Archive for the ‘Law’ Category
Become a judge, have your soul excised, and send a man with an IQ of 47 to prison:
For more than six hours Tuesday, as a parade of witnesses testified about the severity of Aaron Hart’s mental retardation and his inability to understand his legal rights, the 18-year-old defendant with an IQ of 47 sat silent and shackled in a chair, alternately fidgeting and making faces.
But in the end, none of it was enough to persuade a judge in this small east Texas town to reconsider the 100-year prison sentence he gave Hart in February after Hart pleaded guilty to molesting a 6-year-old boy.
Here’s an indication of what an IQ of 47 really means:
Under 70 - Definite feeble-mindedness
99.5% of IQ scores fall between 60 and 140
Eric Clifford, you’re a fucking liar:
Clifford, who last week said he had agonized over the case, took only a few seconds to issue his ruling.
Hart’s parents say he has been raped repeatedly by other inmates since he was first arrested last September.
Drop dead, Clifford. You took the coward’s path: you used the “law” as a substitute for rational thought, at the expense of a small child in an adult body.
Spend a day in Aaron’s place. I dare you.
More cannibals on parade:
The best way to change the system, then, is to stick your fingers in your ear and scream “IM NOT VOTING”
A very mature political system blooming in your utopia, for sure.
My response, in its entirety, because I’ve been following this prolific cannibal for some years now:
It’s amazing the presumptions that can be fit into a single sentence.
When did you stop having intercourse with livestock?
You’re screeching that I’m ignoring reality, when, in fact, you’re the ostrich plowing your head into the sand. What are you afraid of? I’ve been dragging you around here by your eyeballs for some time now, and all you’ve managed to do is be another data point demonstrating that a person can be shown concepts but can’t be made to think.
You’re also assuming that I want to change “the system”. All I want from “the system” is for it to remove the muzzle of its gun from my back and let me go about my life without duress. I don’t care if “the system” continues apace, slowly withers, or inevitably blossoms into an orgy of cannibalism, as long as you and your fellow votistas leave me and my life the hell out of it.
Perhaps the dumbest assumption you’re making is that I aspire to some utopia. I don’t. Humans are fallible. Anything humans do will have flaws, however, when those flaws are instituted as centralized process and “law”, there is no escape. On the other hand, when those flaws are part of decentralized associations, they victimize many fewer people.
I would never presume to make decisions about your life. That’s part of why I don’t vote. I don’t know what’s best for you. Why would you do that to me? You have no way of knowing what’s best for me. Do you have the balls to make me comply with your decisions about my life in person?
Would you dare attempt to make me comply with your preferences for my life, face to face? There is only one answer to that question, and that answer defines you as human or cannibal.
As usual, I expect he’ll go out like a light
Many thanks to Billy, for much of the ammo to use against such creatures.
I’ve been saying it for many years: legal does not equal right. This lovely specimen comes from Lawrence Taylor:
In other words, although the crime is having .08% alcohol in the blood,?you can?t offer evidence about the amount of alcohol actually in the blood!
The California Supreme Court imagines it can alter the laws of physics and chemistry with its ridiculous opinion.
Dear Chief Gust, Captain Gavin, Lieutenant yyyyy, and Mayor Paletko,
I appreciate your timely response to my complaint about officer xxxxx.
There are a few items in the response that conscience compels me to address.
First, regarding the conclusion that I exercised poor judgment: surely the city attorney has informed the police department that anyone who is in a public place, including law enforcement officers, may be photographed without their consent. There is no legal requirement to request permission to photograph people in public places. There is also no legal requirement to take photographs while stationary.
The response appeals to emotion by asking me to imagine a stranger taking pictures of my wife and children in front of my house. Consider that hypothetical scenario. I would have very limited recourse if that happened. I would certainly not be justified if I were to pursue and stop that person. If I requested assistance from my local police department, I would be informed that they could do nothing about such an incident, because anyone in a public place may photographed. Celebrities constantly being photographed by paparazzi live with this fact every day. Officer xxxxx had no justification to pursue and stop me because I photographed him or his patrol vehicle.
Second, the response implies that I drove away quickly after photographing officer xxxxx. That is not true. I drove through the parking lot at a safe and reasonable speed appropriate for a parking lot, and joined traffic on Pelham at a safe and legal speed. The implication that I drove quickly away is not true.
Third, it appears I wasn’t entirely clear in my first note: I absolutely dispute officer xxxxx’s claim that I was speeding. As law enforcement officers, you must surely be aware that vehicle speedometers are not entirely precise. Surely you are also aware that federal regulations mandate that vehicle speedometers must be accurate to plus or minus 5 mph at a speed of 50 mph. Officer xxxxx claims I was traveling at 3 mph over the speed limit. That is much less than the 5 mph tolerance mandated by federal law. I cannot be held responsible for the manufacturing tolerance of speedometers produced by car companies. If my speedometer reads 1.5 mph low, and officer xxxxx’s reads 1.5 mph high, it would appear that I was traveling 3 mph over the speed limit, when in fact, I was was not.
What this means is that officer xxxxx used speeding as a pretense to wrongfully stop me. If I was actually speeding, he would have issued me a citation.
I believe Officer xxxxx would not have stopped me if I had not taken his photograph. That means: he stopped me because I took his photograph. That is clearly inappropriate.
Fourth, officer xxxxx ordered me to show him the photograph stored in my cell phone. I believe he should have had a search warrant before ordering me to show him the photograph. I showed him the photo out of fear of being further wrongfully detained.
Fifth, the response does not address the fact that officer xxxxx (and others) have routinely, and for many years, squandered precious Dearborn Heights tax dollars by lounging around that 7-Eleven store, reading newspapers and magazines while they leave city vehicles burning expensive city gas in the parking lot.
Blame for this incident is being placed entirely on me. If there was poor judgment involved in this incident, it was certainly not entirely on my part. Officer xxxxx clearly exercised poor judgment by ignoring the fact that photography in public places is a legitimate activity, by using speeding as a pretense to stop me, and by wrongfully searching my cell phone. As I mentioned in my original note, such poor judgment demonstrates that he may be a potential liability for the Dearborn Heights Police Department, and the city.
I didn’t bother to include any requests in that note to the DHPD. Anything they’d send back would just blame me again.
It’s obvious to me, and should be to anyone with even a shred of objectivity, that the cop stopped me because I took his picture. His claim that I was speeding was a pathetic excuse to stop me, and his demand that I show him the photo was a blatant warrantless search.
I received a response from the Dearborn Heights Police Department after my complaint about one of their officers stopping me for taking a picture of him and his patrol car. They sent it to me via email on Friday, March 21st, though the letter is dated March 18th.
I’ve been thinking about whether or not to pursue this any more, and haven’t yet decided what to do. I doubt the DHPD is going to change its ways, even if I were to hire an attorney and sue them for some thing or other. At this point, I really don’t want to spend a lot of time or money on this, however, at a minimum, I do want to make sure it’s documented in detail so I have a record of it, and maybe it will help the next person who’s wrongfully stopped by the officer.
Here’s the text of the response I received. It places blame squarely on me:
March 18, 2008
I have been assigned to investigate your compliant against Officer xxxxx for his actions on March 13, 2008. I have read your complaint and interviewed Officer xxxxx. Your letter, as well as Officer xxxxx?s version of the incident, are virtually the same. After considering the facts, I have come to the following conclusion:
I feel that you exercised poor judgment in the manner in which you took Officer xxxxx?s photograph. A simple courteous request prior to the photographing would have been proper. Without knowing your intent, you created anxiety, fear, and uncertainty in the officer?s mind. I ask that you put yourself in the officer?s shoes. I don?t know your family situation, but how would you feel if a stranger took a photo of your wife or children in front of your house and then quickly drove away. I am sure that would be upsetting to you and your family without knowing the intentions, good or bad, of the stranger.
Also, the speed limit on Pelham is 40 mph. Officer xxxxx stated that you were speeding. You don?t dispute that. The traffic stop was lawful. It was reasonable for Officer xxxxx to ask you about the nature of the photograph during the stop, and advising you to ask permission in the future.
In regards to your 10 enumerated requests. I will address them briefly.
1. Officer xxxxx will not be apologizing to you.
2. Officer xxxxx will not be disciplined in this matter
3. The Officer?s name has been addressed
4. Refer to number #2. Nor do we make it a policy to disclose discipline meted out to complainants.
5. The city attorney was consulted in this matter.
6. No such document exists.
7. The Dearborn Heights Police Department does not have a policy on the photographing of its Officers. Nor do we plan on implementing one.
8. This complaint is not sustained
9. A video tape may be available if you still wish to acquire it. A FOIA request is necessary. You may do that at DHPD Records Bureau.
10. I can assure you that Officer xxxxx will not retaliate against you because of this incident.
Via Lifehacker, the Ten Legal Commandments of Photography are very timely, considering my recent encounter with a cop who objected to my photographing his? patrol car in a 7-Eleven parking lot. This portion is especially relevant:
VI. The following can almost always be photographed from public places, despite popular opinion:
- accident & fire scenes, criminal activities
- bridges & other infrastructure, transportation facilities (i.e. airports)
- industrial facilities, Superfund sites
- public utilities, residential & commercial buildings
- children, celebrities, law enforcement officers
The article at Photojojo references Oregon attorney Bert P. Krages, but I can’t imagine that laws governing photography in public places is much, or at all, different here in Michigan.