01 January 2006

Around the Web

1) All the death penalties in California which reached the State supreme court were affirmed.

2) Now English courts are text messaging fines.

3) Underneath Their Robes is back.

4) The NSA has been handing out the information it has been gathering per the president's order have been handed out to other agencies.

5) Taking property without a DUI conviction.

6) Yes, I've been to Saudia and I can testify that this sort of punishment actually takes place. The Saudis tried to get us to come out to a beheading but the Army forbade us.

7) Ignorance. I started to dissect this a couple times but, really, I think most of us have understood the concept of innocent until proven guilty since that 7th grade civics course. BTW - don't believe the .08 BAC number is based on anything other than the fact that it is the lowest the prohibitionists have been able to get passed into law. via WP


Anonymous said...

"But this summer, a lawyer in Fairfax County dreamed up a new defense: the application of an obscure 1985 Supreme Court ruling that says prosecutors must prove all elements of a crime."

What kind of a redneck do you have to be to think that a Supreme Court decision in the last 50 years is "obscure." (Let alone a rather axiomatic one.)

Ken Lammers said...

Actually, I find that the rednecks have a strong, if basic, sense of their rights. i.e. What do you mean he the officer could search my car - without a warrant - after he arrested me and had me handcuffed and locked in the back of his car because I might've destroyed evidence?

It's the effete who don't believe that the Constitution should apply when they have a goal (in this case prohibition) who are the problem.

Anonymous said...

Who are these effete -- do you mean those tough on crime politicians? I never thought of the MAD folks as effete. Same for the Just Say No crowd: effete? Hardly - where I grew up, that was the good-ole-boy establishment line. Chaw was jes' fine, and we know you sneak off and have a little wiskey on Friday, but don't get caught with a joint. Maybe you're referring to some other group.

-- a coastal elitist (perhaps effetist? I dunno yet) - 10 years in SF, and 3 and counting in NYC, after fleeing backwoods Tennessee.

Ken Lammers said...

When I said effete I wasn't refering to anyone in a particular part of the country. Those to whom I refer are those who think, usually by virtue of social position, that the law is malleable. By making a mighty noise they can force their will upon a majority and they will make that same mighty noise if the law is applied to them, play the part of the wronged martyr and expect this injustice go away.

These people exist in every social grouping known to man. Don't believe me? Go watch your local PTA or church board or KoC meeting - you'll see them. The one factor which seems to be universally constant among these people (when involved in criminal law) is that they have time on their hands and they are dedicated to either (a) forcing "them" to live a better life as defined by the the effete, or (b) protecting "us" from the troubles "they" bring to our world by restricting their activities.