MTV whiffs on the importance of symbolism.
And the men of the world collectively sigh, “Great. Another excuse.”
The Supreme Court will decide in the spring if a sentence of life without parole for juveniles in non-homicide cases is cruel and unusual punishment. But over at Slate, Amy Bach makes a convincing argument that the Court won’t be considering the more critical issue in the case of Joe Williams, the kid who brought the challenge: whether he got a fair trial in the first place.
I could probably fill this entire blog with nothing but content from Maricopa County, Arizona.
Memphis officials accidentally tear down the wrong house. Of course, the city insists that all of the proper “procedures were followed.”
This entry was posted
on Friday, November 6th, 2009 at 10:33 am by Radley Balko
and is filed under General Criminal Justice, Police Professionalism.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
TheAgitator.com
Note that they tore down the right house. The problem is that the house no longer needed to be torn down as someone had bought it and fixed it up.
Minor update on the Ayers case:
http://www.thenortheastgeorgian.com/articles/2009/11/06/news/top_stories/01topstory.txt
The DA seems to be a good guy in this case, and has asked Ayer’s family if they want him to recuse himself. A nice gesture. Regardless of that, he’s got a couple of other DAs who will help with the grand jury even if he handles the case. He seems to want this to be fair.
Well the men of the world will just have to deal. Only in a world where far too many people think that they are entitled to sex from their partners is it ever necessary for anybody to make an “excuse”.
Everyone should quit that f-ing coutry club.
And those cops are dicks.
Speaking of Maricopa Co. (who brought you DHS Uber Reich Fuerer Janet Napolitano) today’s news brings the excuse of the deputy who rifled through a defense lawyer’s case file looking for evidence against her client to share with the prosecutor in a court room while the defendenat was on trial:
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/11/06/20091106mcsocourtdocs1106.html
Agreed #3. No one is entitled to sex from their partner. But partners who continuously hold out shouldn’t feel entitled to monogamy. Or the house and kids.
Simple Justice has a better version:
http://blog.simplejustice.us/2009/11/06/just-a-diligent-kinda-officer.aspx
I just love how the cops cited the old man for trespassing. I can picture the defense’s cross exam now:
“Was he a member?”
“Well, yes. But he didn’t have his original card!”
“But was he a member?”
“Well, yes”.
“Defense rests, your honor”.
I swear to god, I don’t understand how people get into such a bureaucratic mindset that form matters far more than function. As an ALJ, I often get into it with the department I decide hearings for, who often try to get as pedantic as possible in order to justify something unreasonable. I had an official swear to me up and down that they couldn’t accept a verification of income because the other side had signed it on the wrong line. Not that there was anything doubtable about the verification. Just that they signed it on the wrong line. I rolled my eyes, yelled at the official for wasting my time, and reversed.
Some people get this weird idea that form matters far more than function, when the law *does not* require that. That’s what happened here…some idiot clerk, who fashioned themselves an expert, somehow decided that a photocopy just wasn’t good enough, you know, legally speaking. Idiots. All of them.
Oh, and screw Maricopa county.
MDGuy, there’s more to contribute to a marriage than sex. Your point about monogamy is reasonable. Property and kids are a larger and more complicated issue.
You’re right Nancy, it is a more complicated issue. I guess I just let some situations I’ve witnessed color my comment in a way that’s unfair and overly-simplistic.
Nancy Lebovitz and MDGuy:
For your enjoyment, I will screw up a Ron White bit:
“When two people get married, they usually do it at a point in the relationship when they’re having a lot of sex. So you they “I’ll only have sex with you, ever.” Ever. Well, when one of those people decides to stop having sex altogether, that puts you in quite a pickle! You can’t go and not have sex with me, I’ll go and have sex with somebody else. I know, I’ve see me do it. I’m a pretty good dog, but you have to scratch my ear every once in a while to keep me under the porch.”
Ignore my ridiculous typographical errors. My coffee is wearing off.
If Sheriff Joe Arpaio would finally catch them Dukes, we wouldn’t have to hear all of these bizarre stories out of Hazzard County.
There actually *is* a reason you would want someone to bring their original card – with a copy two or more people can potentially get in for the price of one. You’d think, though, that a place like that should know who their members are and be able to pay for good enough staff to make wise choices in a case like this. The club’s followup on this seems to indicate that the management is too stupid to do the right thing and apologize and try to make up. It goes without saying that the deputies were over the top, but we expect that in Maricopa County.
Every gym I’ve been a member of in the last ten or fifteen years has had a membership program than stores, among other things, a picture of my ugly mug so they can check if you’re trying to use someone else’s card. This is pretty basic stuff for any sort of decent-sized club like that.
It goes without saying that if I watched an 80 year old man get the shit kicked out of him by a cop for something like this that it’s morally sound for some of the younger men in the room to use their fists to teach the cop to respect his elders.
Every gym I’ve been a member of not only took a picture, but they also hired competent staff who recognized me when I came in. You’d think if the local gym could afford competent staff, the freaking country club also could.
Regarding sperm allergy . . .
Native Americans used to chew and swallow small bits of poison ivy in the spring in order to desensitize them to poison ivy (which is an allergic reaction). It takes advantage of the fact that eating introduces all sorts of “foreign proteins” into the body, and as part of processing them, the digestive tract thereby lessens the sensitivity.
So, back to the sperm allergy. I have a suggestion for the ladies . . .
If the police and the state consider a photocopy to not be valid form of ID, does this mean that the computer transcribed photocopy of one’s signature on a driver’s license negates the state’s claim that one has violated the “contract” (driving laws) when they receive a citation.
It is a photocopy of the signature.
Every contract that is considered valid must possess the original signature, not a copy.
Jesus Pavlov, over-fucking-react why don’t you.
Anyone else find it kind of bizarre that the sperm article seemed to focus solely on how it makes getting pregnant hard, as though pregnancy is the only reason a women would possibly want to have sex with her husband?
How unfortunate that these comments (and ratings) reveal the ugly truth about many libertarians – it’s a He-Man Women Hater’s Club in here.
It’s also unfortunate that it reveals how a few of the readers can’t take a joke. Geez.
Stormy Dragon “Anyone else find it kind of bizarre that the sperm article seemed to focus solely on how it makes getting pregnant hard, as though pregnancy is the only reason a women would possibly want to have sex with her husband?”
Unfortunately I think a lot of women see a having husband as a means to an end rather than an end in itself.
“it’s a He-Man Women Hater’s Club in here.”
I’ll be a “He-Man Women Hater” until there are equal number of men and women filing for divorce. Right now it’s more than 2-1 in favor of women. It is pretty obvious that marriage and divorce favor women.
How unfortunate that these comments (and ratings) reveal the ugly truth about many libertarians – it’s a He-Man Women Hater’s Club in here.
Yes, liking sex equals hating women. And this phenomenon is unique to libertarians.
RE: The cops wrestling the 80-year-old men. I could only wish that something similar could happen to them when they were in their eighties.
Of course, an all-donut diet does decrease their chances of living that long.
Re: Sex: Well if you take the sex away what’s the incentive? Take away sex and I would be married to my best buddy who likes Frank Zappa, golf, fishing, drinking beer, the three stooges and watching football all without the hassle of lifting the damn toilet seat and then putting it down when done…sheeesh. No brainer.
Yeah..before you all get your panties in a bunch…I’m JOKING so grow a sense of humor : )
#28 | ZappaCrappa |
I know you are joking but there is an uncomfortable amount of truth in the joke.
I would far rather have a fishing buddy for a room mate than a wife who has started trying to use sex to control me. When your wife turns away from you, there is no worse creature to have around.
So, back to the sperm allergy. I have a suggestion for the ladies . . .
This actually works. Women who have oral sex with their partners are less likely to develop pre-eclampsia, at least if they swallow. (Nobody knows what really causes pre-eclampsia; immune rejection is one theory.) See Journal of Reproductive Immunology, 2000, 46:155.
“I could probably fill this entire blog with nothing but content from Maricopa County, Arizona.”
I swear I originally read the word “content” as “contempt.”
Much better my way, I think.
#16 | Mike T — “It goes without saying that if I watched an 80 year old man get the shit kicked out of him by a cop for something like this that it’s morally sound for some of the younger men in the room to use their fists to teach the cop to respect his elders.”
Return of Internet Tough Guy™!!!
Let’s take stock. So far in the thread:
A person expressing the idea that a woman should not have to have an “excuse” not to have sex with her partner — voted -12 by last count.
Obligatory and irrelevant jab about women taking “the house and kids” when guilty of withholding sex.
Serious medical issue? Fellatio joke.
“Unfortunately I think a lot of women see a having husband as a means to an end rather than an end in itself.”
And the ‘ole “women are horrible because they use sex to control me” and “if I could fuck my best friend I’d have no use for a woman.”
That’s right. No He-Man Woman Hater’s Club here! Jes’ a bunch of guys, foolin’ around!
#25
That doesn’t make any sense. If you want to argue that something favors women, it behooves you to make an actual argument. The mere fact that women file for divorce more often than men doesn’t, in and of itself, mean anything.
#34
My take is that women are far more eager to file for divorce because they know they will win. They will get the children and a big chunk of his money.
The fact that this is so leads to the dreaded “do/don’t do X or I’ll divorce you” mentality.
My theory is that if divorce were equally bad for both women and men, you would see a lot less divorce and the ratio would be a lot closer to 1-1.
The current family court system is enough to turn any man that has been through it into a woman hater.
My take is that women are far more eager to file for divorce because they know they will win.
How is this more plausible than that men are simply harder to live with?
“How is this more plausible than that men are simply harder to live with?”
Money is one answer. Another is that I have lived with both men and women in a room mate situation (not sexual) and the guys were much easier to live with.
I think what 21 (and everyone arguing about it being an “excuse”) is missing is that she wouldn’t have a problem if they didn’t want to get pregnant. She can still have sex, she just can’t come in contact with his semen. So they can have all the sex they want, just with condoms – hence the focus on not being able to get pregnant. This is a situation tailor-made for IVF, but sadly they’re Catholic which doesn’t allow fertility procedures.
Sexless marriages are certainly a problem, but that’s not (necessarily) what this is. It’s a conception-less marriage.
Stormy Dragon, another angle:
Within half an hour or so after unprotected intercourse, an allergic woman may develop hives, swollen eyes, diarrhea and even breathing difficulties, says Dr. David Resnick, director of allergy at New York-Presbyterian Hospital Columbia.
Though the consequences can be devastating for a woman trying to become pregnant, it’s a treatable condition
Getting that sick isn’t serious?
ClubMedSux:Yes, liking sex equals hating women.
The issue isn’t about liking sex. It’s about detaching sex from whether or not the woman wants to do it.
“Excuse” is dominance language. It implies that the person making the excuse couldn’t possibly have a good reason for not doing what you want.
As for the guys who can only imagine manipulation as a reason for their wives not wanting sex with them, I will note that you chose her, and you may not have been paying attention to her ethics. Also, there may be something about how you’ve treated her which has something to do with whether she wants sex with you. Or (see above) she might be getting sick from sex. Your lack of empathy doesn’t make you attractive.
And I do mean “may”. She might just be manipulative, but if you can only imagine the scenario in which you’re entirely in the right, I don’t trust you.
The case in the Slate article is eerily similar to the case of Darrian Bryant in Georgia. In both cases it seems likely that direct DNA evidence of the rape was not divulged by the prosecutor, not requested by the defense and perhaps even destroyed.
#35
Like I said – it’s an interesting theory, but you actually have to have an argument and evidence to back it up. Divorce may in fact be _better_ for women (who are stuck in bad marriages) without the divorce process being _biased_ in favor of women.
Having worked in the family law system, I can tell you exactly why so many more women have custody of their children than men – the men give them up voluntarily. The vast majority of divorces are uncontested, and in the overwhelming majority of those, men consent to let their wives be the custodial parent.
It’s true that in those cases where the parties contest custody, women often, but not always, win out. But there are actually good reasons why this is the case. Women are more likely to have been the primary caretaker of the children while the parties were married. Studies indicate this is true generally, and courts are more likely to give custody to the primary caretaker during the marriage. Additionally, women are more likely to either stay at home with the children, or have jobs (like teachers) where they have significant amounts of time off, or are considered more flexible (secretaries vs. lawyers, for example). When the Courts consider the best interest of the children, they always look to who has cared for them in the past, and who is going to have the time and flexibility to offer them the most direct care in the future – and more often than not, it’s women.
#41
The reason my divorce was “uncontested” was that it was obvious that I was going to lose any fight. I had to bite my tongue and try to nickel and dime stuff around the edges to get as much time as possible with my son. I actually get more time with my son now than lots of other guys I have seen fight it out with lawyers.
If there had been any hope of winning, I most certainly would have “contested”.
I bet you are counting many men like me as having given up their kids “voluntarily”.
Just because she couldn’t hold a job more than 6 months and thus ended up being around my son more than I was because I was keeping everything going with the job I had held for more than 12 yrs does not really mean she cared more for my son than I did.
The only way I will ever get married again is if I get to stay home with the kids while she goes out and makes the money. Then if I don’t like something, I will have the divorce power.
#42
You didn’t even fight it, so you have nothing to complain about. What can I tell ya?
I took the pragmatic approach and got what I could. Which was more than I would have gotten if I had fought. If all I had to lose was money, I would have fought. Taking the chance with time with my son was too much especially when I had multiple lawyers telling me that it was hopeless.
One other thing, in less than 3 yrs, my son will have some legal standing in deciding where he wants to live. Lets see how she handles a teenage son with the power to take away her child support money and actually make her have to pay some.
Let me tell you, my husband is happy I’m allergic to latex and not sperm.
Anyway, I’ve never figured out why so many men and women on the internet think marriage favors women while feminists think it favors men. It has favored men historically, but I have no idea about today. More women seem to care about/want marriage, but women want a lot of things that aren’t the best for them.
Being married to a guy who likes so many of the same things I do (including Frank Zappa) and is the best roommate ever, I have no dogs in any fight.
Hi megs,
If I had married a woman like you, I probably would feel a lot different about women.
Color me unsurprised.
Nobody will be. As an elected government official you should realize that by now.
#44
Nobody disputes that you took the “pragmatic approach,” but your cost-benefit analysis is undoubtedly skewed by the fact that you have feelings about things that cannot be substantiated by any evidence presented. You pretend to have been victimized by a system, but you agreed to everything. Obviously, you believe things would have been worse if you had contested, but the evidence for your claim is nonexistant. It’s a matter of belief that’s impervious to fact.
“It’s a matter of belief that’s impervious to fact.”
Aren’t you supposed to listen to your lawyers? I even went for a second opinion.
And impervious to just what facts exactly?
#49
Facts – meaning, evidence to support your position. You might not have gotten custody if you’d challenged it, as you’ve all but conceded you were not the primary caretaker and would not have been most available to spend time with your child(ren). But where’s the evidence of bias?
Not too long ago a friend and I were getting drunk and one thing led to another until he starting telling me the saga of his parent’s divorce, which to that point I had no knowledge of, other than they weren’t together anymore. He didn’t say what precipitated the divorce but what he described is definitely one example of the husband getting totally shafted by the courts.
Basically, during the divorce proceedings, his mom accused his dad of molesting the kids. Without any prior complaints on his record or investigation into the accusation (not even to the point of asking the kids; everything was kept from them) the courts decided that he couldn’t see his kids anymore. He didn’t see them for five years until somehow or another, someone at the court started to realize that the accusations were complete shit (can’t really remember how this happened, but his dad was certainly one of the lucky ones). Even after my friend’s dad was allowed to see the kids again, my friend (as the oldest and as a male, I guess) was required by the courts to be present whenever his father was with his sisters. He didn’t understand why until years later. During the five years they were under custody of the mother, she would routinely leave them alone, sometimes for weeks at a time; as a 14-year-old my friend had to take care of his two sisters with nothing but the money he earned from his part-time pool job. He thought she was screwing her divorce lawyer but he wasn’t sure.
His dad eventually regained custody and was even awarded the child-support he’d given over the years back from the mother (since she didn’t spend any of it on the kids) but he still hasn’t gotten it from her. I don’t think he’s pursuing it.
Obviously this is only one story and I’m sure there are multitudes of horror-stories from women who’ve been fucked over one way or another, but this story has bothered me ever since I heard it because of the way his dad was literally punished for a crime he didn’t commit, without ever receiving any kind of due process of law, not even an investigation, much less a trial.
“I could probably fill this entire blog with nothing but content from Maricopa County, Arizona.”
You so could. Throw in an occasional choice tidbit from Philly, NY, DC and the more repugnant parts of the south- of which there are many- and you got a full plate.
BTW, Maricopa county can be best summed up by this convo
“So what’s Tempe like?”
“Oh its the center of the Universe.”
“What’s there?”
“Nothing.”
That sounds about par for the course for men in the US family court system.
For the first 13 years of her life I raised my youngest daughter without no child support. I asked the court but the judge told my attorny “off the record” that if he forced to order the mother to pay child support he would order monthly visitation across country 100% at my expense to give the money back to her.
The judge then ordered me to pay for visitation 100% (airfare cross country), including paying her mother $100 to pick her up at the airport each time. This was twice a year.
So for 13 years I bore 100% of child expenses and the mothers visitation with 0 support.
Fast forward to now, and the same court is ordering me to pay the mother over 30% of my gross monthly income to that same mother now that our daughter is with her, and any visitation is still at my expense 100%.
There’s justice for men in America for you.
reading/hearing women speak in defense of a family court/”justice” system that’s tilted *wildly* in their favor is kinds like listening to NY yankee fans defend the system that allows them to buy world championships on a regular basis. especially when they note the (occasional, but rare) instances in which a man comes out ahead in court or not-the-yankees wins the series that year. telling us how these anomalies are “proof the system is fair and perfect!”
still, *nothing* beats the bitterness, hatred, and vitriol generated by a successful woman having to pay alimony to an ex who gamed the system that was designed to make sure *she* wins. whenever that happens, a bell rings somewhere, and an angel earns his wings.
“as you’ve all but conceded you were not the primary caretaker”
I was present and caring for him more then than she is now that she actually has to have a job. If you go by that as a guide, then elementary and daycare should have custody.
“Divorce may in fact be _better_ for women (who are stuck in bad marriages) without the divorce process being _biased_ in favor of women.”
What about MEN who are stuck in bad marriages? Or are you saying this only happens to women? Men tend to stay in bad marriages because they fear what will happen in a divorce. Women do not fear divorce unless they are old and childless.
#54 | el coronado — “reading/hearing women speak in defense of a family court/”justice” system that’s tilted *wildly* in their favor is kinds like listening to NY yankee fans defend the system that allows them to buy world championships on a regular basis.”
Not to belabor the point, but this most recent Yankee world championship took nine years and was purchased at an aggregate salary cost of approximately $1.8 billion.
How’s that for return on investment! Sheesh!
But, in a way, it is reminiscent of the line from Citizen Kane: “We lost $1 million last year, $1 million this year. I fully expect to lose another $1 million next year. You know, at that rate, we’ll go out of business in sixty years….”
You’re right, money is meaningless to the Yankee franchise.
my (quite limited) understanding of NY yankee economics suggests you might be wrong there, CinC. since the owners of the yankees *also* own the cable franchise that broadcasts yankee games to the *largest televison market in the nation*, spending wildly on player talent might actually be a good investment. everybody loves – and more importantly, *watches* – a winner. higher ratings mean more expensive commercials. not to mention higher sales of ridiculously expensive “authentic” caps, jerseys, t-shirts, game-worn jocks and cups, and all the rest.
just as an example of this acumen: they signed ‘godzirra’ matsui awhile back, and have paid him $52,000,000 for (essentially) mediocre numbers, until he went nuts in game 6. not a great deal, right? wrong, maybe. the article i read – sorry, too lazy to do hyperlinks – says that once they signed matsui, they hustled up business and endorsements, etc. from japanese companies both in NY and japan, that brought them in an extra $20 million a year. they paid him way too much, and they *made money* off the guy.
i rather suspect that’s not accidental. of course, it’s all made possible by that incredibly lucrative one-of-a-kind cable franchise, so it ain’t exactly “fair”…..but what is? caesar’s palace spent some $150,000,000 **up front** to secure that celine dion 5-year-deal of awhile back. playing with the calculator one day, i reckoned that over that 5 years, they made $100 million + PROFIT on the deal. takes money to make money, true. but it also takes brains and balls.
Some level of bureaucracy (i.e., official process) is necessary for an organization to operate effectively. But you know that the bureaucracy has become a metastatic cancer when the officials in that organization excuse or shrug off gross failures of the organization by saying “all procedures where followed properly”. That’s a sign that the bureaucracy has become an end in itself and that the bureaucrats no longer really care about what results it yields. That’s why they can knock down the wrong house and feel that they’ve done nothing wrong.
For the record, the opposite situation does occur. A girl I went to high school with married a guy in the military and lived on base with their kids, staying home and taking care of them. When they split up, the judge said, essentially “Lady, you have a little apartment and a retail job. You can’t afford to raise three children!” and gave them to the dad without another thought.
As devestated as my friend was, the judge was right. Kids went right into daycare on base and my friend got a job and started to pay child support. Admittedly, her child support isn’t all that much, but she’s putting herself through community college at night so it’s a lot to her.
I realize my friend kinda made her bed through some of the choices she made, but just saying, it does happen the other way.
As for the original comment, it rubbed me the wrong way as well. All the condition seems to mean is that the partners have to use condoms and the woman can’t give oral sex or at least can’t swallow.
I get that the condoms are somewhat suboptimal for both parties, but as far as the oral sex goes, I know plenty of woman who do it all the time for men who refuse to do it for them.
And frankly, at least “I have an allergy” IS an excuse. Most men simply say “I don’t wanna” and don’t provide an excuse at all. And trust me, guys don’t taste wonderful either.
CC
who knows of a guy who says “I can’t give oral sex, it would aggravate my acid reflux.” Tell me that’s any different.
you left out a word there, cc.
should read: “for the record, the opposite situation does occur **rarely**.
there. fixed that for ya. BTW, apropos of nothing, when your friend has to write out that child-support check to the ex, does she do so with a sense of pride and duty? or does she complain with such an outpouring of bile and rage that nearby paint peels off the wall? wait wait, don’t tell me….let me guess…
Some of both, but the men I know who pay child support have similarly mixed emotions.