Maggie’s Links for a Busy Afternoon

Monday, July 9th, 2012

I promised Dave Krueger a new post on terminology today, but when I did I was forgetting that I had to bring my husband to the airport today.  I’m just beginning to catch up now and see little hope of doing so before dark, so here are some links and I’ll get that other post ready for tomorrow, harlot’s honor!

(Thanks to my friend Grace for #1 & 2, and to Radley (via Twitter) for #3 & 4)

Digg it |  reddit | |  Fark

22 Responses to “Maggie’s Links for a Busy Afternoon”

  1. #1 |  Stephen Spiker | 

    That couple wasn’t arrested for something as harmless as dancing. They were detained for resisting arrest. No doubt the cop that took down the guy shouted “stop resisting!” in mid-tackle to justify it all.

  2. #2 |  EH | 

    Bad cops in the house:

    Which doesn’t sound like much until you read:

  3. #3 |  bacchys | 

    The cop in the “Cop kicks handcuffed woman in the head” link was convicted of a felony for that incident. He’s now fighting to keep his job.

  4. #4 |  Ghost | 

    I’ve got a new blog up about life as a medical marijuana patient, and of course, the drug war. Click my name to read it. /shameless-self-promotion

    You guys have been doing a great job filling in for Radley. Thanks for keeping it alive. :)

  5. #5 |  Marty | 

    so much for ‘less lethal’ forms of detainment. the schizophrenic kid with the airsoft gun is a horrible story. Schizophrenics off their meds are seriously at risk from themselves, bystanders, cops… scary stuff.

  6. #6 |  Danny | 

    Unless that Rhode Island cop can get that felony conviction swiped off of his criminal record, he cannot carry a gun under federal law, no matter what state authorities do to try to keep him on the payroll.

  7. #7 |  C. S. P. Schofield | 


    3 will get you 5 that the only thing that could stop the authorities (and probably more to the point, the police union) from getting that mook his job back would be somebody in the community ready to swear out a complaint with regards the violation of that Federal law … and even then I wouldn’t count on it.

  8. #8 |  Yizmo Gizmo | 

    The government did this, the government did that, all day long.
    How can you have such a grass-roots reaction against
    school bullies but not against a tyrannical, self-serving “government.”
    When’s the last time a school bully near you tazed a grandma, threw
    a grenade into your house or shot your dog?

  9. #9 |  Tom | 

    @Ken & Patrick,

    The third link needs a Popehat signal. It appears this man was prosecuted and convicted for a legitimate exercise of his 1st Amendment Rights.

    I leave it to the judgement of more versed first amendment attorneys but the man’s blog is still online at

    The parties responsible for this travesty need to experience the Striesand Effect.

  10. #10 |  tarran | 

    Having very recently gone through a divorce with a bitter fight over custody (we settled just before trial started and more than 2 years after I filed), I have an expectation of the dad’s mistake:

    He seemed unbalanced.

    Look, it’s not fair, but the people in the system assume that when a marriage breaks up, it’s the dad’s fault. Moreoever, they assume that the mom will make a better parent than the dad.

    Empirically, a mom has to break bones, get caught abusing massive quantitites of illegal drugs or be a prostitute before judges will strip them of access to the kids, whereas a dad could merely be quiet during a meeting with a social worker when he got no sleep the night before because of sick kids and his focus on a skills test/job interview that is only two hours away to be labeled uncooperative.

    Generally, the finder of fact is a judge going off of the evidence in the trial, and the report of a Guardian ad Litem.

    The G.A.L. is supposed to represent the kids best interests, but really makes his or her recommendations based on previous biases and whatever information their investigation turns up. The GAL can, for example, decide to skip interviewing witnesses, forego reviewing written records, and make decisions based on hunches that are horribly inappropriate as viewed by people with knowledge of the situation. Despite the lack of rigor, their recommendations are given great weight.

    The system is irretrievably biased against dads.

    Now, with that being said, a dad can overcome an adverse GAL report, but he has to walk a very fine line:

    1) He has to conduct himself impeccably with officers of the court. Any display of temper will backfire!

    2) Get a lawyer – even if it’s merely to advise you for a couple of hours outside the court. It avoids costly errors where you miss oportunities to game the system, or where you piss off the judge by doing stupid things like filing bullshit motions that are going nowhere but take up the judge’s time (and look like vexatious litigation designed to drain the retainer of opposing counsel).

    3) He has to be realistic in his demands. If you are losing motion after motion, you need to stop. Don’t ask for more than the evidence will support!

    4) Save what you can! Be prepared to settle! Even when you are right, the other person is an utter bastard who shouldn’t be allowed custody of a turnip, let alone your precious children, settle! It’s a better alternative than a judge looking at all the evidence and then deciding that all the witnesses that butress your story are unreliable, and the patently self-contradictory testimony of your ex is the truth.

    The courthouse is a substitute for violent conflict where you and your friends and your ex and her friends feud with shotguns. It produces an mediocre approximation of justice that is generally less unjust than trial by combat.

    The courthouse is not a place to seek vindication. It is not a place to grind your enemy into the dust he or she deserves. It is not a place guaranteeing justice.

    It’s not fair, but that’s the way it is. A man who appears unbalanced or angry or annoying is going to lose his kids. So don’t be that guy, even if you need to swallow your pride and stay unruffled in the face of horrible slanders and defamations.

  11. #11 |  tarran | 

    Lest maggie think I was denigrating prostitution, I should add that in the absence of prohibition, a mom who earns her living by sexual services is no less likely to be a good parent than a mom who earns her living by giving massages, dentistry, lawyering or a million other professions.

  12. #12 |  Mary | 

    Maggie, your columns kinda make me queasy, and yet I’m sure that reflects more on me than you. Color me uncomfortably pleased that you are aboard and filling in for Radley. Well done.

  13. #13 |  J-Ho | 

    Here’s the story on that dad:


  14. #14 |  Kevin | 

    “America’s Surveillance State Breeds Conformity and Fear”. That’s a feature, not a bug. Can’t have the cattle all going off in different directions, paying no mind to the herders (authorities).

  15. #15 |  Leon Wolfeson | 

    Oh rubbish. It’s the argument equivalent to security through obscurity in software.

  16. #16 |  Pi Guy | 

    I have a feeling that just commenting on sites like this one, where Big Gov and Big Law Enforcement are routinely spotlighted for their abuses, gets you an additional level of scrutiny.

    That said, I just smile for every camera I see. My fingerprints are already in the FBI database and I can’t see the point in hiding anymore.

  17. #17 |  Gary McGath | 

    Greenwald is so strange. He’s great in his criticism of government surveillance, but his target audience is socialists, who think the government should control everything.

  18. #18 |  Juice | 

    tarran, your advice tells us that you did not read the man’s website. All of that is addressed.

    Looking at the website, I can’t believe that a jury convicted him. Wait, juries are stupid and apathetic, so yeah I believe it, but it’s still fucked up.

  19. #19 |  Juice | 

    #17 – If you ever listen to his interviews on Democracy Now! you’ll hear him walk a fine line. He never really fully endorses their brand of, well, communism, just like he never fully endorses’s brand of libertarianism. But recently they asked him about “recent SC rulings” like the Arizona immigration thing and Obamacare. He talked about the immigration thing, but then completely avoided talking about Obamacare. He kinda filibustered around it. It was subtle but obvious if that makes sense.

  20. #20 |  Boyd Durkin | 

    We get a lot of “puppycide” stories, but it is clear that cops shoot the mentally ill at an equally alarming rate. If you have a loved one who is mentally ill or challenged, the cops are the biggest threat to their safety. Why? Because cops think everything is a threat to their precious safety and they have no fucking clue how to deal with any situation except guns-a-blazing.

  21. #21 |  tarran | 

    Juice, I did some digging and wrote two different comments on this fellow. They’ve disappeared into moderation (probably due to the pdf I link to).

    Having read the appellate court decision on his motion appealing the trial court’s decision regarding division of property and custody, I am utterly unsympathetic to the guy.

    They didn’t terminate his access to the kids. Since he couldn’t work with the mom, they put her in charge, and gave him a path to get more time with his kids.

    He couldn’t do this, and instead tried to scare them into letting him have his way. I suspect that this worked in the past – and he, for the first time in his life – discovered an organization that couldn’t be bullied into submission.

    Once my comments get out of moderation you’ll see why.

  22. #22 |  Maggie McNeill | 

    #11 – No offense taken. It’s absolutely true that American judges think prostitution somehow “demonstrates” that a mother is unfit, even if she’s an exemplary parent who provides well for her children and spends a great deal more time with them than an office worker could. The old Madonna/whore duality is alive and well in many underdeveloped minds, despite the fact that having kids to support is probably the single most common reason for women entering whoredom in the first place.