Saturday, June 25, 2016

3rd Baltimore officer acquitted in Freddie Gray case

Somewhat surprisingly, the officer was acquitted. 2 other officers involved in the case were also acquitted in earlier trials.

From the NYT:
"The acquittal on Thursday of a Baltimore police officer charged with murder and six other crimes in the death of Freddie Gray has dealt a devastating blow to the prosecution, legal experts say, and raises questions about whether the state should press ahead with the trials of four other officers.

Officer Caesar R. Goodson Jr., who drove the police transport van in which Mr. Gray suffered the spinal cord injury that killed him, faced the most serious charges of any of the six officers indicted in the fatal arrest. His acquittal on seven counts leaves the state without any convictions after three trials, in one of the nation’s most closely watched police misconduct cases — and continues to leave open the question of what, exactly, happened to Mr. Gray inside the van.

Judge Barry G. Williams, who presided over the Goodson trial, issued the verdicts to a hushed, packed courtroom. He drew no conclusions about exactly when during the van ride Mr. Gray got hurt, saying there were several “equally plausible scenarios.” And he rejected the state’s contention that the officer had given Mr. Gray an intentional “rough ride” and knowingly endangered him by failing to buckle him into the van or provide medical help.

Mr. Gray was detained after fleeing, apparently unprompted, from officers in the downtrodden Sandtown neighborhood of West Baltimore, and loaded into a police wagon that made six stops in West Baltimore before it arrived at the Western District police station, where Mr. Gray was found unresponsive and not breathing, with a devastating spinal cord injury.

The death of Mr. Gray, a 25-year-old black man, set off a wave of violent unrest here last year and thrust this majority black city into the center of a wrenching national debate over race and policing. The state’s attorney, Marilyn Mosby, sought to quell the violence by telling protesters she heard their “call for ‘no justice, no peace,’” promising to deliver “justice on behalf of this young man.”

But the first trial, of Officer William Porter, ended with a hung jury in December; he is scheduled to be retried. A second officer, Edward M. Nero, was acquitted last month of four charges. Thursday’s verdicts instantly reignited debate here over whether Ms. Mosby had overcharged the officers and prompted speculation about what she will do next.

“This was the state’s Waterloo,” declared Warren Brown, a defense lawyer who has been watching the trials, and has been sharply critical of the prosecution.

Related Coverage

Friday, June 24, 2016

GOOD SUPREME COURT DECISION ON BLOOD ALCOHOL TESTING

From USA Today:
"WASHINGTON — A majority of Supreme Court justices cast doubt Wednesday on drunken-driving laws in 13 states that make it a crime for drivers to refuse breath or blood tests sought by police without a warrant.
While many justices acknowledged the laws' good intentions — to crack down on drunken driving, particularly in rural states such as Minnesota and North Dakota that are plagued with the problem — they wondered why police can't get warrants first.
"You're asking for an extraordinary exception here," Justice Anthony Kennedy told lawyers representing the two states and the federal government. "You're asking for us to make it a crime to exercise what many people think of as a constitutional right."
Even so, several justices indicated they might be willing to allow the criminal sanction for refusing Breathalyzer tests without warrants, since the intrusion is minimal. Blood or urine tests, they said, would require a warrant under the Fourth Amendment's ban on unreasonable searches and seizures.
"What is wrong with a Breathalyzer test when it can save lots of lives and is given to those people where there is probable cause ... or at least reasonable suspicion to think they're drunk?" asked Justice Stephen Breyer.
The three cases under review were filed by drivers in Minnesota and North Dakota who were charged with a crime after they refused to take "deep-lung" breath tests. Eleven other states have similar laws: Alaska, Florida, Hawaii, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont and Virginia.
Federal district and appeals court judges upheld the state laws, which the drivers then appealed to the Supreme Court.
In general, the high court has ruled that police cannot search a driver or vehicle after an arrest without getting a warrant, unless it's for their own personal safety or to preserve evidence. In 2013, it ruled that police cannot conduct blood tests for drunken driving without a warrant. Based on that, the challengers in the Minnesota and North Dakota cases said, refusing such tests should not constitute a crime."

UNIVERSITY AFFIRMATIVE ACTION WIN AT SUPREME COURT.

According to the NYT:

"The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a challenge to a race-conscious admissions program at the University of Texas at Austin, handing supporters of affirmative action a major victory.

The decision, Fisher v. University of Texas, No. 14-981, concerned an unusual program and contained a warning to other universities that not all affirmative action programs will pass constitutional muster. But the ruling’s basic message was that admissions officials may continue to consider race as one factor among many in ensuring a diverse student body.

The decision, by a 4-to-3 vote, was unexpected. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the author of the majority opinion, has long been skeptical of race-sensitive programs and had never before voted to uphold an affirmative action plan. He dissented in the last major affirmative action case.

Supporters of affirmative action hailed the decision as a landmark."

See the syllabus and opinions here.

IMHO, when we are dealing with basic constitutional rights, such as equal protection of the law, limitations on those rights should only be enacted by

the legislature. As is the case with concealed carry on campus, those decisions should not be made by educational officials with no political accountability.

OBAMA ADMIN LOSES BIG ON IMMIGRATION REFORM AT SUPREME COURT

"President Obama suffered the biggest legal defeat of his administration Thursday when a deadlocked Supreme Court failed to revive his stalled plan to shield millions of undocumented immigrants from deportation and give them the right to work legally in the United States.
The justices’ votes were not announced, but the court’s liberals and conservatives split at oral argument this spring. The tie means that a lower court’s decision that Obama probably exceeded his powers in issuing the executive action keeps the plan from being implemented. [No opinion was issued, just a very short court order]
The court’s action crushed the hopes of about 4 million illegal immigrants estimated to be covered by Obama’s plan, which would have deferred deportation for those who have been in the country since 2010, have not committed any serious crimes and have family ties to U.S. citizens or others lawfully in the country.
Immigration already represents one of the flash points of the 2016 elections."

Note that the Court did NOT decide whether the executive order was valid or not. The Court refuse to lift the stay of the temporary order issued by U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. That stay of implementation of the executive orders was nationwide and will remain in effect until the case is tried. A final decision on the legality of the executive orders may be years away. If and when it gets to the Supreme Court, we can expect the liberals to vote in favor or the administration and the conservatives to vote against. Kennedy will probably be the swing vote.

Thursday, June 23, 2016

MIRANDA V. AZ, ANNIVERSARY AND NEED FOR MORE REFORM

This month marks the 50th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court's conroviersial interrogation decision in Miranda v. Arizona. Conservatives on the Court have weakened the decision, but it still remains vital. However, more is needed. We need to require videotaping of all interrogations. The excellent op-ed by R. Nastarajan explains why.

Bad 4th Amend. Exlusionary Rule decision by Supreme Court

Bad Fourth Amendment decision. See dissents in the opinon (link below) The Court's conservatives, abetted by Kennedy, and in this case, but the usually liberal Breyer, continue to gut the exclusionary rule. This is one of the long-term projects of the Court's conservatives.

See the full opinion at
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-1373_83i7.pdf

Tuesday, June 21, 2016

SUPREME COURT REFUSES ANOTHER SECOND AMENDMENT CASE

For more, see this post at my new still-under-construction blog.

LATEST ON GUN CONTROL BILLS IN CONGRESS

For the latest on assault weapons control see this post at my new just-started blog. With regard to the prior post on this topic, like many I suspected that none of these current bills would pass, but that somewhere down the road, after the Nov. elections, no matter who is in the White House, we could, for better or worse see some new laws. Stay tuned

Sunday, June 19, 2016

Southern Baptists condemn Confederate Battle Flag

The S.B.C. apologized for its support of slavery and white supremacy many years ago. I thought the result below would be a long time in the future.

"The Southern Baptist Convention on Tuesday urged Christians to stop displaying the Confederate battle flag, recognizing that it is perceived by many as a "symbol of hatred, bigotry and racism" that offends millions of people."

One day, it will only be the Klan and white supremacists who display it. If you want to show support for Confederate soldiers, show the official Confederate flag. It hasn't been co-opted by white supremacists yet.

NEW GUN CONTROL LAW COMING?

Although it is difficult to predict what Congress will do, I predict we will see gun control aimed a 'assault weapons' and possible terrorists. Most of the focus has been on that issue and how to use the 'no fly' list or some analogue. Perhaps we will have a no-buy list. For background see this NYT aticle.

I say this because an unusual number of Republicans seem willing to consider new law, both major party candidates are in favor of doing something and, Democrats may pick up additional seats in both huses of Congress via Clinton's coattails. there's one more thing.

Texas' senior Republican Senator, John Cornyn, a conservative and tea party favorite has proposed one type of bill. His bill might not pass, but his stance may indicate change is near.

I am open to such legislation as long as Second Amendment, due process and privacy rights are protected. It's hard to say how that can be done at this point, but federal courts have upheld the no-fly list.

UPCOMING SUPREME COURT DECISION ON POLITICAL CORRUPTION, plus CITIZEN'S UNITED decision

"the Supreme Court is reconsidering the legal scope of official corruption in a case that began with a dietary supplement.

On its face, the case may seem straightforward: Did Bob McDonnell, the former governor of Virginia, personally gain by promoting the product while in office? In 2014, a federal jury concluded that he did.

The outcome of Mr. McDonnell’s appeal, which may be announced as early as this week, is being monitored by defense lawyers, particularly in New York, where the two former leaders of the State Legislature were granted reprieves in reporting to prison this summer pending the court’s decision this month.

Prosecutors argued that Mr. McDonnell violated the Hobbs Act by depriving Virginians of his “honest services” as governor. He and his wife, Maureen, were convicted on corruption charges for receiving an engraved silver Rolex, $120,000 in loans, a $20,000 shopping spree, $15,000 for a daughter’s wedding expenses, a $10,000 engagement check and other gifts from Jonnie R. Williams Sr., chief executive of the company that makes the supplement, a pill derived from tobacco plants that is intended to alleviate pain. In return, prosecutors said, Mr. McDonnell hosted a promotional party for the pill at the governor’s mansion and prodded state universities to help research the supplement’s benefits."

Were these 'gifts,' totaling thousands of dollars just friendly 'gifts'? A jury didn't believe it, and neither do I. If the Court allows McDonnell to get away with this, it will be a horrible decision. You think things are bad now?

On a related issues, as in this article, the left continues to harp about the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision. There are plenty of ways to buy votes that have existed for hundreds of years. Setting up PAC which benefits a candidate is one of a thousand ways to buy a candidate. It strains credibility to argue that Citizen's United has made a significant change in an already long-term fundamentally corrupt system. It's time to get serious about corruption. I guess complaining about Citizen's United is a good way to pretend to care about the problem.

WHAT DOES THE TEA PARTY STAND FOR?

What kind of laws are we likely to get or not get from tea party politicians? How many people who admire the tea party have ever bothered to look at what they say the stand for? Here's the link
http://www.teaparty.org/about-us/

Notice something important that is missing?

Here's their opening statement/preamble:

?The Tea Party is a grassroots movement that calls awareness to any issue which challenges the security, sovereignty, or domestic tranquility of our beloved nation, the United States of America. From our founding, the Tea Party represents the voice of the true owners of the United States: WE THE PEOPLE."

Hmmm! Nothing about individual rights. Very populist, definitely not libertarian.

Here's their core beliefs:

"15 Non-negotiable Core Beliefs

1. Illegal aliens are here illegally.
2. Pro-domestic employment is indispensable.
3. A strong military is essential.
4. Special interests must be eliminated.
5. Gun ownership is sacred.
6. Government must be downsized.
7. The national budget must be balanced.
8. Deficit spending must end.
9. Bailout and stimulus plans are illegal.
10. Reducing personal income taxes is a must.
11. Reducing business income taxes is mandatory.
12. Political offices must be available to average citizens.
13. Intrusive government must be stopped.
14. English as our core language is required.
15. Traditional family values are encouraged."

Other than supporting gun ownership and opposing intrusive government very little about individual rights.

Lots of good ideas, some so vague as to be meaningless (e.g."special interests must be eliminated.") lots of ideas that will be popular (reducing income taxes) but again, too little about individual rights. Is "protection of traditional family values" code for anti-LGBT and anti- same sex marriage or what? I guess reducing the size of government and taxes and some culture-wars issues are more important than individual freedoms. Doesn't seem to me that this organization has much to offer those who love liberty and libertarians.

The problem with government regulation

I know this will be hard for some people to swallow, but the problem is not the existence of the institution of government or the existence of government, esp. federal, regulation. The problem is the people who are passing the laws and administering the relevant agencies. It's easy for people to throw up their hands and throw the baby out with the bath water. Change takes informed voters, legislative changes, etc. Too many people are too busy worry about fixing things. The easy, lazy stupid solution is to just eliminate it all.

Never forget, however, regulation must conform to constitutional rights and basic principles of human dignity. None of these rights are, however, absolute.

Obviously, what we need are honest, ethical, intelligent leadership that is devoted to the Constitution and the public interest. Why don't we have that kind of leadership? There are lots of answers, but with regard to today's public, part of the problems is that too many people can't get their heads out of their smartphones and read newspapers. Reading newspapers alerts people to corruption, pending bills, scandals, etc. Too many folks, even before there was the internet, were stuck in their echo chamber.

Success depends upon an informed and motivated electorate. We seem to lack both in this country. Too many politicians are controlled by ideology and/or special interests. Special interests don't want regulation. It gets in their way of damaging the environment, ripping off an endangering the consumer, etc.
Getting stuck in a left- or right-wing echo chamber is a problem that also effects politicians.

Here's an example of a politician who appears to be obsessed with giving special interests a black check. "Full speed ahead, damn the public and their interests." http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/19/opinion/sunday/mr-ryans-plan-to-revert-regress-and-deregulate.html

Some good news from Congress--for a change.

"The Freedom of Information Act turns 50 years old next month, and just in time to celebrate, Congress has sent the president an update co-authored by Texas Sen. John Cornyn.
“A healthy democracy requires an open and transparent government, and this bill will help ensure all Americans have better access to their government,” said Cornyn, the deputy Republican leader, who teamed up with Vermont Democrat Patrick Leahy on the effort.
The White House said in March that President Barack Obama would sign the bill into law, and the Senate approved the measure that month. It cleared the House on a voice vote Monday."

NEW BOOK ON POLICING

New book on policing called Policing the Planet.

"Policing the planet

by Jordan T. Camp (Editor), Christina Heatherton (Editor)

really liked it 4.00 · Rating Details · 1 Rating · 1 Review

Policing has become one of the urgent issues of our time, the target of dramatic movements and front-page coverage from coast to coast in the United States, and, indeed, across the world. Now a star-studded, wide-ranging collection of writers and activists offers a global response, describing ongoing struggles over policing from New York to Ferguson to Los Angeles, as well as London, Rio de Janeiro, Johannesburg, and Mexico City.
This book, combining first-hand accounts from organizers with the research of eminent scholars and contributions by leading artists, traces the global rise of the "broken-windows" style of policing, first established in New York City under Police Commissioner Bill Bratton, a doctrine that has vastly increased and broadened police power and contributed to the contemporary crisis of policing that has been sparked by notorious incidents of police brutality and killings. With contributions from Black Lives Matter cofounder Patrisse Cullors, Ferguson activist and St. Louis University law professor Justin Hansford, scholars Vijay Prashad and Ruth Wilson Gilmore, Pakistani writer and politician Hamid Khan, and many more. (less)

Biography of Union General William T Sherman, Truth about the "March to the Sea"

Union General William Tecumseh Sherman is often portrayed as the father of scorched-earch warfare. However, as this book, like others, points out, he did not engage in that type of warfare.

Although "Union forces wreaked havoc on the towns in Sherman’s path, their actions do not add up to the apocalyptic barbarism that plays such a role in Lost Cause mythology."

"WILLIAM TECUMSEH SHERMAN :In the Service of My Country, a Life
By James Lee McDonough
Illustrated. 816 pp. W.W. Norton & Company. $39.95.

Most of all, he played a major and strategic role in the Civil War. In looking back at that conflict, Sherman uttered one of the most memorable phrases in American history — “War is all hell.”

Of course, his 1864 movement across central Georgia also is remembered by his name — Sherman’s march. Yet this most famous of his actions is probably his least understood, or perhaps most misrepresented. He did not conduct “total war.” Nor did he use violence indiscriminately. To the contrary, his march across Georgia and then into South Carolina was a targeted use of violence against wealthy Confederate die-hards in the rural South who had been largely untouched by the war. It was to these plantation owners that Sherman intended to bring “the hard hand of war,” and he did so with audacity and courage.

"But Sherman had studied the 1860 census data, McDonough notes, and so he knew where the biggest and richest farms lay in Georgia. In many places [during his "march to the sea"] his soldiers feasted on ham, bacon, chicken and corn. His march was most of all a political effort, designed to show Southerners that those who were with the Union would be untouched, and those who persisted in opposing it would suffer. In areas where his troops were “unmolested,” he stated in an order issued on Nov. 9, 1864, as the march began, no property would be destroyed. But when resistance was encountered, he continued, his forces should react with “a devastation more or less relentless according to the measure of such hostility.” The campaign from Atlanta to the Atlantic actually involved very few battles or casualties. In fact, of about 60,000 troops, only 103 were killed in combat. Yet the campaign had a devastating effect on the South’s determination to continue fighting.

If only our generals today were as astute."

Saturday, June 11, 2016

OUTRAGEOUS SECOND AMENDMENT DECISION

From The American Thinker:
"Background
The case involves a challenge to California's concealed carry laws. When the case was brought, California law permitted unloaded open carry, but during the pendency of the case, that right was lost to the people of California. Therefore, California law now almost completely prevents ordinary people from carrying firearms in public – with the exception of a favored few categories of persons. The plaintiffs sued the San Diego County sheriff, challenging the state's "good cause" requirement to obtain a concealed carry license, which, as interpreted by San Diego, requires some very special threat of harm to the applicant."

[Making the exercise of a fundamental constitutional right subject to individual official's discretion with vague standards is contrary to the rule of law. An anti-gun, authoritarian sheriff can cut off people's Second Amendment rights. Of course, big campaign donors and other connected persons will bet permits without any problem. How many people can afford to sue and pay for a case that the state will drag out for years? The Amendment specifically protects "bearing arms" for lawful purposes and applies against the states. The right to carry is not absolute, but it cannot lawfully be gutted ]
']

"Ninth Circuit En Banc Decision [Peruta v. County of San Diego.
On June 9, 2016, the Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, ruled 11 to 3 that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms does not apply to any law governing the concealed carry of any protected firearm in public. Accordingly, any law, ranging from an absolute prohibition on concealed carry to the requirement of "good cause" currently in the law – however defined and administered, and whatever exceptions to it there may be – is completely outside the Second Amendment. In short, with respect to rules governing concealed carry of protected firearms, for self-defense or any other purpose, the civil authorities may do as they please. Apparently, while there may be constitutional limits to the regulation of concealed firearms in public, they would not be found in the Second Amendment.
How did the Court reach this conclusion? Easy. The judges ignored the text of the Second Amendment, relying solely upon a single dictum in Heller, and a misuse of the dictum at that. The dictum stated:

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose[.] ... For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues.

From this starting point, the en banc Ninth Circuit – beginning with the year 1299 – plowed through numerous English monarchical and parliamentary practices against armed men going around in public without a license from the king, concluding from this historical survey that in merry old England, "carrying concealed firearms in public was not allowed by law" (emphasis added). Capping this historical lesson on arms-bearing, the Court cited the 1689 English Bill of Rights, which declared that "the [English] subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions, and as allowed by law."
Then, in a judicial tour de force, the Ninth Circuit jumped back on Heller, this time to establish that the English Bill of Rights has "long been understood to be the predecessor to our Second Amendment." Wrenching that Heller statement wholly out of context, the Ninth Circuit then announced that "[t]o the degree that the English Bill of Rights is an interpretive guide to our Second Amendment, the critical question is the meaning of the phrase 'as allowed by law.'" Applying this phrase from the 17th-century English Bill of Rights to the 18th-century American Bill of Rights, the Ninth Circuit stated:

[W]ith respect to the case now before us, the specific question is whether the arms that are "allowed by law" – that is, the arms Protestants had the right to bear – included concealed firearms. The history just recounted demonstrates that carrying concealed firearms in public was not "allowed by law." Not only was it generally prohibited by the statute of Northampton, but it was specifically forbidden by the statute enacted under Henry VIII, and by later proclamations of Elizabeth I and James I.

According to the en banc Ninth Circuit, then, 21st-century American people have no more rights than the 17th-century English Protestants, even though the English Bill of Rights provides only that the king's subjects "may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions, and as allowed by law," whereas the Second Amendment broadly proclaims that "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Not once did the Ninth Circuit respect the Second Amendment's distinctly unique text. Yet that text, as originally understood, is the very foundation upon which Heller rests. Had the Ninth Circuit submitted to the Second Amendment text, it could not have concluded, as it did, that laws governing concealed firearms are per se outside the protective shield of the Second Amendment. After all, unlike the text of the 1689 English Bill of Rights, which extends protection only to "hav[ing] arms for defense," which could be satisfied by laws that protect possession of firearms, the Second Amendment extends to "keep[ing] and bear[ing] arms," which secures not only the possession of arms, but also the use of them. There is, then, no basis whatsoever for the Ninth Circuit en banc ruling – that a certain use (concealed carry) is completely outside the protective shield of a right to both keep and bear firearms.
As the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Heller, "[a]t the time of the founding, as now, to 'bear' means to 'carry.'" It is the job of courts to interpret the language of the Constitution, not to ignore it. But the en banc Ninth Circuit failed in that elementary task. Its opinion is illegitimate under the Supreme Court's Heller and McDonald decisions, and as a matter of constitutional law.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/06/peruta_v_county_of_san_diego_ninth_circuit_ignores_second_amendment_to_uphold_ban_on_concealed_carry.html#ixzz4BHkf6AtE
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

TIME TO GET SERIOUS ABOUT BUSINESS REGULATION

Anarcho-capitalists and too many libertarians and tea-partiers in this county want to give business a carte blanche. Apparently, these folks don't read the newspapers or are beneficiaries. This includes freedom to pollute the environment, sell knowingly dangerous products (e.g. autos with defective ignition switches, dangerous, airbags), sell disease-carrying food, defraud consumers, etc. Insider trading and white-collar crime are rampant. Caveat emptor is an excuse for all sorts of illegal and unethical conduct. Corporate America and ethically challenged business people love these ideologues and politicians. The try to block and repeal reform. Anything which interferes with the ability to make easy money at huge social and economic costs is resisted. Efforts are underway to undercut regulation attempting to reign-in too-big-to-fail banks and wall street giants. Here's just one example.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/11/opinion/isnt-honesty-the-best-policy.html
Here's 10 more examples.
http://www.criminaljusticeusa.com/blog/2011/10-white-collar-crime-cases-that-made-headlines/

Free markets don't always result in the best economic result.

“Markets are at the center of every successful economy. But unfettered markets often do not serve society well. Over the past 200 years, economic theory and historical experience have shown that financial markets often fail to perform their essential functions of managing risk and allocating capital well, with disastrous social and economic consequences.”— Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz" [I strongly recommend you look at the entire linked article. http://www.bizjournals.com/bizjournals/how-to/growth-strategies/2016/03/is-government-regulation-really-bad-for-business.html

Yes, businesses and corporations have rights, but no right is absolute.

Yes, there's lots of bad regulation. Much of it is deigned to stifle lawful competition. Many agencies have been captured by the entities they are supposed to be regulating. We need honest regulators and rational regulation that will both protect the public and not place economically harmful restrictions on business. There's no need to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Ala. House Speaker and Admiral Convicted.

Corruption at all levels public and private is all too prevalent in this country.
Don't bet me wrong, we're not as bad as Mexico or most of the world, but it is outrageous and depressing. If you don't read the newspapers you probably aren't aware of how bad things are in this country at all levels of government and all types of businesses. Here's two recent examples--the Speaker of the Alabama House of Representatives and a Navy Admiral.

CONIVICTIONS IN RIKERS ISLAND JAIL CULTURE OF VIOLENCE SCANDAL

According to the New York Times:

"A retired New York City correction captain was convicted Friday of all charges for ordering the brutal beating of an inmate at Rikers Island in 2012.

The retired captain, Gerald Vaughn, was found guilty of first-degree attempted gang assault, the most serious offense, in a case that helped expose a pervasive culture of violence at Rikers. He was also convicted of other charges, including attempted assault, assault and official misconduct.

The verdict was delivered Friday morning by Justice Steven Barrett in State Supreme Court in the Bronx. Justice Barrett also convicted two other correction officers, Harmon Frierson and Dwayne Maynard, who were not directly involved in the beating, of official misconduct, but acquitted them on two other charges.

The three defendants are part of a group of nine current and former Rikers correction officers who were tried together in connection with the beating of the inmate, Jahmal Lightfoot, and an effort to cover it up. The other officers chose a jury trial, and on Tuesday, five of those officers were convicted of the attempted gang assault and other charges. Another officer was acquitted in the cover-up."

This pervasive culture of violence and corruption undoubtedly exists at many, but not all, correctional institutions. Many correctional institutions are the dark underworld of criminal justice. There is practically no transparency, and little or no public or media interest. No private citizen videos to expose what's going on. Putting bandaids on cancer only provides the appearance of cure and caring. These subcultures must be addressed and wiped out.

Thursday, June 02, 2016

Mandatory smart-gun safety features and California law

"The case of Pena v. Lindley concerns whether or not California statutory law can force manufacturers to adopt two new additional safety measures: a technological safety that will keep the gun from firing a round already loaded in the chamber if the magazine has been ejected, and a safety that indicates a loaded chamber. At least, this is the issue currently being debated now.The district court already ruled in favor of government regulation by declaring that the law was not a violation of the second Amendment. Since the petitioning of review, the landscape of gun-safety debate has only gotten more vitriolic -- and potentially profitable. The broader issue involves whether or not gun manufacturers must be required to develop safety measures to make guns safer. Some of this new tech includes RF technology, pressure sensitive handles, and user ID gadgetry -- all designed to make the gun specific to a single person. - See more at: http://blogs.findlaw.com/california_case_law/2016/05/are-smart-gun-mandates-coming-to-california.html?DCMP=NWL-pro_top&mc_cid=978dbe812f&mc_eid=db7ca96ab7#sthash.hOZNPhW6.dpuf

Study of Supreme Court Justice's bitter dissents

Interesting research on "bitter" dissenting opinions for the U.S. Supreme Court. Thomas appears to be the most isolated/extreme Justice ideologically. "One way to analyze this cohesion [or lack thereof] is by looking at the opposite; that is, self-identified marginalization of the Justices. This post looks at dissents over the last two Terms that attack or harshly criticize the Court’s majority in that case."

Good Article on Supreme Court decision on race-based jury selection

Article on U.S. Supreme Court decision (Foster v. Chatman) on race-based jury selection. The case provides a good look at what is really going on a lot of places in this country. Excellent decision. Only J. Thomas dissented. He is really way out in right field all by himself. However, prosecutors will now be extra careful to cover up and this case may not, in itself, have a big impact.

Good study on freedom of speech and hate speech from the Cato Institute.

Crime, Law and Justice