Saturday, December 19th, 2009
The D.C. area is supposed to get something called thundersnow today, which sounds pretty spectacular. We’re also looking at up to 20 inches of the white stuff. Fun!
Your snowbound links:
Texas pre-kindergarten program isolates 4-year-old kid because his hair is too long.
Here’s a new regulation I could also support: Consumer labels on products support by tariffs or taxpayer-funded subsidies.
This could well cause me to rethink my support for capitalism.
Cop stalks, pulls over, ejaculates on stripper. Jury acquits.
Not often said: Medicare denies far more claims than private insurers.
Federal judge in Georgia rules that concealed carry amounts to probable cause for criminal activity, allowing police to stop and detain you, even if you’re carrying legally.
British man sentenced to 30 months for defending his home from knife-wielding intruders with a cricket bat. (MORE: Yes, this went above and beyond mere defending his home. He chased them down. Though I have to say, if I were on a jury I’d have a hard time convicting the guy, given that the alleged victims here had just tied up, beaten, and threatened to kill him and his family.)
This entry was posted
on Saturday, December 19th, 2009 at 10:52 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
The cop getting off on the motorist is a scene from Bad Lieutenant, no?
As far as the Brit Home defender, his mistake was chasing down the criminals in the street and beating them. Here in the states, you most likely will be charged the same way. Conviction may be a push, but you’d definitely be charged. In my concealed carry course, they basically told us that justification of your use of a weapon will be validated by a Grand Jury.
Had he had a jury of his true peers, he might have a hung jury.
I recall the thundersnows from the March 1993 storm which in terms of size and low barometric pressure was one for the record books. You would hear thunder and the snowfall would pick up in intensity the same way rain does in a thunderstorm. It is spectacular — as long as you’re inside with a warm fire and plenty to drink. (And I don’t mean water.)
What is really frightening/creepy/ewww is that animal butt cover sold out back in November.
Are those doggie ass accessories plugged into the actual hole itself, like a baby’s pacifier?
Oh my god, come on, that Tater Tot kid is freaking adorable! How could any school be so cruel as to try to isolate that kid? Shame on them!
I don’t know, if PETA protested those dog accessories, I think I would have to side with them this one time.
“British man sentenced to 30 months for defending his home from knife-wielding intruders with a cricket bat.”
Actually no, he was sentenced for brutally beating a man he chased down with a cricket bat- severely injuring the man in such a way that the people incurred substantial medical costs for his care. The law, appropriately, gives one a right to self defense but not vengeance.
You yourself like to point out how poorly people perform as eyewitnesses, what if this was chasing the criminals, bat in hand, and rounded the corner to come face to face with an unsuspecting tourist with similar build and complexion? Do you really want to condone this behaviour?
So why do you distort the facts?
You’ve distorted the article on self-defense, which this clearly wasn’t. Poor form.
THe bit about medicare was a study done by the AMA, hardly a disinterested party, and because it isn’t age adjusted it is pretty well useless. Why post it?
Regarding the GA case, the cops saw him strap on his weapon. They safely disarmed and detained him, and let him go after determining he was carrying legally.
True, they shouldn’t have asked him for his SSN, but aside from that what should they have done when they observed a person concealing a weapon prior to entering a crowded public space?
#1 The other problem is that he’s a Muslim. I’m surprised they didn’t Section 44 the entire family after that incident.
Clearly, it wasn’t self-defense. It was vigilante justice, which is against the law in civilized societies.
Sam speaks my mind on the “self defense” story. Very bad form, basically breaking faith with your readers. There are enough stories out there to illustrate your viewpoint without lying by omission.
All you should have to do is provide a carry permit to a cop and then be let go without ever having to pony up your firearm.
I got searched by a cop in Cobb County because I made the mistake of telling him I had a gun in my truck when he pulled me over for rolling through a stop sign. He said it was probable cause and when I countered that it wasn’t, he called for back up. The cop who pulled me over was young, obviously not southern. Backup was an older Buford T Justice looking guy. After searching my vehicle with another cop for maybe five minutes, they let me go without a citation at all. I have suspected that the older cop showed up, looked at the rookie and said, “what the hell are you doing, this guy doesn’t fit the profile.”
Although these cops did let him go, it shouldn’t be procedure to disarm and detain just for exercising your constitutional rights for fear that you might commit a crime. That’s profiling.
There was a case this summer from New Mexico http://republicbroadcasting.org/?p=4581 where someone openly carrying was taken from a theater by police. He was detained, searched, and interviewed and finally allowed to secure his weapon and return to the theater. He sued. The court ruled that without some evidence of actual crime, the police had no probable cause to detain or arrest him.
“the defendants (officers) lacked a justifiable suspicion that St. John had committed a crime, was committing a crime or was about to commit a crime.”
Under the theory put forth by the court in Atlanta, anyone could be pulled over for driving without a license, because it’s only after you prove that you have a license that you are allowed to drive.
Only in the uptight US could such a butt plug, er canine decency shield, be thought up. I don’t blame capitalism. I blame the same set of mores that results in wardrobe malfunctions being a Big Deal.
I’d figure in progressive California, a jury would hold a cop accountable for beating off on a stripper. As mad as I am at the cop, fuck those twelve jurors.
It’s too bad that only cops seem to benefit from jury nullification. The cop who molested the stripper is obviously a piece of shit.
I see the book “Jury Nullification” by Clay Conrad on your “Radley Recommends” spot. I’ve read it, and I’m of course a huge supporter of the doctrine. Do you hear about cases of jury nullification? Is that something you come across in your research? My faith in the criminal justice system would be restored somewhat if I knew that nullifications were more frequent.
Ten seconds’ worth of time spent on that crafts/comedy site would inform you that the critter coverups are attached to tails.
The pool of people covered by Medicare is basically everyone in this country 65 years old and up. In other words, it’s the oldest, sickest, most expensive group of people to insure.
It’s likely that the overwhelming majority of claims rejected for coverage by Medicare would similarly be rejected by most private insurers, experimental treatments for terminal conditions, expensive end of life care with marginal benefit to the patient, etc. It’s just that people covered by Medicare make more of these types of claims as a percentage of the total number of claims submitted.
Percentage of claims rejected doesn’t really tell you much without knowing the makeup of the risk pool and the types and numbers of claims rejected and accepted.
Re long hair: Go to government school, follow the rules. End of story. Don’t want to worry about those rules? “Come out of her, my people, that you partake not in her sins and receive of her plagues.”
The only way to win the game is not to play.
If that masturbating cop let her off for a small bag of coke and a suspended license, one hand job is really a small price to pay. I’m sure she’s prostituted herself for less.
Selfish of the whore not to support local law enforcement
I have to laugh about the poor little kid and his hair. Government at it’s finest. Instead of worrying about teaching our children to read/write, add/subtract, let’s worry about issues that are no one’s business but the kid’s and his parents. While we are at it, let’s make a point and put the 5 year old in solitary and pay a teacher who serves no purpose other than to teach this one child. Yeah….THAT makes sense. I would guess that unless the girls are required to keep their hair in the same manner, this might just be a case of gender discrimination. It is positively a case of over-educated thinkers of big thoughts having too much power. Who thinks up these asinine rules anyway?
I agree that calling the Brit a hero does a disservice to those who are ACTUALLY defending their homes.
#18 damaged justice
Please believe that I heartily share your sentiments, but, let me ask you this; How do you not play?
Children are not required to attend kindergarten (as far as I know) but ARE required to receive at least a primary education – Elementary, Middle and High school (at least until they are legally old enough and entitled, by state law, to quit). As a parent, you have four choices – Public school, Private school, Home school and Jail-time – all of which are strictly controlled by the state…
Remember – “It’s For The Children…”
I understand that the UK court wanted to keep vigilantism at bay in the home defender case but the sentence seems so high for these guys as to think that their state of mind was not taken into account. They had just escaped from a terroristic situation in which there family had been threatened with death in their own home. I can only imagine that, while running down the attacker holding a cricket bat, that man was in a state of sheer terror and madness, nothing premeditated and probably something that shames him to a certain point. 30 months! He should have gotten 3 days.
“I’d figure in progressive California, a jury would hold a cop accountable for beating off on a stripper. As mad as I am at the cop, fuck those twelve jurors.”
That’s indeed how it likely would have gone, in progressive California. Fortunately for the rapist, his trial wasn’t in Progressive California, but in deep Red California.
Re: Perv Cop:
Well…they really COULDN’T find him guilty now could they? How could he do that whole school crossing guard thing with that “sex offender” label attached to him? They have laws about that you know….
Texas has a long history of suspending longhairs. In Ferrell v. Dallas Independent School District, 392 F.2d 697 (1968), the Fifth Circuit seems to have implied that it’s important to suspend the longhairs because ordinary students will feel the need to assault them, thus interfering with the school’s educational mission.
Not to mention that thing where they go to the schools and tell the kids how evil pot is….mmmmmm K?
Radley, you’re one of my media heroes, but I have to agree with some of the others. You’ve distorted the story of the cricket bat guy with your title. This was definitely not a case of self defense or defense of family. Not saying I blame him, but there’s no difference in this case than there would be in hunting down someone who hurt your family and shooting them. Knock him down, call the cops, yes. Beat the shit out of him with others helping, that’s a crime. If they were still in the home, it’s another story.
John Wilburn: If you are unfortunate enough to live in a state where “homeschooling” is more tightly controlled, then you need to decide your priorities. Personally, I would eat broken glass before I ever allowed anyone to kidnap my child and force them into a government indoctrination center.
Ah, if this happened in America I’d hope the jury would have the common sense to say that if someone ties up your family and threatens to kill them, they’re lucky if all that happens is they suffer massive brain trauma.
I’m all for the laws of civil society, but in active pursuit of someone who threatened to kill my family I’d have no remorse. And false eyewitness identification? Seriously? The guy was wearing a balaclava and was the one…running away from him. Kinda hard to mis-identify.
Active pursuit is totally justified. I don’t understand how this gets prosecuted.
As a parent, you have four choices – Public school, Private school, Home school and Jail-time – all of which are strictly controlled by the state…
Actually, it depends on the state. In some states, homeschoolers are required to takes regular tests to make sure the kids are learning the same useless trivia all the other kids are. Here in California, I just have to fill out an online form declaring my home to be a private school and that’s that. The rest is up to us. If we do this right, my son will be able to start taking community college courses when he’s 15 or 16. After two years of that, most 4-year colleges don’t care if they have a high school diploma or not, so I’m really hoping to bypass public school entirely. Keep your fingers crossed!
“Though I have to say, if I were on a jury I’d have a hard time convicting the guy, given that the alleged victims here had just tied up, beaten, and threatened to kill him and his family.”
If I’d been on the jury I think I would have convicted. There’s a right to self defence but not to vengance. That we’ve given over to the State and the legal system.
We’ve enough cases in the UK where self defence gets charged without this one of vengance being confused with them.
Bad Radley. Tsk, tsk.
Tim, in a system of delegated powers, how can the state have any right or power that the citizen does not also have? This man was right in beating this thug. The only thing he did wrong was that he didn’t finish the job.
Don’t police dogs already wear those CYA badges?
” The law, appropriately, gives one a right to self defense but not vengeance.”
Well, then. The proper answer to this dilemma is to defend oneself so vigorously on the spot of the crime that vengeance is a moot point. If you have to chase them down, you already screwed up and should let them go.
As a vigorous means of defense, I prefer a shotgun. Too bad he could not legally have one.
Women are so much better equipped to “handle” a man with a badge and a gun. The little girl seemed to have done well. She got her rocks, got his rocks off, she kept driving, got a fat paycheck, $400K aint bad for some roadside foolin around now is it?
Yes it does seem the ex cop is not exactly a stellar example of pride integrity and guts. Which is why today he pounds nails. But two people had a tango going on, one came out very well.
Oh and we should deal harshly with cops and others of power that think this is the way to get laid. It aint; sincerely Monica L.
********
As to the uk……
Lets see, chase off a thug, run from a thug, fuggers show up tomorrow. Beat his brains out, he fails to return.
They should have made him Muslim of the day or something. Why was this asswipe NOT thrown out of the country on, oh say, his third court room appearance? That is the first judge you send off.
Re: The Jerk-off cop story. The cop’s lawyer is Al Stokke – a name many Farkers should recognize as he is the father of that hottie pole vaulter, Allison Stokke. http://dethroner.com/2007/06/05/allison-stokkes-father-is-notorious-misogynist-defense-lawyer/ I don’t know if this fits the textbook definition of irony, but it is close enough for me.
“Active pursuit is totally justified.” Sure, but beating once you’ve caught him isn’t.
Let’s say this guy was caught by police, convicted and served 10 years. Would it then be ok for the victim to hunt him down with a bat and beat him? Why not, and what’s the difference?
#10 | Joey Maloney | December 19th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
Regarding the GA case, the cops saw him strap on his weapon. They safely disarmed and detained him, and let him go after determining he was carrying legally.
That’s not what happened. They determined he was carrying legally, and THEN detained him. Then, when they were good and ready, they let him go.
What should have happened is that he was released as soon as they verified that he had a license. The whole reason for the lawsuit was the detention after showing the license.
From the article: “After seeing Raissi’s firearms license and driver’s license, the officers ran background checks on Raissi and held him, according to Raissi, for half an hour. The officers transported Raissi to a locked area out of the public eye before finally releasing him and returning his firearm and other property.”
Here’s one I’m surprised you haven’t already posted, since it was in your neck of the woods I think: http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2009/12/19/did-d-c-cops-overreact-to-snowball-fight-14th-and-u/
Short version, plain clothes cop freaks out and pulls gun on people having a friendly snowball fight – why? Because they hit his Hummer with a snowball. There’s video of course.
damaged justice said;
“Personally, I would eat broken glass before I ever allowed anyone to kidnap my child and force them into a government indoctrination center.”
Les said;
“Actually, it depends on the state. … Here in California, I just have to fill out an online form declaring my home to be a private school and that’s that. …I’m really hoping to bypass public school entirely. Keep your fingers crossed!”
Again, let me say that I share your sentiments…
Also, it’s always nice to meet an optimist…
It’s abundantly obvious that the two of you don’t currently have school-age children – otherwise you would know, first of all, that they’re not YOUR children – they are the “property” of the state, specifically, the Department of Social Services, Child Protection division (or whatever they call themselves in your state). But please, don’t take my word for it; contact any lawyer that specializes in family law, and ask him / her what your rights are, as a parent, in regard to “your” children, and what rights the Social Workers employed by the state have.
Keep in mind that approximately 75% of these Social Workers are in their mid-twenties, are single, and have no children of their own – about half are gay. And all of them were taught in college that ALL parents abuse their children…
They can force you, your spouse, or your entire family to undergo counseling and therapy, as well as psychological testing and evaluation to determine your “fitness” as parents, parenting classes, substance abuse rehab (even if you don’t drink, smoke or use drugs), etc., etc., etc., and, if you don’t comply, they’ll drag you into court, make all manner of allegations against you, which the court will not require them to prove, AND not permit you to refute, and also, if you don’t comply, they can and will take your children away from you…
Over the course of my life, I’ve seen this happen to many, many people…
The point that I’m leading up to, is that if you decide to home-school, it is seen by these Social Workers as a strong indicator (red flag) that you are abusing “your” children, and gives them an opening to take a “special interest” in you – and if you don’t demonstrate an immediate spirit of cooperation as well as an acknowledgement of their “benevolent” omnipotence, when they come to interview you AND “your” children – God Help You and your family…
Again, don’t take my word for it – find someone who specializes in family law – you may decide not to have children – it’s that terrifying…
Oh yeah, and remember – “It’s For The Children…”
Wow. Nice catch, it does add a tinge of irony to the story. He’s still a dick but he has great genes.
Re:30 Month sentence.
We’re allowed to take everything into consideration when deciding if this guy crossed the line or not. In my book, escaping and chasing the guy down the street is still within the heat of the moment. If he were my neighbor I’d say his right to beat this guy only ends once the cops show up.
#40 | Noel St. John |
Wow!, she IS hot! Never knew about her before today. Always learn something here. :)
They always say, “You’ll change your mind once you have kids.”
Mine didn’t. Not at all.
Pastor Jonathan Ayers update: grand jury cleared the officers who shot and killed him.
http://www.gainesvilletimes.com/news/article/27344/
KBCraig,
It is clear WE don’t now the law. The law is they can shoot and kill you any time they want and there’s nothing you can do about it. THAT is the law. I’d like to be proven wrong on this.
Shit! “know”.
“The law, appropriately, *gives* one a right to self defense but not vengeance.”
Who decides what’s vengeance and what’s acceptable compensation?
You have rights whether or not self-absorbed parasites deign to acknowledge your rights via some officious document.
Laws may recognize your rights, but cannot ever *give* you what you already have.
“Pastor Jonathan Ayers update: grand jury cleared the officers who shot and killed him.”
Shorter grand jury: “cops can do car-jackings and drive-bys at will.”
Re-watch the video:
http://tinyurl.com/y9hptkd
How do the actions of those cops differ from any other car-jackers or drive-by executioners?
What are the names of those grand jurors who rubber-stamped Ayers’ murder? How do they sleep at night? What other crimes have they abetted?
silver lining : the Perv now works in construction , the stripper won a $400,000. settlement
Hairstyles “designed to attract attention to the individual or to disrupt the orderly conduct of the classroom or campus (are) not permitted,” the policy states.
Can’t be attracting attention to the individual.. No, sir.
How does she win a settlement when the hero-with-a-hard-on was found not guilty?
JFC! Civilians get busted and roughed up for taking photos at the mall while cops can RAPE women on the side of the road with NO PENALTY!
Does anyone need more convincing that the revolution needs to start NOW?
“How does she win a settlement when the hero-with-a-hard-on was found not guilty?”
Same reason Ron Goldman’s family owns the clothes on OJ Simpson’s back even though Simpson was acquitted: The civil and criminal proceedings are separate.
The right to defend yourself is essentially non-existent in Britain and also in many of our states [especially in the northeast]. It seems this man is being punished more severely than the criminals who may have killed the man and his family. Those who self-righteously condemn this man should think twice before criticizing him; how would you have responded in that situation? People don’t think rationally in life and death situations, especially when you and your family are a hairbreadth away from a gruesome death. You need to take into account the mixture of fear, panic and rage that this family went through before sending him off to do more time than a burglar would receive.
I almost wonder if the more socialist types would rather see us meekly submit to crime and slaughter so the criminal can pursue his vocation unfettered. This is insanity.
For everyone whose heart is bleeding for the brain-damaged career criminal, there has been an update. It seems his brain was damaged enough to be unfit for trial, but not enough to prevent further crimes:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1237632/New-let-brain-damaged-burglar-got-decent-man-sent-jail.html
If he had tried that sort of thing with my family, he would have gotten some brain damage too. As in, they’d be all over the sidewalk.