Nookular Combat

Morehouse College Graduate Joshua Norris

CNN reports on the strange story that's unfolding at a famous Atlanta school. Morehouse College is known as the most prestigious black, male college in America. It boasts of such famous alumni such as Martin Luther King Jr. and Spike Lee.

About 500 students will graduate this weekend from Atlanta's prestigious Morehouse College. One person who won't be there is Rashad Johnson, shot three times by a fellow student. But the shooter will receive his diploma -- part of a plea deal that spared him up to 20 years in prison.

Joshua Brandon Norris faced one count of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and a second count for possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. But in a court hearing in January, he was presented with what the judge described as "the break of your life."

It's hard to understand the college's thinking here, which naturally they won't comment on. I would think that quietly dismissing Norris would have been the best way to avoid criticism, so I don't see their actions as an attempt to protect the college. Yet, it's a bit difficult to understand not only the prosecutor's decision to accept such a plea but the school's decision to support Joshua Norris.

The incident began at a Halloween party in 2007 at an Atlanta club, where Morehouse college kids had gathered for a bash. The club owner said he saw Norris causing trouble, and a bouncer threw him out the front door.

Minutes later, the people in the club heard gunshots and everyone hit the floor. The club owner said the shooter was the man he saw kicked out.

Johnson told CNN that there was an altercation outside the club and that he exchanged words with Norris. He said he didn't think much of it, and he began walking to his car when Norris pulled up in his Hummer, got out of the vehicle and pointed a gun at his head.

"When he put the gun to my head, all I could think about was I'm not going to let this kid take me away from my mom, especially with what she's dealing with right now," Johnson said.

He said he grabbed Norris' wrist and pulled his arm down when shots rang out. "I felt the sharpest burning sensation when the first bullet hit my leg. It actually made my leg buckle," he said.

I find the story puzzling to say the least, unless of course, the judge, prosecutor and school know more than we do about it. In fact that's the only explanation I can think of.

On the It's My Mind blog there is indeed more to the story, but it's not good. Joshua Norris is described as an arrogant rich kid who acts as if he's above the law. Other incidents of gun play and brutality are described, which have been covered up and all but buried.

So what do you think? Given the basic facts of the story, is there a way to understand the legal and academic decisions in this case? Do you think there's more to the story than has been reported? Assuming the part about having a gun with him while driving the Hummer is true, is that legal in Georgia? Would such a thing be legal in another state, New Jersey, for example?

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Florida Turnpike Killers Sentenced to Death

The Miami Herald carries the story of the sentencing of the two so-called Florida Turnpike Killers. We discussed this horrible crime before in which an entire family including two kids was wiped out.

The judge called them a group of people living a Scarface movie fantasy, seeing themselves as young drug lords ruling a world of escalating violence that led to the brutal murders of 3- and 4-year-old brothers and their parents.

Imposing a sentence recommended by a federal jury, U.S. Senior District Judge Daniel T.K. Hurley on Wednesday told Daniel Troya and Ricardo Sanchez Jr. their sentence for the boys' killings reflected the consequences of their involvement in the drug trade.

He sentenced both to die.

The sentences make Sanchez and Troya, 25 and 26, the first people to receive a federal death sentence in Florida since lawmakers reenacted the penalty in 1988.

One fascinating aspect of the case is that Troya and Sanchez had been willing before the trial to settle the cases in exchange for life sentences. The attorneys said prosecutors on the local level accepted the agreement, but the Attorney General's Office in Washington rejected it and asked for the death penalty.

So, in spite of the additional cost and all the other problems inherent in a capital punishment proceeding, the Attorney General's Office in Washington insists. Why do you think that is?

What's your opinion? Are Troya and Sanchez good candidates for the death penalty? Is their crime one that cries out for the ultimate punishment?

What about the family that was killed? Didn't they, or at least the parents, make the decision to work in the drug business? Didn't they choose to commit numerous crimes? Wouldn't that make them responsible for their own deaths just like the other criminals we've discussed who ended up dead because they were committing crimes? Or do you think there's a difference when the executioner is also a criminal?

There's entirely too much killing going on, can we all agree upon that? Do you think the availability of guns and the prevalence of violence in society, as glamorized in movies like Scarface, are two factors that feed on each other? I know it's not the guns, per se, but wouldn't it be wise if we found a way to keep the gun availability down as we sought to heal our society from violence through education and rehabilitation? What do you think about that?

Please feel free to leave a comment.

In the Year 2525

"In the Year 2525" hit number one on the pop charts in 1969. It claimed the #1 spot for six weeks, a remarkable achievement. It also topped the charts in the UK. Coincidentally, it was number one on July 20, 1969 in the USA, the date of the first manned moon landing by astronauts Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin. It was nominated for a special Hugo Award that same year.

It is not typical for a recording artist to have a number one hit single and then never have another chart single for the rest of their career.

Wikipedia has the story.

Claims Against Glock Dismissed

The San Francisco Chronicle web site SFGate.com reports on the dismissal of charges against gun manufacturer Glock for a shooting rampage which took place using their products. Now I understand the questions raised a couple times lately by our frequent and extremely respectful commenter Sevesteen, "Do you think that Glock should be liable for criminal misuse of a gun sold to police?"

A federal appeals court dismissed damage claims against gun manufacturers Monday by the victims of a white supremacist's shooting rampage in the San Fernando Valley, saying a 2005 federal law backed by the firearms industry bars such lawsuits.

This seems perfectly clear and reasonable. How could the manufacturer of a legal product be held responsible for the misuse of that product by an end-user? The law suit arose out of a terrible bloodbath which took place in 1999.

Buford Furrow, a mentally disturbed man with neo-Nazi affiliations, took at least seven guns into a Jewish center in Granada Hills and opened fire, wounding three children, a teenager and an adult. An hour later, he fatally shot Joseph Ileto, 39, a letter carrier, in nearby Chatsworth.

Furrow pleaded guilty to murder and was sentenced to life in prison. The suit was filed by Ileto's widow, Lilian, and by three of the wounded youths and another child at the center.

They claimed that the manufacturers deliberately made more guns than the legitimate market could support and sold them through channels that would reach a "secondary market" of private and under-the-table transactions.

The suit said Glock Inc., maker of the 9mm pistol allegedly used to shoot Ileto, sold many guns to police that were unsafe to civilians and ignored government warnings about high-risk distribution channels - in this case, from a police department in Washington state through several owners to an unlicensed trader, who sold it to Furrow.

I have to admit, that claim made me think perhaps it's not so perfectly clear and reasonable after all. Could it be possible that gun manufacturers are producing more guns than the society can legally absorb? Could they be completely aware of the fact that the only way so much product is going to be distributed is by saturating not only the legal market but also the illegal one? Isn't it reasonable to assume that gun manufacturers, like any other producer of consumer products, strive to increase sales? Is it such a stretch to figure there really was some merit to the claims against them?

What's your opinion? Does this entire discussion hinge upon the theory of gun availability and its role in gun violence? If you deny that, then there's nothing to discuss. But, If you admit that gun availability plays a part in the problem, then perhaps these questions about the manufacturer are valid. What do you think?

Please leave a comment.

The Cage Became The Menagerie

Star Trek fans know that the pilot episode entitled The Cage, starring Jeffrey Hunter, was not aired on television until long after the show went into reruns, in 1988. What Gene Roddenbury did do however was elongate the show into a two-part episode, The Menagerie, which is widely reputed to be the best Star Trek episode of all time.

One fascinating difference between The Cage and The Menagerie is that from among the famous cast members only Leonard Nimoy appears in The Cage. Its story was only about Captain Pike and the Tolosians. To make it longer, Roddenbury wrote in the rest of the cast, embedding, as it were, the pilot film into the longer The Menagerie. Wikipedia has the whole story.

Tennnessee Death Row Inmate Cleared

CNN reports on the great news for Paul House. After spending 22 years on Tennessee's Death Row, State prosecutors on Tuesday asked a judge to drop all charges against him. Mr. House was convicted of murder and sentenced to die in 1986. Special Judge Jon Blackwood accepted the request.

House had been scheduled to be executed next month for the 1985 murder of Carolyn Muncey. He had been on death row for 22 years but was released on bail last year. He has multiple sclerosis and must use a wheelchair.

The high court ruled in June 2006 that House was entitled to a new hearing.

"Although the issue is closed, we conclude that this is the rare case where -- had the jury heard all the conflicting testimony -- it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror viewing the record as a whole would lack reasonable doubt," wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy for the 5-3 majority.

House's appeal was championed by the Innocence Project, affiliated with the Cardozo School of Law in New York.

This is a perfect example of one of the major reasons for abolition cited by Diann Rust-Tierney, Executive Director of the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty. She gives three reasons: that innocent people are in danger of being executed, like in this case, that capital punishment is disproportionately applied to minorities and that it is more costly than sentencing people to life in prison.

I've always maintained that there's an even stronger reason, one that perhaps rides above all those very valid reasons. I say capital punishment is morally unacceptable. In order to avoid the ethical hypocrisy of killing people for killing people, we must abandon the death penalty.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.