Current Events Watch

Bobby Cutts Jr. will be 87 when he’s eligible for parole. The former police officer killed Jessie Davis and what may have been his unborn child. After the crime, he left his toddler son Blake alone, crying in a soiled diaper. Add his name to the list along with Scott Petersen, Mark Hacking and a host of other spouses, partners and former partners that kill pregnant women.

Statistics show that pregnant women will most likely be killed, in terms of homicide, by the father of her child. Mark Hacking lied about graduating from college and being acceptance to medical school. Scott Petersen had an affair with a woman who had no idea he was married. Cutts was married and had at least one other girlfriend.

You get the point. All these men were manipulative, liars and general cheats. For some reason, that I don’t understand, the idea of a child or additional children caused them to snap. Why? Who knows. I’m not sure I want know but the trend of the discovery of the trend frightening. Not only has the world lost caring, kind women they’ve also lost the promise of children who would have had at least one good parent.

Maybe this verdict will help Jessie Davis rest in peace.

I have a warrant out for my arrest. No kidding. The boys in blue actually showed up a few weeks ago to haul my felonious ass to the slammer. They did, however, acknowledged that they probably had better things to do, and let me off the hook with a stern directive to get to the police station post-haste. Payment of $300 bail would secure my continued freedom. (I never went. I hate being told what to do.)

This was due to my blatant disregard of an invitation from the local courthouse to visit with the Honorable Judge Wayne Cagle. I have since learned that this sort of no-show behavior is frowned upon, as attendance at such events is not considered optional.

All of this because my house needs a fresh coat of paint, and now the house judge isn’t very happy.

One of my stalkers (I have two; very popular, I am) sought revenge when I began dallying with another, and apparently thought that ringing up City Hall to file a paint complaint would be the best way to express his displeasure.

The house does need painting, I’ll admit, but I’ve seen worse. I’m hardly a criminal, just lazy. Nevertheless, a default judgement was rendered against me, and I’m now a fugitive from justice.

Seemingly lots of important cases on the courts’ dockets indeed! Judicial time well-spent. Okay, I know I should have shown up for my court appearance, but I was annoyed by the whole thing. Seemed so frivolous, and again, I don’t like being told what to do. Or when and where to do it.

Despite my less-than-objective opinion about my personal situation, true judicial lunacy really lives. Of course we’re all aware of that; we live in America, for goodness’ sake.

But we’re not alone in the world when it comes to WTF? court decisions. Take Italy for example. Case in point:

At least this couple duly showed up when summoned which, as I’ve learned, is a good thing. In hindsight, however, they may wish that they had opted to go on the lam instead.

Mara and Roberto Germano live in Genoa. Mara and Roberto had a baby boy. Mara and Roberto named and baptized the new addition Venerdi. Mara and Roberto were happy.

Unfortunately for the couple, city hall officials in Italy are obligated by law to report any unusual names to the appropriate authorities, and since “Venerdi” is Italian for “Friday,” well, given the oddity of the name, is it any wonder that the matter would end up before the Genoan panel of judges?

The law must be upheld, after all, and egregious names will simply not be tolerated, so the court date was set.

After no doubt much deliberation and legal research, the Venerdi verdict was administered. Judgement against the defendants. The child simply would not be allowed to go through life with a name that evoked the image of a savage, like the character Friday in Robinson Crusoe, “thus creating a sense of inferiority and failing to guarantee the boy the necessary decorum.”

The Germanos appealed, as might have been expected. Who wouldn’t? What they called the little tyke during the interim, I don’t know. Still, they waited.

Then last month the appeals court came to their decision. They stated that Venerdi falls into the category of the “ridiculous or shameful” names that are barred by law, and agreed that it recalled the native servant in Daniel Defoe’s novel.

They even stepped it up a notch. The judges wrote that naming the boy Venerdi would bar him from “serene interpersonal relationships” and would turn him into the “laughing stock of his group,” according to a report in La Repubblica this week.

Not only that, they said that even as a day of the week, savage imagery aside, Friday raises a “sentiment of sadness and penitence, when not being associated with bad luck outright.” Case closed.

Win some, lose some. The law is the law. But now, what to do? The kid was born in September of 2006, and more than a year later, are Mom and Dad really expected to have to dust off that book of baby names yet again?

Not to worry. The judges have that covered as well. It was court-ordered that the boy be named Gregorio, after the saint on whose day he was born. So that takes care of that.

Seems to me that there would be far more important things on both domestic and international dockets relating to matters somewhat more relevant than house paint or baby names.

But that’s just me, and I’m a defendant, so my opinion may be biased. I’d bet, though, that Mara, Roberto and little Gregorio would probably agree with me.

venerdi germano, mara germano, roberto germano, gregorio, baby name friday, italy, italian judges, robinson crusoe, germano baby

If you and eight of your closest friends happen to fancy gang-raping ten-year-old girls, Australia is the must-see place to visit. Queensland and surrounding territories are particularly desirable since this lovely lady, the Honourable Judge Sarah Bradley, will be your ally if by some chance others might frown upon your prepubescent dalliances. Not to worry, Judge Sarah’s got your back.

She’s works for the Childrens Court of Queensland, after all, so she’s a pro when it comes to handling such kid things. There’s probably even some wiggle room with that age issue, too, in case ten isn’t your cup o’ tea. Eight, nine, eleven, twelve … you’re probably still good to go. Book your tickets now! You might even be able to find some sort of group discount deal if you shop around.

I’m being sarcastic, of course. Because seriously, this woman is a nut job. In October of this year, she really did let nine guys off the hook after raping a ten-year-old girl back in 2005 because, as she said in her ruling, the victim “probably agreed to have sex with all of you.” That’s some horny kid!

Sure, they got obligatory slaps on their wrists. Probation for the six who were legally minors at the time of the rape, and suspended sentences for the three adults. Bottom line is, the judge’s emancipation proclamation set them free to go forth and gang-bang at will that throng of nympho schoolgirls out there just begging for it. Take a number, guys, you’ll all get your turn.

The offenders came from some of the most powerful and prominent Aboriginal families in Cape York, while the victim’s family had a lower status, according to The Australian. Of course, I’m not implying that that had anything to do with the verdict whatsoever, just passing the information along as an interesting factoid.

Judge Bradley defended her sentencing, saying that the sentences were “appropriate” because they were the penalties sought by the prosecution. Uh, I don’t even know what to say about that. It’s just wrong on so many levels.

At least Australia’s Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has spoken out against the ruling, saying he was appalled. “I am horrified by cases like this, involving sexual violence against women and children. My attitude is one of zero tolerance,” he said.

As reported by the BBC, Boni Robertson, an Aboriginal activist, and Queensland Premier Anna Bligh, have also both expressed contempt for the verdict, saying that there could be no excuse for the judge’s decision. Robertson said, “There is nothing culturally, there is nothing morally, there is nothing socially and there is definitely nothing legally that would ever allow this sort of decision to be made.”

Premier Bligh has announced a review of all sentences given over the last two years in the region. “I am not prepared to just write this off as an unusual one-off case. I want to satisfy myself that the people of Cape York, and the people who live in remote indigenous communities, are receiving the same level of justice as we can expect in any other community in Queensland,” she said.

Meanwhile, boys, enjoy your time Down Under. Wink wink.

sarah bradley, australia rape, child rape, sexual abuse, child abuse, child sexual abuse, queensland rape

Continuing what has become a national trend, more and more cities are passing ordinances and laws prohibiting baggy pants. Actually, “baggy” is a misnomer, because the apparently-nothing-better-to-do-masterminds behind these proposals really don’t care so much about the bagginess. Nah. In actuality the plan is to establish and enforce proper waistline etiquette. Even the fellow to the left would probably be good to go, given a proper belt.

Education is key. Just so you know, the rule of thumb, and now in some locales the rule of law, is that your trouser (or lower-body garb of choice) must be secured at the waist. If your undergarment or any portion thereof does not qualify as being under-anything, you are in violation. Pull ‘em up! Or, in some cities now, put ‘em up! You could actually do some time in the slammer for such a fashion faux pas if you find yourself in the wrong jurisdiction at the wrong time, like in Delcambre, Louisiana. Several other municipalities in Louisiana have enacted similar laws in recent months, too. Beware.

Atlanta is the most recent fashion-conscious metropolis to join the fray. There, where low-slung style is apparently all the rage, the city council proposed an amendment to public decency laws just this last August, which would make it a crime to wear baggy pants. Or at least those not suitably cinched. The proposed ordinance states that “the indecent exposure of his or her undergarments” would be unlawful in public places. It would become part of the city code that similarly outlaws sex in public and the exposure or fondling of genitals. Well, I can certainly see the parallel there.

The amendment, sponsored by esteemed city councilman C.T. Martin, states that sagging pants are an “epidemic” that is becoming a “major concern” around the country. (Holy crap, my priorities have apparently been all askew! I guess I didn’t realize the epidemic scope of this national fashion disaster.)

And to all Atlantan southern belles, you, too, should watch your steps. As well as your straps. It’s not just a boy thing. The ordinance presented by your deranged city councilman would also make it a violation if, God forbid, your bra strap might happen to show in public! Good Lordy, bring on the burkas. Better safe than sorry.

Like I said, it’s a trend. Last year Dallas, Texas city councilman Ron Price attempted to pass legislation outlawing baggy britches, too. “If all citizens … understand [that] in the city of Dallas, we refuse to let you walk around with pants showing your buttocks, that’s a message for all people.” Apparently a partial underwear reveal is synonymous with full buttock exposure.

And let’s not forget Trenton, New Jersey’s crackdown on such nefarious wardrobe no-no’s. At least in Trenton you won’t need to be concerned about ending up behind bars like you might in the Bayou state, or with simply being fined and perhaps harshly reprimanded as you would be in A-Town, set free to no doubt return to your low-rise ways. Nope. They’ve adopted a more positive approach in dealing with this menacing epidemic.

Sure, you’ll still have to pay your dues. Criminals, of course, should be held accountable for their crimes. But you certainly won’t being sent on your wayward, hopeless, sagging way without appropriate guidance and counseling! The Garden State cares. So, after paying your debt to society (checks accepted) counseling will be provided by a city worker, assessing where your life is headed, helping to put you back on the straight and narrow. Appropriately belted, of course. It’s like rehab for the fashionably challenged.

Word up. To those of you who think your waistline falls somewhere between just above your naughty bits and your knees, you might want to be vigilant in glancing over your shoulder from time to time. You may find more than just the fashion police on your tail, there might also be one of those real-life police dudes creeping up on your indecently boxer-clad exposed behind. After all, they usually have nothing better to do.

baggy pants, dress codes, baggy jeans

I love parody. That’s why I’ve been a fan of The Onion for years, it cracks me up. Long before they had a website, I was picking up the print version (free of charge!) at the used CD store down the street. They do parody well. So well, in fact, that the first time one stumbles upon the magazine or website, perusing the headlines one might not recognize the tongue-in-cheek character of the content and think, “WTF? Really?” Okay, maybe that was just me.

In fact, I daresay that their website is definitely on par with the other dot-coms: MSNBC, CNN and (the “news” network whose name shall not be spoken, think the “F” word) that they are emulating. Videos, breaking news, Onion radio news, podcasts. They have it all. And just look at these headlines! Where else are you going to find this kind of coverage?

“Iraqi Leaders Call For Moment Of Violence During Ramadan”
“Fred Thompson Fears Presidential Run Will Typecast Him As Politician”
“Bush Subconsciously Sizes Up Spain For Invasion”

So during my online perusing yesterday, after checking the weather forecast (porn), checking up on the latest Election 2008 news (more porn), and checking my utility accounts to see how delinquent I really am (even more porn … I needed a distraction from my pending panic attack!), I ran across this gem of a headline. I chuckled and shook my head. How do they come up with this stuff?

“Nebraska State Senator Sues God”

Hey, that’s not The Onion! It’s actually true!

(Nebraska State Senator Ernie) Chambers says in his lawsuit that God has made terroristic threats against the senator and his constituents, inspired fear and caused “widespread death, destruction and terrorization of millions upon millions of the Earth’s inhabitants.”

The Omaha senator … also says God has caused “fearsome floods … horrendous hurricanes, terrifying tornadoes.” He’s seeking a permanent injunction against the Almighty.

And from the local Omaha TV station’s report:

The lawsuit admits God goes by all sorts of alias, names, titles and designations and it also recognizes the fact that the defendant is omnipresent. In the lawsuit, Chambers said he’s tried to contact God numerous times.

“Plaintiff, despite reasonable efforts to effectuate personal service upon defendant ‘Come out, come out, wherever you are,’ has been unable to do so,’” Chambers said.

I’m just saying, Ernie had better watch his back! If God has been inclined in the past to make “terroristic threats” against him, I’d wager that there now may be some motivation for the Big Guy to stop simply threatening, and to launch a full-blown assault!

I know, I know, if you read the article he was apparently trying to make a point about the “frivolous” nature of another lawsuit in which a judge had banned the words “rape” and “victim” from being used during a sexual assault trial. Personally, I don’t see why that is frivolous, whether she will win or lose. I suppose if you’re a rape victim in that judge’s court, though, you’d better keep a thesaurus handy!

Good Lord (or not-so-good, according to the lawsuit), the guy has been in office since 1970. I’m sure that there have been some truly frivolous lawsuits over the course of his 37-year reign that, if he had wanted to make said point, would have been a bit more relevant. Seems to me that after 37 years of criticizing Christians, skipping morning prayers during the legislative session, he suddenly had a lightbulb moment and seized the next available opportunity to publicly express his hatred of the Almighty! I did read somewhere that he said, despite his claimed reason for filing, that the charges filed in the lawsuit do make some “good points.” Yikes. Nebraskans must be proud.

ernie chambers, lawsuits, the onion, nebraska senator, frivolous lawsuits

At a high school in Jena, Louisiana, there was a “white tree”, where only white students sat during breaks. Until last September, that is, when a black student asked permission from the school if he could sit under the tree. They said he could sit anywhere. Duh.

The very next day, though, three nooses were hung from the “white tree”. Three white students were held responsible and expelled from school. Hey, they may not be KKK Grand Wizards yet, but it’s a start.

However, the white superintendent overturned the expelling saying that, “Adolescents play pranks. I don’t think it was a threat against anybody,” and gave them a three day suspension instead. On the bright side, at least they only had three days to hone their cross-burning and lynching skills, hardly enough time to become proficient.

A few days later, the entire black student body protested by sitting under “the white tree”. That same day the white District Attorney came to Jena High School for an impromptu assembly with, of course, law enforcement. (”We have black folks here, we need back-up!”)

It has been reported that the DA threatened the black students who were sitting under the tree, saying if they did not stop making such a big to-do about the “innocent prank”:

“I can be your best friend or your worst enemy. I can take away your lives with a stroke of my pen.”

Then, come Friday night, a black student was beaten by a group of white students at a party. Saturday, at the Gotta Go convenience store, the black student who was beaten up the night before, along with his friends, ran into one of the white students who beat him up.

A fight broke out (surprise!) and the white kid who had beaten the crap out of the black kid the night before, went to his vehicle and grabbed a shotgun. The black guys wrestled the shotgun away from him and brought it to the police department and reported what had happened. Guess what? The black students were arrested for stealing the gun. The white student was not charged.

The next Monday, another white student was attacked at school by a group of black students for taunting them with racial slurs and saying that he supported the nooses that were hung on “the white tree” and also supported the white guys who beat up the black guy at the party. He was treated at a hospital and released the same day, and well enough to apparently go out that same night.

Six black students, now known as the Jena Six, were arrested for beating him, and charged with attempted second-degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder. They were all immediately expelled from school. Where’s that 3-day suspension overriding superintendent when you need him? That’s right, never mind, I forgot for a moment that these kids aren’t white, it’s different.

In the local paper, it was reported that the white DA published a statement saying, “When you are convicted, I will seek the maximum penalty allowed by law.” Are you kidding me? “When you are convicted” is quite an assumption! I think what he meant to say was, “If you are convincted.” Then again, we’re in Jena, Louisiana.

The kids, some who have already spent several months in jail because their families didn’t have the money to post bail, face between 20 and 100 years in prison, for attempted second degree murder. The white kid, on the other hand, who was well enough after the fight, er, I mean attempted murder, to attend a party that same night, apparently has no worries. Good to go.

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t condone the behavior of the white kids or the black kids, or the fighting crap. They’re kids, they fight, it’s wrong, it happens. But it’s obvious that in Jena, LA, racism is rampant. The “white tree”. The nooses, just a honky prank, no harm done. White kids beating up a black kid, apparently just one of those things kids do. Blacks beating up a white kid, though, attempted murder, and 100 years in jail. Oh yeah, and I guess pulling a shotgun on someone is okay, as long as you’re white, and your target is black. And God forbid they should try to take the gun away, that would be stealing. But then again, that’s what black folks do. Just ask anyone in Jena.

jena six, racism, white tree, jena louisiana, youtube

I didn’t intend to revisit the issue, I’ve already said what I had to say about Senator Larry Craig’s failed pick-up attempt in the Minneapolis airport restroom. But, okay, here I go again. Because sometimes bad boys do make good. The “anti-gay” gay guy resigned today. All of his Republican fair-weather friends put enough pressure on him that he gave up his seat, so to speak.

If you watched or heard his resignation speech today, it was notable that there was nary a denial about his airport restroom activities. Lots of talk about how humbled he was, though, by those who were there to support him at his “OK, I Give Up” press conference. The Governor (”quit rambling so I can appoint a successor”), his loving wife (”you c*cksucker”), and his children (”at least we were adopted”) were all there. Well, two of the three children were there. The third was unable to attend, he had to work today. Voluntary overtime, perhaps?

Republican from Kentucky, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, said Craig “made a difficult decision, but the right one. It is my hope he will be remembered not for this, but for his three decades of dedicated public service.”

Public service indeed! I’m quite certain Larry Craig has enjoyed his three decades of servicing the public, in restrooms all over this great nation! As an aside, I probably would have enjoyed it, too. But I’m not a Senator with so many travel opportunities, blowing guys from state to state, only to return to DC to vote against every gay rights issue put on the table.

But anyway, the hypocrite eventually did the right thing. Maybe not so willingly, or in a timely fashion, but still, you have to give the soon-to-be ex-Senator props for finally stepping up to the plate, and then stepping down. Stepping out of the closet would perhaps be a smart move, too, Senator Craig. I mean, Mr. Craig.

larry craig, restroom sex scandal, craig resignation, larry craig press conference

From what I’ve read about Army Reservist Sergeant Erik Botta, I probably would not be on the same side of the fence politically. Just an assumption. However, I would think that at least most would agree, left or right or straddling said fence, that it is just wrong that the government would actually use the statement “to assure a sharing of exposure to the hazards of combat” to justify his fifth deployment.

The 26-year old has been to Afghanistan once, and to Iraq three times, and was then granted an exemption by the government, after his service, to pursue an engineering degree to work as a senior engineer on Blackhawk and Seahawk helicopters.

Exemption then denied. I guess he simply hasn’t been exposed to enough hazards of combat. Because, out of the blue, here comes notice that he will be re-deployed. For the fifth time, to assure a sharing of exposure to the hazards of combat.

I know I’ve repeated that quote ad nauseum in this particular column. It’s intentional. Because I find that particular statement atrocious, bizarre, and laughable in a morbid sort of way.

I have nothing left to say. I’m quite sure he’s had his share of exposure to the hazards of combat. He’s suing to fight the deployment, but, sorry, Sergeant Botta, you know how things work under this administration:

Botta’s attorney, Mark Waple, said he asked the Army Human Resources Command Wednesday if Botta’s deployment could be postponed until the litigation is settled.

”I got their answer today: No,” Waple said.

iraq, iraq war, afghanistan, deployment, erik botta

So the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday rejected the challenge brought against Bush’s illegal domestic wiretapping and electronic surveillance program. Of course, the majority ruling was from Republican-appointed judges. What happened to the law? The constitution? Particularly the 4th amendment?

What strikes me most is that constitutionality aside, the law was completely ignored. In 2002 Bush authorized the National Security Administration to secretly conduct wiretaps without a court order.

What?

Yes, the provision violates the constitution. Clearly. The 4th amendement reads:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

This administration doesn’t particularly seem to care about the constitution anyway, in my opinion. But the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 is very clear about the legality of wiretapping and other electronic spying, and when it is acceptable, and the procedures required to do so. It’s the law, but was completely ignored. And we didn’t find out it had been going on until 2005… they knew it was illegal from the time the NSA was given the authority in 2002, or there would have been no reason to try to keep the program secret.

And what would have been the problem with following the law and getting a warrant with judicial authorization as required by FISA in the first place?

Claiming it’s a “time of war” and other rhetoric is no excuse. And again, 4th amendment violation aside, they really can’t even spin their excuses based on FISA’s Authorization During Time of War clause which allows electronic surveillance without a court order. Firstly, it only allows the president to authorize surveillance without a court order for a period of no more than 15 days after declaration of war. This has been going on for years, without a court order or attempt to receive one. Secondly, Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution specifically says that Congress shall have the power to declare war. Congress has not declared this war.

So where’s the Catch-22 in this attempt to challenge the surveillance program in court? The court said the plaintiffs had no proof that they had been monitored by the government. On the other hand, the National Security Agency refused to turn over any wiretapping information which would have proven the charges one way or the other. The suit wasn’t really about personal wiretapping in the first place, I don’t believe, but an attempt to take the opportunity to ultimately put an end to the entire warrantless surveillance program. But without NSA providing the information required in this particular case, who would know either way who has or has not been tapped? Seems odd and suspicious to me, if they have nothing to hide.

The ACLU brought the lawsuit, backed by and on behalf of scholars, journalists and lawyers who assert that government monitoring has prevented them from doing their jobs properly.

Not that it would probably matter whether or not the NSA turned over the records, what with the Republican-appointed judges making the final decision anyway.

wiretapping, electronic surveillance, government surveillance, government wiretapping

It was déjà vu for me when I first heard three Duke LaCrosse players were being charged with rape. A friend asked me why I thought they were innocent. I told her the accounts I’d heard on the news just didn’t add up. When the DNA evidence didn’t match the players who were charged, I felt vindicated. Former prosecutor Mike Nifong is, at the moment, giving testimony in a Raleigh courtroom as part of a hearing about possible violations of ethical conduct in his handling of the case.

In 1994, I angered a group of mothers at my daughter’s elementary school. We’d all heard morning news accounts—Susan Smith describing a black man carjacking her, taking off with her two young sons. They were amazed at my distrust of Smith’s story. I remember I told the group Smith’s story just didn’t work for me. Eventually, I was vindicated on that one too. Smith’s doing life in prison for murdering her children. The black man was a fiction.

Remember Tawana Brawley? Her alleged rape, exploited by Al Sharpton who spun media like a cotton candy machine, occurred in 1997. Brawley accused six white men of the crime. They were exonerated. Sharpton got himself a makeover and has established a lucrative career as a self-appointed spokesperson for African-Americans.

The race card is alive and well in the United States, played by various races, it seems at times, on a whim.

The latest case almost ruined the lives of three young men whose nightmare started with a lousy decision to attend a party featuring a couple of strippers.

The alleged victim reportedly insulted the physical aspects, namely the sizes, of the party-goers’ sexual organs. Some of the party-goers reportedly insulted the victim by shouting racial insults.

Now Mike Nifong is being grilled, for not sharing comprehensive DNA results, for never personally interviewing the alleged victim, for turning a regrettable incident into an explosive race-charged political uproar.

One of the accused players, Reade Seligmann, described his life falling apart after the day he had to call his mother and tell her the results of the alleged victim’s participation in a line-up. “She picked me.”

And Nifong, ever the tinsel-tongued lawyer, described his actions in the case as stemming from the fact he “did not want decisions in the case to be based on politics.” When he uttered those words, there was a moment of stunned silence in the courtroom.

Asked about his constant off-the-cuff comments to the press, Nifong responded he may have gotten “carried away a little bit.”

Déjà vu, American style.

Word Press, Technorati, Tags, Duke Lacrosse, rape, allegations, criminal justice, trial, charges, media, race card, Sharpton, Duke, prosecutor, attorneys

---

I’m a product of public schools and so are my children. We got a great education. I flinch every time I hear libertarian Neal Boortz sarcastically call public schools “government schools.” Unfortunately, I’m beginning to understand his disdain.

While politicians fret over academic issues like No Child Left Behind, and educational associations lobby for more money and benefits, not much is being done to protect teachers in classrooms that are becoming increasingly violent.

On Thursday, WKRG News (Mobile, Ala.) reported an attack on a Murphy High School teacher. A student filmed that attack with his cell phone. In early May, CNN featured the video report (linked above) disclosing various teacher attacks.
(more…)

Video of ABC News report on U.S. youth gangs, aired 2-19-07, courtesy of youtube.com.

---

There’s a story in the Wednesday edition of The Press Democrat (Santa Rosa, Calif.) that should have received more national coverage.

Employees at a Petaluma Staples office supply store and a shopping center customer were beaten by alleged gang members.

“It’s the same thing we keep running into,” Sgt. Jim Stephenson, head of the Petaluma police gang unit, told the newspaper. “Guys going after colors.”
(more…)

A hate crime, also known as a bias crime, is a criminal offense committed against a person, property or society that is motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin.
—Original language for defining a hate crime, U. S. Federal Bureau of Investigation

The story came to light in the beginning by way of Internet emails. A young couple, Channon Christian and Chris Newsom, were murdered while out on a date in January, 2007. Christian and Newsom were reportedly carjacked in Knoxville, Tennessee as they left a friend’s house.

Various accounts appeared on Web sites and blogs. Knoxville TV station WBIR covered the story. Reports surfaced, of rape, torture and murder following the carjacking. National media paid very little attention.

Recently in Jacksonville, Florida, Benjamin Lee Washington, 24, was sentenced to life in prison, convicted for second degree murder in the death of Chad David Henderson, 19, at a tattoo party. The two argued about race. Henderson suggested minorities should be “bred out.” Washington was allegedly angry about that and also about a swastika tattoo on Henderson’s leg. Washington shot Henderson. The daily newspaper and local TV stations reported the story.

Christian, Newsom and Henderson were white. The assailants, both convicted and alleged, are black.

Viral emails expressed dismay none of these crimes were considered hate crimes. Many expressed anger and asked a uniform question. If the victims were of another race or gender, wouldn’t national media have picked up the story? Wouldn’t the federal government have leveled hate crime charges?

I’ve never agreed with hate crime legislation. We have solid laws on the books for murder. It’s my opinion that as soon as you tag an act a hate crime, you have lessened the value of the individual. Was Matthew Shepard less or more because he was gay? Was James Byrd more or less because he was black?

We should prosecute murder because a life has been taken. Applying a special label maintains that some Americans are worth more or less than others. Matthew Shepard, James Byrd, Channon Christian, Christian Newsom and Chad David Henderson were each entitled to the full rights granted by the U.S. Constitution. Applying the law on an uneven basis is an insult to these victims. We should value them because they were human beings. Shepard and Byrd’s murders fueled a media frenzy on all levels. In that sense, media elevated those victims above those who died recently.

Enacting special interest laws feeds the divisive climate that sweeps America in these troubled times. Leaders of both parties and populace leaders as well profit on the basis of exploiting race, gender and religion. In today’s cultural arena, feeding a system that fractures is a dangerous and foolhardy act.–Kay B. Day

Word Press, Technorati, Tags, Hate Crimes, Federal, Department of Justice, Murder, True Crime