AnotherMcIntosh

AnotherMcIntosh's Journal

December 25, 2012

Fifth-Most Crime Ridden City in America Dismisses a Fourth of its Police Force. 911 Still in Service

Oakland, California, the fifth-most crime ridden city in America, faced a $32 million budget deficit last year. It closed the gap by dismissing a fourth of its police force, more than 200 officers.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-20/oakland-pays-17-million-for-nfl-raiders-as-cops-get-cut.html

What's the law relating to self-defense?

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

Aren't proposals to disarm law-abiding home owners as sensible as the reaction to invade Iraq for the 9/11 attack by persons other than Iraqis? Are all reactions good reactions?

Is crime down in Oakland? Can it be that none of the law-abiding home owners will ever need to own firearms to discourage home invasions? After all, aren't their local police just a phone call away? Isn't that true all over?

If the law-abiding firearm owners in Oakland are called "gun nuts," and if there are proposals by those claiming to Democrats to take away or greatly restrict firearms, will that have no effect upon Oakland voters in the 2014 election? By what right do any posters claim to believe that there is a left v right divide over gun ownership and that liberals and progressives oppose gun ownership and that right-wingers are the only ones favoring that? Is such an alleged belief based upon a hoax?

If a hoax has been created to exploit a real tragedy so that the Republicans can repeat their 1994 election victories after the first gun ban, isn't that something that would be appreciated by Donald Segretti, Karl Rove, and those who admire their skill with dirty tricks?

If anyone in Oakland wants a cop, just call 911.

December 13, 2012

Rahm Emanuel Seeks to Set Aside Verdict Involving Brutal Beating by Chicago Cop of Female Bartender

After a jury decided that Chicago has a Blue Wall of Silence which the City used to protect a Chicago cop who brutally attacked a much lighter female bartender, Rahm Emanuel has decided to make an effort to set aside the verdict.

"Northwestern University professor Locke Bowman and University of Chicago professor Craig Futterman say the city is trying to sweep 'under the rug' a federal jury’s finding that the Chicago Police Department had either a code of silence or a policy of failing to properly investigate and discipline officers."

http://www.suntimes.com/news/crime/16970378-418/professors-urge-judge-to-reject-setting-aside-judgment-in-bar-beating.html

December 6, 2012

Is the Constitution "just a piece of paper"?

Bradley Manning is back in the news. Or sort of. Only the British Guardian provided coverage of his testimony with the type of detail that the American press ignored. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article33224.htm

His trial - or extended lack of it until now - raises some Constitutional questions. And his trial raises related questions.

How does the reported military holding of Manning incommunicado for more than 900 days, without a trial, compare with the number of days that it has held any other prisoner incommunicado? And under the conditions which Manning was held?
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article33224.htm

Is anyone besides the military responsible for this? The military didn't act alone. The military didn't act in a vacuum. The military didn't do this without oversight.

How does the Obama Administration's act of holding Manning incommunicado for more than 900 days, without a trial, compare with the number of days that it has held any other prisoner incommunicado? And under the conditions which Manning was held?

Even if we assume that Manning released the video showing the helicopter gunship gunning down civilians including children (and I assume that it is true), and even if we assume that Manning released copies of diplomatic cables showing the perfidy of the those involved in the military-industrial complex (and I also assume that this is true), are we supposed to overlook this type of cruel and unusual pre-trial punishment of Manning because President Obama has a big "D" after his name? Are we supposed to cheer "Hooray for our team"?

In April 2001, almost 300 law professors and other scholars (including Laurence Tribe, a widely recognized as a leading liberal scholar of Constitutional law) signed a letter to the Obama Administration. In it, they pointed out something that should be obvious to any law professor or former law professor: The detention conditions violates the Constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments.

The names of those who initiated the letter (Professors Ackerman and Benkler) and the others signing the letter be found here:
http://web.archive.org/web/20110409205745/http://balkin.blogspot.com/2011/03/statement-on-private-mannings-detention.html

Are all those law professors wrong?

Does the Constitution still prohibit cruel and unusual punishment? Or has the view that the Constitution is "just a piece of paper" replaced it?

Profile Information

Member since: Thu Dec 8, 2011, 05:02 AM
Number of posts: 11,064