Nobody Cares: PRS

[Grandma Bates]

I've been thinking about this, and I wonder if things aren't a bit more complicated than at first they appear.

I can see the reasoning that could have led the grand jury to decide that Ms Jemison, who fired the fatal shot, was acting in lawful self-defence (though I find it difficult to understand why it's necessary to brandish a firearm, still less discharge it, during the course of an argument, no matter how heated, with someone who doesn't appear to have been armed herself) and nevertheless wanted to blame someone for what can only be described as the sort of tragic accident you are bound to have when you allow people to wander around armed to the teeth in case they are attacked by someone else, similarly armed.

I'd have blamed whoever drafted the state's law on self-defence, myself, but that's by-the-by.

What's less obvious, to me, though, is whether they would have chosen to blame the unfortunate Ms Jones under this Fetal Personage law that Alabama has just passed unless the prosecutor gave them a strong hint that that might fly in court.

This got me wondering why the prosecutor should have thought that, since it seems pretty far-fetched, and I am now wondering if the prosecutor didn't -- cruelly and cynically, admittedly, but this is an Alabama District Attorney we're talking about, so maybe that's not a surprise -- think this would be an excellent opportunity to give the superior courts the opportunity to consider the state's absurd fetal personhood law in a context that has nothing to do with a woman's right to choose.

I was expecting the first case to be about the fetus' rights to habeas corpus, due process and separate legal representation should its mother find herself in lawful custody, but this does pretty well too, though at a terrible cost to Ms Jones.

Your continued insistence that the people in positions of authority actually care about the people and the laws they swore to protect speaks well of your opinions about the basic humanity of the people around you. Unfortunately, I do not share such faith in the system. I suspect this is more a case of either a prosecutor or police chief who feels that he can make a name for himself and use this case to leverage an elected position as a "tough on crime" official who will clean out the gutters of society.

One of the more unfortunate byproducts of the system in the US is that the position of Attorney General is seen as a gateway to higher office in many states. The end result is that it attracts hyper-aggressive attorneys who try to cast themselves as the best person to inflict pain on evil doers. In too many situations it turns out that evil doers are vulnerable people with few alternatives and have few others willing to support and advocate for them.

 

[Dakota Tebaldi]

GOD NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

A remorseful 71-year-old man who robbed a Kansas City, Kan., bank last September and told police he hoped to land in prison to escape his wife told a federal judge Tuesday that heart surgery had left him depressed and unlike himself when he committed the crime.

Though Lawrence John Ripple pleaded guilty to bank robbery in January and could have spent up to 37 months in prison, his attorney and federal prosecutors asked a U.S. District Court judge for leniency. That request was supported by the vice president of the bank and the teller whom Ripple frightened, said Assistant U.S. Attorney Sheri Catania.

U.S. District Court Judge Carlos Murguia sentenced Ripple on Tuesday to six months of home confinement after public defender Chekasha Ramsey and Catania cited Ripple’s health issues, remorse and unlikeliness to reoffend.

Ripple will also serve three years of supervised probation, including 50 hours of community service. He was ordered to pay $227.27 to the bank he robbed — the amount representing the billable hours for bank employees who were sent home on the day of robbery — and $100 to a crime victims fund.

Weren't you guys listening? Six months of home confinement? Why don't you just kill him already!

 

[Innula Zenovka]

The NRA had a hand in Alabama's laws on self defense. They have a Stand Your Ground law that sets a very low bar for self defense claims, even against unarmed opponents. If you felt "reasonably" threatened, good hunting.

This is the bit that puzzles me rather.

Our law on self-defence in the UK is pretty permissive, in that it's a defence to any charge involving unlawful assault (up to and including murder) that the defendant used reasonable force giving his or her understanding of the situation at the time (the force used has to be reasonable, that is, even though the defendant's apprehension of the circumstances leading up to the decision to use force need not be wholly reasonable).

Nevertheless, I really struggle to see how, on the basis of what we know about the altercation, it could possibly be reasonable to discharge a firearm in a public place, even directly at the ground, no matter how heated the argument got. Had Ms Jones been armed at the time and advancing on Ms Jemison, then yes, that would have been different, but not as things seem to have stood.

Your continued insistence that the people in positions of authority actually care about the people and the laws they swore to protect speaks well of your opinions about the basic humanity of the people around you. Unfortunately, I do not share such faith in the system. I suspect this is more a case of either a prosecutor or police chief who feels that he can make a name for himself and use this case to leverage an elected position as a "tough on crime" official who will clean out the gutters of society.

One of the more unfortunate byproducts of the system in the US is that the position of Attorney General is seen as a gateway to higher office in many states. The end result is that it attracts hyper-aggressive attorneys who try to cast themselves as the best person to inflict pain on evil doers. In too many situations it turns out that evil doers are vulnerable people with few alternatives and have few others willing to support and advocate for them.

I see what you mean, but it just seems such a speculative use of a highly contentious law that will almost certainly lead to the superior courts having an early opportunity to pull it pieces in a case that has nothing to do with abortion.

 

[Grandma Bates]

[SNIP] ...

I see what you mean, but it just seems such a speculative use of a highly contentious law that will almost certainly lead to the superior courts having an early opportunity to pull it pieces in a case that has nothing to do with abortion.

This particular application of the law may be in question, but it is not so certain that the law itself will fall under judicial review. These kind of laws are common. They have also been used in situations that are excessive:
Pregnant? That Might Get You Arrested
Despite the cruelty of these laws and the lack of simple decency they remain in force. The only thing that is different about this case is the amount of national attention it has received.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

This particular application of the law may be in question, but it is not so certain that the law itself will fall under judicial review. These kind of laws are common. They have also been used in situations that are excessive:
Pregnant? That Might Get You Arrested
Despite the cruelty of these laws and the lack of simple decency they remain in force. The only thing that is different about this case is the amount of national attention it has received.

Depends on the law, I think.

In the UK we have the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, which provides that

(1) Subject as hereinafter in this subsection provided, any person who, with intent to destroy the life of a child capable of being born alive, by any wilful act causes a child to die before it has an existence independent of its mother, shall be guilty of felony, to wit, of child destruction, and shall be liable on conviction thereof on indictment to penal servitude for life:

Provided that no person shall be found guilty of an offence under this section unless it is proved that the act which caused the death of the child was not done in good faith for the purpose only of preserving the life of the mother.

(2) For the purposes of this Act, evidence that a woman had at any material time been pregnant for a period of twenty-eight weeks or more shall be primâ facie proof that she was at that time pregnant of a child capable of being born alive

That's a far more restrictive provision, though it certainly catches deliberate (or reckless) assaults that cause a woman in the final weeks of pregnancy to miscarry. It also catches late term abortions unless they're carried out in accordance with the Abortion Act 1967.

It's a very rare offence, which is prosecuted maybe once a year, if that, not least because we also have ready access to free and legal medical abortions.

A law like that seems pretty unexceptionable, I think, because it's so narrowly drawn.

Many of the US laws were, I think, introduced partly on the back of the 90s panic over crack and the then prospect of the birth of a generation of "feral crack babies."

I remember seeing a TV documentary over here at the time, which contrasted the experiences of two young women in one of the southern states (possibly Florida), both of whom of whom were pregnant and both of whom had previously suffered miscarriages attributable to refusal to follow basic medical advice.

One of the two young women, as I recall, was able to remain at liberty in the normal way, so long as she cooperated with lawful and reasonable advice from the family physician, while the other was incarcerated -- protective custody, but to protect the fetus rather than the mother -- because she'd failed some drug tests while pregnant.

It would probably not surprise you to learn which woman was the daughter of a wealthy, white, local politician and which was indigent and black.

 

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal - Teaching

 

[Sid]

Only thing I can think of is:
America get your act together.

 

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

Fyre Festival 2

VestiVille: Cancelled Belgium music festival being compared to Fyre Festival

 

[Innula Zenovka]

Posted here, because anything banksy does is political commentary, really

Designed by Banksy, worn by Stormzy: the banner of a divided and frightened nation

The artist chose Glastonbury’s Pyramid stage as the place to unveil his latest artwork – a stab-proof vest – and helped the rapper speak for England

www.theguardian.com

Interesting comments to the Guardian article.

 

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

This appears as though it could be an interesting series to read on the bus or on the pot.

 

[Jolene Benoir]

Russia warns U.S. politicians against blaming it for anything during 2020 race

Or what, Russia? You'll interfere again? You already intend to do that. I'm sorry, but you will not dictate to our politicians nor media what we may or may not say or uncover.

We don't answer to you, unlike that sack of excrement in the White House.

 

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

I'm sorry

FAKE NEWS!

 

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

 

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

This year’s song of the summer just podcast about impeachment

TORONTO —- In what musicologists and pop chart analysts are calling an unprecedented trend, patterns in digital downloads, youtube views and online engagement all indicate that this year’s song of the summer will be a forty-five to seventy-five minute unstructured podcast focusing on the...

www.thebeaverton.com

 

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

 

[Govi]

This year’s song of the summer just podcast about impeachment

TORONTO —- In what musicologists and pop chart analysts are calling an unprecedented trend, patterns in digital downloads, youtube views and online engagement all indicate that this year’s song of the summer will be a forty-five to seventy-five minute unstructured podcast focusing on the...

www.thebeaverton.com

it had me amazed right down to the bottom where links to other stories were, then, I knew. Politically rick-rolled.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

From the inquest into the deaths of the people murdered by the London Bridge Terrorists and into the deaths of the terrorists.

Here's what it looked like to officer BX44 on his first call-out as part of a specialist armed response unit:

A rookie officer on his first callout to a live firearms incident fell as police confronted the London Bridge terrorists, firing through his legs while on the floor, an inquest has heard.

The City of London police officer, known as BX44, was in the armed response vehicle (ARV), which brought the three attackers’ 10-minute killing spree to a halt after they had murdered eight people on 3 June 2017.

Giving evidence anonymously at the Old Bailey on Thursday at the inquest into the deaths of the attackers, he told the court that as he got out at Stoney Street, Borough Market, he saw three men with large knives “closing us down”.

He said he fired first at the ringleader, Khuram Butt, 27, because he thought he was about to kill his colleague BX46, who was first out of the ARV.

“The red dot [from the gun’s sights] was on him but there was very little reaction and I was surprised he was still coming,” he said. “I continued to track him and fire shots until I had to break away to deal with Rachid Redouane, who at this point closed us down and was about to kill another colleague, BX45.

HIs account continues at

Officer 'fired weapon as he fell in front of London Bridge attacker'

Terror attack was rookie firearms officer’s first callout to a live incident, inquest told

www.theguardian.com

 

[Jolene Benoir]

Who/what is behind this kind of prosecution?

By that, I mean that some reasonably senior figure in the state prosecution system has taken the decision to spend considerable amounts of the state's money on launching a prosecution that appears utterly fanciful and which even the most fervent supporters of that state's draconian fetal homicide laws say is an abusive prosecution based on a cruel and warped misreading of their law.

So what has motivated someone to launch a prosecution it seems no one else thinks is a good idea, and why is he able to get away with it?

I'm so sorry that I didn't respond sooner. I just saw the link-back in Beebo's thread. I also see now that the charges were dropped (by a woman).

I don't even know what to make of this whole affair or how they could even consider that the woman who lost her baby could have been ultimately responsible for the death. It doesn't make any sense to me, other than the usual litany of "Alabama hates women, women must be punished, etc.."

If I read the original article correctly, the argument was over the heritage of the child. So, here we have not only a rival shooting her (in the stomach, mind you) which may have been an effort to directly kill that offspring, but the victim having been charged. To my mind, whether or not she started the argument is irrelevant. Yes, it makes a difference criminally in terms of it being manslaughter vs 1st or 2nd degree murder (on the part of the shooter), and I understand how it lessens culpability in that case, but not how it leads to culpability of the victim.

It's incomprehensible to me. To my mind this was the ultra-right wingers testing the waters for punishing women who fall outside their scope of accepted behavior. A watering ground to test a criminal case against a mother who lost a child, and who has a small part in the result. It won't be the last, I'm sure.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

English far-right grifter (literally -- he's done time for fraud ) Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, alias Tommeh Robinson, looks as if he'll be heading back to prison very shortly.

He was serving 13 months for contempt of court when he was released on bail while awaiting a retrial after the Court of Appeal decided the original conviction was unsafe.

Anyway, the Court has now heard the retrial, found him guilty again, and provisionally intends to sentence him next Thursday, July 11, assuming pre-sentence reports are available by then.

Tommy Robinson faces up to two years in prison after judges rule him in contempt of court

Far-right activist breached reporting restrictions by 'aggressively confronting and filming' defendants in grooming trial, rule judges

www.independent.co.uk

Tommy Robinson guilty over Facebook broadcast

The ex-English Defence League leader is found guilty of contempt of court for a 2018 broadcast.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Innula Zenovka]