used to determine whether any two individual samples match, like in the exonerations pursued by the Innocence Project.
But when the government gets into the business of warehousing millions of DNA profiles to seek “cold hits” as the primary basis for prosecutions, much more oversight by and accountability to the public is warranted. For far too long, we have allowed the myth of DNA infallibility to chip away at our skepticism of government’s prosecutorial power, undoubtedly leading to untold injustices.
In the Anderson case, thankfully, prosecutors acknowledged the obvious: their suspect could not have been in two places at once. But he was dangerously close to being on his way to death row because of that speck of DNA. That one piece of evidence — obtained from a technology with known limitations, and susceptible to human error and prosecutorial misuse — might mistakenly lead to execution at the hands of the state should send chills down every one of our spines. The next Lukis Anderson could be you. Better hope your alibi is as well documented as his.
PALESTINIANS HAVE BEEN INDOCTRINATED FOR 20 YEARS THAT JEWS SHOULD BE ANNIHILATED
The Palestinians are not really interested in peace because they have vowed time and time again to obliterate the Jewish state so that there will be only one state, a Palestinian one, from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.
JERUSALEM POST’S GLICK: PEACE TALKS ARE DOOMED
By Bill Hoffmann
Newsmax
July 25, 2013
The Israeli-Palestinian peace talks scheduled to begin next week are doomed, with zero chance they will end in an agreement, according to Caroline Glick, deputy managing editor of The Jerusalem Post.
"The truth of the matter is that there is no chance of a deal being reached because the Palestinians themselves are so radicalized," Glick told "The Steve Malzberg Show" on Newsmax TV.
"They have been indoctrinated now for 20 years since the PLO [Palestine Liberation Organization] set up its regime in Judan, Sumeria, and Gaza to look at Jews the way that the Nazis did — just as non-humans, as sub-humans who should be annihilated."
Glick said even the idea of Palestinians negotiating with Jews is completely unacceptable.
"Any Palestinian leader that would reach an agreement with Israelis would be killed. So there's no chance whatsoever … absolutely no chance of a deal ever being reached."
The Jerusalem Post reported Thursday that the talks are likely to kick off in Washington, D.C., next Tuesday.
"We hope that the talks will begin next week in Washington between Israeli and Palestinian representatives," Regional Cooperation Minister Silvan Shalom said.
"We in Israel are ready to go there next week, we have said it to the Americans."
London’s Guardian newspaper reported that the Palestinians want a letter from Secretary of State John Kerry stating the U.S. is "committed to the pre-1967 border as the basis for negotiations on the territorial boundaries of an Israeli and Palestinian state, with agreed compensatory land swaps for any deviations."
Major issues on the ongoing strife between Israelis and Palestinians include borders, security, Israeli settlements, control of Jerusalem, and the rights of refugees.
Glick believes the push by the United States for the talks is impractical and potentially dangerous for Israel.
"The deal that the United States is pushing for is a deal that, if it was ever concluded, would make Israel into a totally indefensible country and a strategic basket case," she said.
"The United States has tried to play both ends and in the end what happened was [Secretary of State John] Kerry announced negotiations had been agreed upon and that they were going to start.
"The Palestinians said, no, we agree that we'd talk about negotiating. We're not actually going to be negotiating. So right now there's supposed to be Israeli and Palestinian representatives arriving in Washington, D.C., next week, but it's not clear if the Palestinians are going to show up."
Glick, a Senior Fellow for Middle East Affairs at the Center for Security Policy, said she is mystified the U.S. is putting so much energy into the talks since "Israel is the only country in the entire region that's at peace.
"In Syria, the country is embroiled in a horrible civil war … that's sucking in Lebanon and Iraq … In Egypt, we've just seen the second revolution in so many years and the Egyptians themselves are moving into a state of Civil War.
"Why on earth the Americans at this time are putting massive pressure on Israel to make huge concessions to Palestinians?"
JERUSALEM POST’S GLICK: PEACE TALKS ARE DOOMED
By Bill Hoffmann
Newsmax
July 25, 2013
The Israeli-Palestinian peace talks scheduled to begin next week are doomed, with zero chance they will end in an agreement, according to Caroline Glick, deputy managing editor of The Jerusalem Post.
"The truth of the matter is that there is no chance of a deal being reached because the Palestinians themselves are so radicalized," Glick told "The Steve Malzberg Show" on Newsmax TV.
"They have been indoctrinated now for 20 years since the PLO [Palestine Liberation Organization] set up its regime in Judan, Sumeria, and Gaza to look at Jews the way that the Nazis did — just as non-humans, as sub-humans who should be annihilated."
Glick said even the idea of Palestinians negotiating with Jews is completely unacceptable.
"Any Palestinian leader that would reach an agreement with Israelis would be killed. So there's no chance whatsoever … absolutely no chance of a deal ever being reached."
The Jerusalem Post reported Thursday that the talks are likely to kick off in Washington, D.C., next Tuesday.
"We hope that the talks will begin next week in Washington between Israeli and Palestinian representatives," Regional Cooperation Minister Silvan Shalom said.
"We in Israel are ready to go there next week, we have said it to the Americans."
London’s Guardian newspaper reported that the Palestinians want a letter from Secretary of State John Kerry stating the U.S. is "committed to the pre-1967 border as the basis for negotiations on the territorial boundaries of an Israeli and Palestinian state, with agreed compensatory land swaps for any deviations."
Major issues on the ongoing strife between Israelis and Palestinians include borders, security, Israeli settlements, control of Jerusalem, and the rights of refugees.
Glick believes the push by the United States for the talks is impractical and potentially dangerous for Israel.
"The deal that the United States is pushing for is a deal that, if it was ever concluded, would make Israel into a totally indefensible country and a strategic basket case," she said.
"The United States has tried to play both ends and in the end what happened was [Secretary of State John] Kerry announced negotiations had been agreed upon and that they were going to start.
"The Palestinians said, no, we agree that we'd talk about negotiating. We're not actually going to be negotiating. So right now there's supposed to be Israeli and Palestinian representatives arriving in Washington, D.C., next week, but it's not clear if the Palestinians are going to show up."
Glick, a Senior Fellow for Middle East Affairs at the Center for Security Policy, said she is mystified the U.S. is putting so much energy into the talks since "Israel is the only country in the entire region that's at peace.
"In Syria, the country is embroiled in a horrible civil war … that's sucking in Lebanon and Iraq … In Egypt, we've just seen the second revolution in so many years and the Egyptians themselves are moving into a state of Civil War.
"Why on earth the Americans at this time are putting massive pressure on Israel to make huge concessions to Palestinians?"
IT TAKES REAL COURAGE FOR BLACKS TO TESTIFY AGAINST ONE OF THEIR OWN
Elouise Dilligard risked the wrath of a hateful black community when she testified as a character witness for George Zimmerman.
UNSUNG BLACK PEOPLE
By Ann Coulter
Yahoo News
July 24, 2013
It must be hard for young black males to always be viewed as criminals by people who notice crime statistics. We've jawboned that sad story for 40 years. Last week, President Obama ran it around the block again in another speech about himself in reaction to the George Zimmerman verdict.
Let's give that beloved chestnut a rest for a day and consider another way blacks have it harder than whites. Only black people are expected to never speak against their community. Might we spend five minutes admiring the courage of blacks who step forward and tell the truth to cops, juries and reporters in the middle of our periodic racial Armageddons? This one is never discussed at all.
In December 1984, Bernie Goetz shot four black men who were trying to mug him on the New York City subway. (About a year later, one youth admitted that, yes, in fact, they "were goin' to rob him." They thought he looked like "easy bait.")
A few days after the shooting, The New York Times got the racism ball rolling with its "beneath the surface" reporting technique: "Just beneath the surface of last week's debate was the question of whether the shooting may have been racially motivated."
Hoping for support for its below-the-surface thesis, the Times visited the mother of Darrell Cabey, the young man paralyzed from the shooting. As the Times summarized the feeling at the Claremont housing project where Cabey lived, "many people said the four teen-agers were troublemakers and probably got what they deserved."
Cabey's mother had received one letter that said: "[Y]ou get no sympathy from us peace-loving, law-abiding blacks. We will even contribute to support the guy who taught you a lesson, every way we can ... P.S. I hope your wheelchair has a flat tire."
The Washington Post also interviewed Cabey's neighbors. Eighteen-year-old Yvette Green said: "If I'd had a gun, I would have shot him." Darryl Singleton, 24 years old, called Cabey, "a sweet person," but added, "if I had a gun, I would have shot the guy."
As white liberals (and Al Sharpton) screamed "racism!" how'd you like to be the black woman called by the defense at Goetz's trial? Andrea Reid, who was on the subway car during the shooting, testified: Those "punks were bothering the white man ... those punks got what they deserved."
Reid had met the mother and brother of one of Goetz's muggers at a party. But she took the stand and told the truth.
Juror Robert Leach, a black bus driver from Harlem, was one of Goetz's most vehement defenders in the jury room, even persuading the others not to convict Goetz for unlawful possession of any guns, other than the one he used in the shooting. In the end, three blacks and one Hispanic on the jury voted to acquit Goetz of all 13 charges except for the minor one of carrying an illegal firearm.
More brave blacks stepped forward in the Edmund Perry case a year later.
Perry, a black teenager from Phillips Exeter Academy, along with his brother, mugged a cop and ended up getting himself killed. When Perry's brother Jonah was prosecuted for the mugging, two of the witnesses against Jonah were his black neighbors.
One neighbor testified that Jonah told him the night of the incident that his brother was shot when they were mugging someone. Another neighbor said Jonah told her that night that he tried to beat up a guy who turned out to be a cop. This was in a courtroom full of rabble-rousers, amen-ing everything defense lawyer Alton Maddox said.
They told the truth knowing they'd have to go back to the neighborhood. Whatever happened to them? Why aren't they the heroes? Where's their Hollywood movie? There was a movie about the Perry case. It was titled: "Murder Without Motive: The Edmund Perry Story." (The grand jury had no difficulty finding the motive: The cop was being mugged.)
In the middle of one of these racial passion plays, it takes enormous courage for a black person to step forward and say, "Yeah, I heard him say he mugged the cop," "If I had been Bernie Goetz, I would have shot them, too," or "I know George, he's my friend."
That last one was Elouise Dilligard, George Zimmerman's final defense witness. Clear as a bell, this black woman spoke warmly about "my neighbor George" and went on to describe his nose being disfigured and bloody right after the shooting.
You won't see her on CNN, though. In fact, you'll never hear a peep about any of these courageous black people, unless you obsessively research every "race" case of the last 30 years, as I did for my book "Mugged." (All these black heroes appear in my book.)
Whites never need to be brave this way. There's absolutely no pressure on white people to root for their race. In fact, there's often pressure to root against their race. Instead of being asked to weep over President Obama's ever having been looked at suspiciously (probably by Jesse Jackson), could we reflect on the fortitude of ordinary black citizens who resist "racial solidarity" and speak the truth?
UNSUNG BLACK PEOPLE
By Ann Coulter
Yahoo News
July 24, 2013
It must be hard for young black males to always be viewed as criminals by people who notice crime statistics. We've jawboned that sad story for 40 years. Last week, President Obama ran it around the block again in another speech about himself in reaction to the George Zimmerman verdict.
Let's give that beloved chestnut a rest for a day and consider another way blacks have it harder than whites. Only black people are expected to never speak against their community. Might we spend five minutes admiring the courage of blacks who step forward and tell the truth to cops, juries and reporters in the middle of our periodic racial Armageddons? This one is never discussed at all.
In December 1984, Bernie Goetz shot four black men who were trying to mug him on the New York City subway. (About a year later, one youth admitted that, yes, in fact, they "were goin' to rob him." They thought he looked like "easy bait.")
A few days after the shooting, The New York Times got the racism ball rolling with its "beneath the surface" reporting technique: "Just beneath the surface of last week's debate was the question of whether the shooting may have been racially motivated."
Hoping for support for its below-the-surface thesis, the Times visited the mother of Darrell Cabey, the young man paralyzed from the shooting. As the Times summarized the feeling at the Claremont housing project where Cabey lived, "many people said the four teen-agers were troublemakers and probably got what they deserved."
Cabey's mother had received one letter that said: "[Y]ou get no sympathy from us peace-loving, law-abiding blacks. We will even contribute to support the guy who taught you a lesson, every way we can ... P.S. I hope your wheelchair has a flat tire."
The Washington Post also interviewed Cabey's neighbors. Eighteen-year-old Yvette Green said: "If I'd had a gun, I would have shot him." Darryl Singleton, 24 years old, called Cabey, "a sweet person," but added, "if I had a gun, I would have shot the guy."
As white liberals (and Al Sharpton) screamed "racism!" how'd you like to be the black woman called by the defense at Goetz's trial? Andrea Reid, who was on the subway car during the shooting, testified: Those "punks were bothering the white man ... those punks got what they deserved."
Reid had met the mother and brother of one of Goetz's muggers at a party. But she took the stand and told the truth.
Juror Robert Leach, a black bus driver from Harlem, was one of Goetz's most vehement defenders in the jury room, even persuading the others not to convict Goetz for unlawful possession of any guns, other than the one he used in the shooting. In the end, three blacks and one Hispanic on the jury voted to acquit Goetz of all 13 charges except for the minor one of carrying an illegal firearm.
More brave blacks stepped forward in the Edmund Perry case a year later.
Perry, a black teenager from Phillips Exeter Academy, along with his brother, mugged a cop and ended up getting himself killed. When Perry's brother Jonah was prosecuted for the mugging, two of the witnesses against Jonah were his black neighbors.
One neighbor testified that Jonah told him the night of the incident that his brother was shot when they were mugging someone. Another neighbor said Jonah told her that night that he tried to beat up a guy who turned out to be a cop. This was in a courtroom full of rabble-rousers, amen-ing everything defense lawyer Alton Maddox said.
They told the truth knowing they'd have to go back to the neighborhood. Whatever happened to them? Why aren't they the heroes? Where's their Hollywood movie? There was a movie about the Perry case. It was titled: "Murder Without Motive: The Edmund Perry Story." (The grand jury had no difficulty finding the motive: The cop was being mugged.)
In the middle of one of these racial passion plays, it takes enormous courage for a black person to step forward and say, "Yeah, I heard him say he mugged the cop," "If I had been Bernie Goetz, I would have shot them, too," or "I know George, he's my friend."
That last one was Elouise Dilligard, George Zimmerman's final defense witness. Clear as a bell, this black woman spoke warmly about "my neighbor George" and went on to describe his nose being disfigured and bloody right after the shooting.
You won't see her on CNN, though. In fact, you'll never hear a peep about any of these courageous black people, unless you obsessively research every "race" case of the last 30 years, as I did for my book "Mugged." (All these black heroes appear in my book.)
Whites never need to be brave this way. There's absolutely no pressure on white people to root for their race. In fact, there's often pressure to root against their race. Instead of being asked to weep over President Obama's ever having been looked at suspiciously (probably by Jesse Jackson), could we reflect on the fortitude of ordinary black citizens who resist "racial solidarity" and speak the truth?
DEFENSE: COP KILLER’S LIFE SHOULD BE SPARED BECAUSE HE HAD NEVER BEEN TAUGHT RIGHT FROM WRONG
Ronell Wilson is the product of a crack-addicted mother living with a dozen relatives crammed into an apartment at a crime-infested housing project
Excuse me while I take time to gather myself together and wipe up my tears because a jury had the audacity to sentence poor old Ronell to death despite his not knowing any better when he killed two cops execution style. Ronell is obviously the victim of a white racist society that continually represses and oppresses African-Americans and other minorities.
MAN WHO KILLED N.Y. COPS GETS DEATH PENALTY
Ronell Wilson was sentenced to death on Wednesday in the execution-style slayings of two undercover police officers in 2003
By Tom Hays
Associated Press
July 25, 2013
NEW YORK — A New York City street gang member was sentenced to death on Wednesday in the execution-style slayings of two undercover police officers in 2003 — the latest chapter in a case that's seen his original death sentence overturned, his behind-bars affair with a prison guard exposed and the massive cost of his defense questioned.
It took a jury only about five hours to reach the decision in federal court in Brooklyn in the case against Ronell Wilson.
Wilson, 31, leaned forward on the defense table with his hands clasped as the sentence was announced in court, but showed no emotion. Several of his family members could be heard weeping in the gallery.
On a verdict form, the 12 jurors indicated that only two believed Wilson's contention that he didn't know his victims were police officers. There also were only two who agreed that the defendant could be spared because his life "has value," but ultimately joined in the unanimous decision on his sentence.
Outside court, the widow of one of the officers was in tears as police union officials praised the outcome. She declined to speak to reporters.
"Today, a jury of his peers looked at Ronell Wilson, everything he did and all that he is, and rendered justice," U.S. Attorney Loretta Lynch said in a statement.
Another jury had found Wilson guilty in the point-blank shootings of undercover officers James Nemorin and Rodney Andrews. The gunman shot both men in the head after one pleaded for his life.
The first jury also sentenced Wilson in 2007 to die by lethal injection, making him the first federal defendant to receive a death sentence in New York City since the 1950s. But an appeals court threw out the sentence in 2010 because of an error in jury instructions and prosecutors chose to repeat the penalty phase rather than let Wilson serve an automatic life term without parole.
U.S. District Judge Nicholas Garaufis questioned the decision, saying that it put taxpayers on course to spend millions of dollars more on Wilson's defense. He noted that he had just presided over a capital case for a mobster where the defense bill was $5 million and the jury chose to impose a life sentence.
Officials revealed in February that, after being transferred from federal death row in Indiana to a Brooklyn lockup to await the proceedings, Wilson fathered a child with a jail guard. She's since pleaded guilty to an illegal sex act.
The new set of jurors, though not deciding Wilson's guilt, once again heard about how the victims were posing as illegal gun buyers. The pair met with Wilson — known then by the nickname "Rated R" for what they thought was a deal to buy a Tec-9 submachine gun. But Wilson decided to rob them instead and ended up shooting them.
Prosecutors cited a scrap of paper Wilson was carrying when he was arrested as proof he was a cold-blooded killer. It had the rap lyrics saying that if he was ever crossed, he would put "45 slogs in da back of ya head" and "ain't goin stop to Im dead."
The government also argued that Wilson's conduct behind bars, including having sex with the jail guard and threatening a gay inmate, made him a bad candidate for a life term.
In asking to spare his life, Wilson "wants you to use your humanity," said Assistant U.S. Attorney Celia Cohen said in closing arguments. "He has shown through his actions that he has absolutely no humanity."
The defense conceded Wilson had committed a horrible crime. Wilson's lawyers instead sought to focus jurors on his background as the product of a crack-addicted mother living with a dozen relatives crammed into an apartment at a crime-infested housing project.
Defense attorney David Stern argued that a life sentence was sufficient punishment for a "limited" and "impulsive" defendant who was never taught right from wrong.
"One day he'll die wearing the same khaki clothes he's worn for 20 or 30 or 40 years," Stern said. "Very few people will know or care."
Excuse me while I take time to gather myself together and wipe up my tears because a jury had the audacity to sentence poor old Ronell to death despite his not knowing any better when he killed two cops execution style. Ronell is obviously the victim of a white racist society that continually represses and oppresses African-Americans and other minorities.
MAN WHO KILLED N.Y. COPS GETS DEATH PENALTY
Ronell Wilson was sentenced to death on Wednesday in the execution-style slayings of two undercover police officers in 2003
By Tom Hays
Associated Press
July 25, 2013
NEW YORK — A New York City street gang member was sentenced to death on Wednesday in the execution-style slayings of two undercover police officers in 2003 — the latest chapter in a case that's seen his original death sentence overturned, his behind-bars affair with a prison guard exposed and the massive cost of his defense questioned.
It took a jury only about five hours to reach the decision in federal court in Brooklyn in the case against Ronell Wilson.
Wilson, 31, leaned forward on the defense table with his hands clasped as the sentence was announced in court, but showed no emotion. Several of his family members could be heard weeping in the gallery.
On a verdict form, the 12 jurors indicated that only two believed Wilson's contention that he didn't know his victims were police officers. There also were only two who agreed that the defendant could be spared because his life "has value," but ultimately joined in the unanimous decision on his sentence.
Outside court, the widow of one of the officers was in tears as police union officials praised the outcome. She declined to speak to reporters.
"Today, a jury of his peers looked at Ronell Wilson, everything he did and all that he is, and rendered justice," U.S. Attorney Loretta Lynch said in a statement.
Another jury had found Wilson guilty in the point-blank shootings of undercover officers James Nemorin and Rodney Andrews. The gunman shot both men in the head after one pleaded for his life.
The first jury also sentenced Wilson in 2007 to die by lethal injection, making him the first federal defendant to receive a death sentence in New York City since the 1950s. But an appeals court threw out the sentence in 2010 because of an error in jury instructions and prosecutors chose to repeat the penalty phase rather than let Wilson serve an automatic life term without parole.
U.S. District Judge Nicholas Garaufis questioned the decision, saying that it put taxpayers on course to spend millions of dollars more on Wilson's defense. He noted that he had just presided over a capital case for a mobster where the defense bill was $5 million and the jury chose to impose a life sentence.
Officials revealed in February that, after being transferred from federal death row in Indiana to a Brooklyn lockup to await the proceedings, Wilson fathered a child with a jail guard. She's since pleaded guilty to an illegal sex act.
The new set of jurors, though not deciding Wilson's guilt, once again heard about how the victims were posing as illegal gun buyers. The pair met with Wilson — known then by the nickname "Rated R" for what they thought was a deal to buy a Tec-9 submachine gun. But Wilson decided to rob them instead and ended up shooting them.
Prosecutors cited a scrap of paper Wilson was carrying when he was arrested as proof he was a cold-blooded killer. It had the rap lyrics saying that if he was ever crossed, he would put "45 slogs in da back of ya head" and "ain't goin stop to Im dead."
The government also argued that Wilson's conduct behind bars, including having sex with the jail guard and threatening a gay inmate, made him a bad candidate for a life term.
In asking to spare his life, Wilson "wants you to use your humanity," said Assistant U.S. Attorney Celia Cohen said in closing arguments. "He has shown through his actions that he has absolutely no humanity."
The defense conceded Wilson had committed a horrible crime. Wilson's lawyers instead sought to focus jurors on his background as the product of a crack-addicted mother living with a dozen relatives crammed into an apartment at a crime-infested housing project.
Defense attorney David Stern argued that a life sentence was sufficient punishment for a "limited" and "impulsive" defendant who was never taught right from wrong.
"One day he'll die wearing the same khaki clothes he's worn for 20 or 30 or 40 years," Stern said. "Very few people will know or care."
Thursday, July 25, 2013
SAMANTHA POWER DISPLAYED AN EMOTIONAL COMMITMENT TO THE SURVIVAL OF ISRAEL
The soon to be Ambassador to the United Nations, convinced Jewish leaders that she has made a 180 degree turn from anti-Israel positions she held in the past.
ISRAEL’S NEW ‘POWER’ AT THE U.N.
By Connie Fieraru
Israel Today
July 24, 2013
Samantha Power is set to be the next US ambassador to the UN following overwhelming approval during her Senate Foreign Relations Committee appearance on Tuesday. Power made special note of her intention to defend Israel in the world body and work to secure a seat for the Jewish state on the Security Council by 2018.
After her approval by all but two of the 18-member Senate committee, Power is expected to easily win confirmation from the rest of the Senate.
Power, 42, is an expert on genocide, a champion of human rights, and a Harvard professor. She will replace Susan Rice, who has been appointed as America’s next National Security Advisor. Power earned a degree at Yale and worked as a journalist covering the Yugoslav wars from 1993-1996 before returning to the US and graduating from Harvard Law School.
Power is known to be ‘blunt and outspoken’ and has made a career out of her intellectual and critical engagement with human rights policy, especially on the topic of genocide. She promised to utilize her strong character traits an expertise to advocate America’s interest in the UN and to eliminate bias against Israel.
However, Power has not been received without criticism, especially in light of statements made about Israel in a 2002 interview at the University of California Berkeley’s Institute of International Studies. During the interview, Power was asked to conduct a “thought experiment” on how she would intervene in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in order to protect human rights. Power responded that, given the opportunity, she would advise the president to “sacrifice billions of dollars in aid to the Jewish state” and instead allocate those funds for “the new state of Palestine instead.”
But now Power is seen openly condemning the UN’s “unacceptable bias” against Israel and pledging to “lobby hard” to get Israel a seat on the Security Council. So, what swayed her thinking? Maybe it was her marriage to Jewish lawyer Cass Sustein in 2008, or perhaps it was her more recent work with the administration in Washington that alternated her perspective.
During the recent confirmation hearing, Power stated, “What I believe in terms of Middle East peace is, I think, what is obvious to all of us here which is peace can only come about through a negotiated solution. There is no shortcut. That’s why Palestinian…unilateral statehood efforts within the UN system — shortcuts of that nature just won’t work.” With such comments Power quickly won over her critics in the pro-Israel community.
But Republican Senator Marco Rubio, one of only two to vote against Power, was unconvinced, saying she had “failed to distance herself” from past statements “and offered insufficient explanation, leaving me with serious concerns about some of her views.”
Coming to Power’s aid was Shmuley Boteach, perhaps America’s most famous rabbi, who wrote in the Times of Israel that when Power was taking questions regarding the accusations against her in a closed door meeting with 40 American Jewish leaders, “she suddenly became deeply emotional and struggled to complete her presentation as she expressed how deeply such accusations had affected her.”
Boteach continued: “Tears streamed down her cheeks and I think it fair to say that there was no one in the room who wasn’t deeply moved by this incredible display of pain and emotion. More than a few of the leaders of the room came over to me afterward and said that, based on her comments and her unabashed display of emotional attachment to the security of the Jewish people…they would never again question her commitment to Israel’s security.”
In the words of Boteach, “the greatest challenge now facing Power will be changing the UN.”
We wait in hope.
ISRAEL’S NEW ‘POWER’ AT THE U.N.
By Connie Fieraru
Israel Today
July 24, 2013
Samantha Power is set to be the next US ambassador to the UN following overwhelming approval during her Senate Foreign Relations Committee appearance on Tuesday. Power made special note of her intention to defend Israel in the world body and work to secure a seat for the Jewish state on the Security Council by 2018.
After her approval by all but two of the 18-member Senate committee, Power is expected to easily win confirmation from the rest of the Senate.
Power, 42, is an expert on genocide, a champion of human rights, and a Harvard professor. She will replace Susan Rice, who has been appointed as America’s next National Security Advisor. Power earned a degree at Yale and worked as a journalist covering the Yugoslav wars from 1993-1996 before returning to the US and graduating from Harvard Law School.
Power is known to be ‘blunt and outspoken’ and has made a career out of her intellectual and critical engagement with human rights policy, especially on the topic of genocide. She promised to utilize her strong character traits an expertise to advocate America’s interest in the UN and to eliminate bias against Israel.
However, Power has not been received without criticism, especially in light of statements made about Israel in a 2002 interview at the University of California Berkeley’s Institute of International Studies. During the interview, Power was asked to conduct a “thought experiment” on how she would intervene in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in order to protect human rights. Power responded that, given the opportunity, she would advise the president to “sacrifice billions of dollars in aid to the Jewish state” and instead allocate those funds for “the new state of Palestine instead.”
But now Power is seen openly condemning the UN’s “unacceptable bias” against Israel and pledging to “lobby hard” to get Israel a seat on the Security Council. So, what swayed her thinking? Maybe it was her marriage to Jewish lawyer Cass Sustein in 2008, or perhaps it was her more recent work with the administration in Washington that alternated her perspective.
During the recent confirmation hearing, Power stated, “What I believe in terms of Middle East peace is, I think, what is obvious to all of us here which is peace can only come about through a negotiated solution. There is no shortcut. That’s why Palestinian…unilateral statehood efforts within the UN system — shortcuts of that nature just won’t work.” With such comments Power quickly won over her critics in the pro-Israel community.
But Republican Senator Marco Rubio, one of only two to vote against Power, was unconvinced, saying she had “failed to distance herself” from past statements “and offered insufficient explanation, leaving me with serious concerns about some of her views.”
Coming to Power’s aid was Shmuley Boteach, perhaps America’s most famous rabbi, who wrote in the Times of Israel that when Power was taking questions regarding the accusations against her in a closed door meeting with 40 American Jewish leaders, “she suddenly became deeply emotional and struggled to complete her presentation as she expressed how deeply such accusations had affected her.”
Boteach continued: “Tears streamed down her cheeks and I think it fair to say that there was no one in the room who wasn’t deeply moved by this incredible display of pain and emotion. More than a few of the leaders of the room came over to me afterward and said that, based on her comments and her unabashed display of emotional attachment to the security of the Jewish people…they would never again question her commitment to Israel’s security.”
In the words of Boteach, “the greatest challenge now facing Power will be changing the UN.”
We wait in hope.
GRATEFUL FAMILY FEARS FOR ITS SAFETY IF ASSOCIATED WITH ‘TOXIC’ ZIMMERMAN
Although grateful for being rescued by George Zimmerman, the family fears that hatred of Trayvon Martin’s killer could threaten their safety. And who can blame them?
RESCUED FLORIDA COUPLE SCARED OF ZIMMERMAN CONNECTION
By Sandy Fitzgerald
Newsmax
July 24, 2013
A Florida couple, who was rescued with their children from a rollover crash by George Zimmerman, is terrified of becoming targets of people who have threatened to kill him following the court's Trayvon Martin innocent verdict.
"They are very grateful to Zimmerman for what he did, but they do not want to get involved," a friend of Mark and Dana Michelle Gerstle told The Daily Mail in London.
The Gerstles are afraid they'll be targeted if they make Zimmerman look like a hero, their friend said, speaking anonymously.
The couple had scheduled a news conference on Wednesday to talk about the incident, but have since cancelled it, reports ABC News.
Mark O'Mara, Zimmerman's attorney, said the family had asked to speak, but then became worried about the anger still surrounding the verdict.
"The family called because they wanted to address the media," O'Mara told ABC. "I knew that if we did it in an organized way, it would help them get back to a normal life. But they called today and said they were more worried about blow back from saying anything that would be favorable to George, and decided they did not want to do any media."
The Seminole City Sheriff's Office, where the press conference was to have taken place, said the family "expressed to us that they are not comfortable doing media interviews at this time and they continue to ask for privacy."
Last Wednesday, Zimmerman pulled the couple and their two young children from the wreck after their SUV rolled over in Sanford, Fla. The one-time neighborhood watch member was driving past with another man, and joined in the rescue. Until the accident, Zimmerman, 29, hadn't been seen since a court in Sanford cleared him of second-degree murder charges.
Zimmerman's name isn't in the accident report from the July 17 incident, which took place less than a mile from where Martin was shot. Police said he did not see the accident occur, and that he left after speaking with officers.
But Gerstle recognized Zimmerman as he pulled him from the driver's seat of his SUV, and officers noted Zimmerman made sure the man and his family were safe before leaving the scene.
The Gerstles, who live in Port Orange, Fla., have refused all interviews about their encounter, and a neighbor said while Mark Gerstle is probably very grateful to Zimmerman, he's also a "very quiet man and will not like having his name mentioned all over the press. He is not the type you will see on a chat show talking about what happened."
Friends of the couple said they're concerned about the threat of violence against the family. The Black Panthers have put out a bounty for Zimmerman and the Gerstles' friends are concerned other violent threats will spread to the family as well.
"Let's face it, George Zimmerman is pretty toxic right now," said a friend. "Mark has two young children and has got to live his life round here. Whatever he says could be taken out of context. If he praises Zimmerman then people will say he is making him into a hero. It is easier if he says nothing."
RESCUED FLORIDA COUPLE SCARED OF ZIMMERMAN CONNECTION
By Sandy Fitzgerald
Newsmax
July 24, 2013
A Florida couple, who was rescued with their children from a rollover crash by George Zimmerman, is terrified of becoming targets of people who have threatened to kill him following the court's Trayvon Martin innocent verdict.
"They are very grateful to Zimmerman for what he did, but they do not want to get involved," a friend of Mark and Dana Michelle Gerstle told The Daily Mail in London.
The Gerstles are afraid they'll be targeted if they make Zimmerman look like a hero, their friend said, speaking anonymously.
The couple had scheduled a news conference on Wednesday to talk about the incident, but have since cancelled it, reports ABC News.
Mark O'Mara, Zimmerman's attorney, said the family had asked to speak, but then became worried about the anger still surrounding the verdict.
"The family called because they wanted to address the media," O'Mara told ABC. "I knew that if we did it in an organized way, it would help them get back to a normal life. But they called today and said they were more worried about blow back from saying anything that would be favorable to George, and decided they did not want to do any media."
The Seminole City Sheriff's Office, where the press conference was to have taken place, said the family "expressed to us that they are not comfortable doing media interviews at this time and they continue to ask for privacy."
Last Wednesday, Zimmerman pulled the couple and their two young children from the wreck after their SUV rolled over in Sanford, Fla. The one-time neighborhood watch member was driving past with another man, and joined in the rescue. Until the accident, Zimmerman, 29, hadn't been seen since a court in Sanford cleared him of second-degree murder charges.
Zimmerman's name isn't in the accident report from the July 17 incident, which took place less than a mile from where Martin was shot. Police said he did not see the accident occur, and that he left after speaking with officers.
But Gerstle recognized Zimmerman as he pulled him from the driver's seat of his SUV, and officers noted Zimmerman made sure the man and his family were safe before leaving the scene.
The Gerstles, who live in Port Orange, Fla., have refused all interviews about their encounter, and a neighbor said while Mark Gerstle is probably very grateful to Zimmerman, he's also a "very quiet man and will not like having his name mentioned all over the press. He is not the type you will see on a chat show talking about what happened."
Friends of the couple said they're concerned about the threat of violence against the family. The Black Panthers have put out a bounty for Zimmerman and the Gerstles' friends are concerned other violent threats will spread to the family as well.
"Let's face it, George Zimmerman is pretty toxic right now," said a friend. "Mark has two young children and has got to live his life round here. Whatever he says could be taken out of context. If he praises Zimmerman then people will say he is making him into a hero. It is easier if he says nothing."
BLOOMBERG VETOES PLAN TO CUFF COPS
The anti-gun mayor finally did something I can wholeheartedly approve of. Those opposed to NYPD’s stop-and-frisks are the very people those tactics are protecting.
MAYOR VETOES NYPD OVERSIGHT PLAN
Calls proposed measures 'dangerous and irresponsible,' legislation would have made it easier to sue police based upon perceived racially-based stops
By Jennifer Peltz
Associated Press
July 24, 2013
NEW YORK — Mayor Michael Bloomberg on Tuesday vetoed the most ambitious plan proposed in years for oversight of the New York Police Department, setting up an override showdown between him and lawmakers.
Bloomberg's long-expected veto puts the proposals on course for their possible revival in an override vote later this summer. The measures would create an outside watchdog for the department and more latitude for lawsuits claiming discriminatory policing.
The latest in a decades-long history of efforts to impose more outside oversight on the nation's biggest police force, the legislation crystallized from concerns over the NYPD's use of stop-and-frisk tactics and its widespread surveillance of Muslims, spying that was disclosed in stories by The Associated Press.
But the mayor said in veto messages that the measures are "dangerous and irresponsible." As he and Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly have before, Bloomberg argued that the legislation would undermine safety by deluging the department in lawsuits and inquiries, making officers hesitant to act for fear of coming under scrutiny, and undercutting policing techniques that have cut crime dramatically in recent years.
Civil rights advocates and other proponents say the measures will make the city safer by repairing frayed trust between police and citizens who feel unfairly targeted by stops and surveillance.
"We will not be deterred by false accusations or fear-mongering," City Councilmen Brad Lander and Jumaane Williams, who sponsored the legislation, said in a statement. Bloomberg's "actions have embarrassed this city and this country," the statement said.
The legislation was passed in June while a federal judge was weighing a decision in a civil rights lawsuit over the stop-and-frisk practice. It attracted national attention among civil rights groups, and NAACP President Benjamin Jealous was among the spectators in the City Council chambers for the late-night vote.
The legislation would give people more latitude to sue in state court if they felt they were stopped because of bias based on race, sexual orientation or certain other factors. The suits couldn't seek money, just court orders to change police practices. Another provision would establish an inspector general with subpoena power to explore and recommend, but not force, changes to NYPD practices.
The watchdog measure passed with enough votes for an override. But the piece concerning discrimination lawsuits passed with just exactly the needed number.
Bloomberg has indicated he'll try to persuade lawmakers to change their minds, and the billionaire mayor has suggested he might amplify his message with campaign contributions. "We'll see what I'm going to do. The bottom line is I make no bones about it: I'm telling you I'm going to support those candidates" who agree, he said this month.
The powerful Patrolmen's Benevolent Association police union has sent thousands of fliers targeting some lawmakers who supported the measures. The mailings tell voters their council members "voted against public safety" and urge constituents to call and complain.
Meanwhile, backers of the measures have been trying to put public pressure on Bloomberg. The rapper Talib Kweli recently posted an online petition, saying "we cannot allow one wealthy mayor to stand in the way of progress."
City police have conducted about 5 million stop and frisks during the past decade; arrests resulted about 10 percent of the time. Those stopped are overwhelmingly black or Hispanic — about 87 percent in the last two years. Blacks and Hispanics make up 54 percent of the city population.
Stop and frisk is legal, and Bloomberg and Kelly consider it a vital crime-fighting tool. They also say the demographics of the people stopped should be compared with descriptions of crime suspects, not with the makeup of the population as a whole, though not all stops are spurred by suspect descriptions. Some result from officers seeing suspicious behavior, for example.
Critics say the stops are racial profiling and cast suspicion on innocent people. Some have expressed similar feelings about the NYPD's Muslim surveillance efforts, which entailed infiltrating Muslim student groups, putting informants in mosques and monitoring sermons. The department has said the initiatives were legal and part of a broad effort to prevent terrorist attacks.
MAYOR VETOES NYPD OVERSIGHT PLAN
Calls proposed measures 'dangerous and irresponsible,' legislation would have made it easier to sue police based upon perceived racially-based stops
By Jennifer Peltz
Associated Press
July 24, 2013
NEW YORK — Mayor Michael Bloomberg on Tuesday vetoed the most ambitious plan proposed in years for oversight of the New York Police Department, setting up an override showdown between him and lawmakers.
Bloomberg's long-expected veto puts the proposals on course for their possible revival in an override vote later this summer. The measures would create an outside watchdog for the department and more latitude for lawsuits claiming discriminatory policing.
The latest in a decades-long history of efforts to impose more outside oversight on the nation's biggest police force, the legislation crystallized from concerns over the NYPD's use of stop-and-frisk tactics and its widespread surveillance of Muslims, spying that was disclosed in stories by The Associated Press.
But the mayor said in veto messages that the measures are "dangerous and irresponsible." As he and Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly have before, Bloomberg argued that the legislation would undermine safety by deluging the department in lawsuits and inquiries, making officers hesitant to act for fear of coming under scrutiny, and undercutting policing techniques that have cut crime dramatically in recent years.
Civil rights advocates and other proponents say the measures will make the city safer by repairing frayed trust between police and citizens who feel unfairly targeted by stops and surveillance.
"We will not be deterred by false accusations or fear-mongering," City Councilmen Brad Lander and Jumaane Williams, who sponsored the legislation, said in a statement. Bloomberg's "actions have embarrassed this city and this country," the statement said.
The legislation was passed in June while a federal judge was weighing a decision in a civil rights lawsuit over the stop-and-frisk practice. It attracted national attention among civil rights groups, and NAACP President Benjamin Jealous was among the spectators in the City Council chambers for the late-night vote.
The legislation would give people more latitude to sue in state court if they felt they were stopped because of bias based on race, sexual orientation or certain other factors. The suits couldn't seek money, just court orders to change police practices. Another provision would establish an inspector general with subpoena power to explore and recommend, but not force, changes to NYPD practices.
The watchdog measure passed with enough votes for an override. But the piece concerning discrimination lawsuits passed with just exactly the needed number.
Bloomberg has indicated he'll try to persuade lawmakers to change their minds, and the billionaire mayor has suggested he might amplify his message with campaign contributions. "We'll see what I'm going to do. The bottom line is I make no bones about it: I'm telling you I'm going to support those candidates" who agree, he said this month.
The powerful Patrolmen's Benevolent Association police union has sent thousands of fliers targeting some lawmakers who supported the measures. The mailings tell voters their council members "voted against public safety" and urge constituents to call and complain.
Meanwhile, backers of the measures have been trying to put public pressure on Bloomberg. The rapper Talib Kweli recently posted an online petition, saying "we cannot allow one wealthy mayor to stand in the way of progress."
City police have conducted about 5 million stop and frisks during the past decade; arrests resulted about 10 percent of the time. Those stopped are overwhelmingly black or Hispanic — about 87 percent in the last two years. Blacks and Hispanics make up 54 percent of the city population.
Stop and frisk is legal, and Bloomberg and Kelly consider it a vital crime-fighting tool. They also say the demographics of the people stopped should be compared with descriptions of crime suspects, not with the makeup of the population as a whole, though not all stops are spurred by suspect descriptions. Some result from officers seeing suspicious behavior, for example.
Critics say the stops are racial profiling and cast suspicion on innocent people. Some have expressed similar feelings about the NYPD's Muslim surveillance efforts, which entailed infiltrating Muslim student groups, putting informants in mosques and monitoring sermons. The department has said the initiatives were legal and part of a broad effort to prevent terrorist attacks.
HOUSTON HOSPITAL KEEPS RIGHT ON SUING UNINSURED PATIENTS WHO DO NOT HAVE A POT TO PEE IN
While the uninsured are expected to pay their hospital bills, you can’t squeeze blood out of a turnip
The uninsured are being sued not only for their hospital bills, but for hefty legal bills as well. That must be why Shakespeare wrote, “Let’s kill all the lawyers first.”
GETTING STUCK
By Dianna Wray
Houston Press Hair Balls
July 24, 2013
As Igancio Alaniz lay beneath his ancient white Buick, trying to get his car restarted one evening in January 2012, he heard a click as his car popped into gear. A split-second before more than 3,000 pounds of metal smashed over his chest, Alaniz realized he was about to be run over by his own car.
Alaniz was in shock, his body was already swelling with fluid when the EMTs loaded him into a helicopter to take him to Memorial Hermann-Texas Medical Center, the flagship of Memorial Hermann Health System, the largest nonprofit hospital system in Houston.
Alaniz, like about 28 percent of the Houston population, didn't have health insurance. The helicopter ride alone was more than $12,000.
His girlfriend, Theresa Malone, talked about his lack of health insurance with Memorial Hermann Financial Counselor Linda Ramon. Ramon assured her that Memorial Hermann Health System was a nonprofit with a charity arm that would help cover the costs of Alaniz's medical care. But the charity never materialized and when Alaniz received his final bill it was more than $444,000. In January 2013, Alaniz was served papers notifying him he was being sued by Memorial Hermann Health System for more than $456,000, the bill plus interest and legal expenses.
Health care has changed dramatically in the past century. While those changes have resulted in tremendous medical advances, it has also ushered in a world where the uninsured, like Alaniz, stand to be financially destroyed even if they survive a traumatic injury. Memorial Hermann sees more uninsured patients than any other hospital system in Houston, but the hospital's lawyers also sue uninsured patients, those often least able to pay, for thousands of dollars in bills.
Incidents like this happen more than most people realize, University of Houston Professor Patricia Gray, director of the Health and Law Policy Institute, said.
"I don't think they want to appear that they're just giving it away to anyone who walks in the door," Gray said. "Hospitals do have to get paid. In this country, I think patients think that healthcare is a right, but this one of the few countries where it isn't."
The uninsured are being sued not only for their hospital bills, but for hefty legal bills as well. That must be why Shakespeare wrote, “Let’s kill all the lawyers first.”
GETTING STUCK
By Dianna Wray
Houston Press Hair Balls
July 24, 2013
As Igancio Alaniz lay beneath his ancient white Buick, trying to get his car restarted one evening in January 2012, he heard a click as his car popped into gear. A split-second before more than 3,000 pounds of metal smashed over his chest, Alaniz realized he was about to be run over by his own car.
Alaniz was in shock, his body was already swelling with fluid when the EMTs loaded him into a helicopter to take him to Memorial Hermann-Texas Medical Center, the flagship of Memorial Hermann Health System, the largest nonprofit hospital system in Houston.
Alaniz, like about 28 percent of the Houston population, didn't have health insurance. The helicopter ride alone was more than $12,000.
His girlfriend, Theresa Malone, talked about his lack of health insurance with Memorial Hermann Financial Counselor Linda Ramon. Ramon assured her that Memorial Hermann Health System was a nonprofit with a charity arm that would help cover the costs of Alaniz's medical care. But the charity never materialized and when Alaniz received his final bill it was more than $444,000. In January 2013, Alaniz was served papers notifying him he was being sued by Memorial Hermann Health System for more than $456,000, the bill plus interest and legal expenses.
Health care has changed dramatically in the past century. While those changes have resulted in tremendous medical advances, it has also ushered in a world where the uninsured, like Alaniz, stand to be financially destroyed even if they survive a traumatic injury. Memorial Hermann sees more uninsured patients than any other hospital system in Houston, but the hospital's lawyers also sue uninsured patients, those often least able to pay, for thousands of dollars in bills.
Incidents like this happen more than most people realize, University of Houston Professor Patricia Gray, director of the Health and Law Policy Institute, said.
"I don't think they want to appear that they're just giving it away to anyone who walks in the door," Gray said. "Hospitals do have to get paid. In this country, I think patients think that healthcare is a right, but this one of the few countries where it isn't."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)