Thanks to Skippy.
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Phil Spector - You Won't See Him No More
Yahoo News reports on the sentencing of Phil Spector, 19 years to life.
Here we discussed it before. What came out in the trial was that the famous music mogul was not the nicest guy in the world, especially with women. My only question is how common is this. Gun owners continually insist they have nothing to do with the criminal actions of others, but can they insist such a thing? What about times, like this perhaps, where the criminal actions are undertaken by one of them? Does that individual suddenly belong to a different group, a different demographic?
It sounds like Phil Spector was a complete maniac with guns, but what about all those partial maniacs?
I would guess the "partial maniacs" number in the millions. Those are the guys who don't act completely responsibly with their guns, whether they appear on the spectrum near Phil or on the milder end, maybe nothing more that verbal threats to use the weapon, or drinking too much while the guns are within reach. It's definitely a problem, albeit a difficult to quantify one.
What always amazes me though, is how the guys who claim to be responsible, take this kind of talk so personally, as if it applied to them. Why would a responsible, law-abiding gun owner make excuses for or minimize the numbers of these types I call "maniacs?" I repeat to those who take it all so personally, "if the shoe fits, wear it," if not spare us the hysterics.
Another thing I noticed in the sentencing is the "plus four years for personal use of a gun." Wouldn't that have been covered in the second-degree murder charge? Maybe someone can offer a legal explanation on that.
And one final idea, how does this crime and sentence compare to those of Sara Jane Moore and Lynette Squeaky Fromme? Is it like that higher level of punishment one gets for being a cop killer as opposed to a regular killer? Even attempting to kill the President, you get the full whack. Is that it?
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Phil Spector was sentenced Friday to 19 years to life in prison for the murder of actress Lana Clarkson, who was shot through the mouth in the music producer's home six years ago.
Spector, 69, looked straight forward and showed no emotion as Superior Court Judge Larry Paul Fidler ordered a term of 15 years to life for second-degree murder plus four years for personal use of a gun.
Here we discussed it before. What came out in the trial was that the famous music mogul was not the nicest guy in the world, especially with women. My only question is how common is this. Gun owners continually insist they have nothing to do with the criminal actions of others, but can they insist such a thing? What about times, like this perhaps, where the criminal actions are undertaken by one of them? Does that individual suddenly belong to a different group, a different demographic?
It sounds like Phil Spector was a complete maniac with guns, but what about all those partial maniacs?
Much of the case hinged on the testimony of five women from Spector's past who said he threatened them with guns when they tried to leave his presence. The parallels with the night Clarkson died were chilling even if the stories were very old — 31 years in one instance.
I would guess the "partial maniacs" number in the millions. Those are the guys who don't act completely responsibly with their guns, whether they appear on the spectrum near Phil or on the milder end, maybe nothing more that verbal threats to use the weapon, or drinking too much while the guns are within reach. It's definitely a problem, albeit a difficult to quantify one.
What always amazes me though, is how the guys who claim to be responsible, take this kind of talk so personally, as if it applied to them. Why would a responsible, law-abiding gun owner make excuses for or minimize the numbers of these types I call "maniacs?" I repeat to those who take it all so personally, "if the shoe fits, wear it," if not spare us the hysterics.
Another thing I noticed in the sentencing is the "plus four years for personal use of a gun." Wouldn't that have been covered in the second-degree murder charge? Maybe someone can offer a legal explanation on that.
And one final idea, how does this crime and sentence compare to those of Sara Jane Moore and Lynette Squeaky Fromme? Is it like that higher level of punishment one gets for being a cop killer as opposed to a regular killer? Even attempting to kill the President, you get the full whack. Is that it?
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Friday, May 29, 2009
Sara Jane Moore
Talk Left is on it as usual.
What a fascinating interview. Isn't it incredible to think that such a matronly old lady could have been involved in the radical groups and done something like this?
Mentioned early in the video is the fact that the attempt to assassinate Ford by Sara Moore was not the only one. Earlier the same month in 1975, Lynette Squeaky Fromme pulled a gun on the President. Although no shots were fired, she was also convicted of attempted murder of a president and sentenced to life. I'm not sure if it's some complicated sentencing guidelines or her affiliation with Charles Manson, but Fromme has not been released yet.
What's your opinion? Are these what you would consider stiff sentences, one for a shot that missed and another for just showing a gun? Is it fair to sentence people more harshly for attempts on the president's life as opposed to regular attempted murder?
And what could this mean for Obama? If President Gerald Ford had two close calls, what might Obama expect? Do you think the security is better nowadays?
Please feel free to leave a comment.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
What a fascinating interview. Isn't it incredible to think that such a matronly old lady could have been involved in the radical groups and done something like this?
Mentioned early in the video is the fact that the attempt to assassinate Ford by Sara Moore was not the only one. Earlier the same month in 1975, Lynette Squeaky Fromme pulled a gun on the President. Although no shots were fired, she was also convicted of attempted murder of a president and sentenced to life. I'm not sure if it's some complicated sentencing guidelines or her affiliation with Charles Manson, but Fromme has not been released yet.
What's your opinion? Are these what you would consider stiff sentences, one for a shot that missed and another for just showing a gun? Is it fair to sentence people more harshly for attempts on the president's life as opposed to regular attempted murder?
And what could this mean for Obama? If President Gerald Ford had two close calls, what might Obama expect? Do you think the security is better nowadays?
Please feel free to leave a comment.
Sex Education in the Bible Belt
Blue Gal, who runs one of my favorite blogs has a wonderful post up on Abstinence Only Sex Education. The map alone is worth some time, but her description of the situation is priceless.
She's a bit more direct than I would be in describing some of the nonsense the Christian Right gets up to. I often think the same thing about our friend Mud_Rake. But they make good points. Until I studied that map, I never realized the extent of the damage this Abstinence Only business can do.
What's your opinion? Do you think parents who want to teach their kids to abstain from sex until they're older or married but also want to educate them about birth control and its proper use are facing an impossible dilemma? Do you think kids who are old enough to discuss abstinence are old enough to learn about birth control options?
Aren't the highlighted states in Blue Girl's map the same ones which have lax gun control policies? Is there a correlation between the attitudes and educational policies that have led to high rates of welfare pregnancies and the heavy pro-gun position that we're so familiar with?
What's your opinion? What do you think about North Dakota? They've got lots of guns, very few murders and very few births financed by Medicaid. Man, I'm goin', that's all there is to it, I'm goin'.
Please feel free to leave a comment.
In a perfect world, citizens in states with higher birth-rates among the uninsured would pay a pro-abstinence and prophylactic ignorance tax, which would appear as a line item on page one of their 1040.
"Write the name of your state on line A"
"If your state is listed in Schedule IC (idiot Christianist) subtract $1,000 from your standard deduction."
States that enact medically accurate, age-appropriate comprehensive sex education programs (h/t NCSSE) would be exempt from such tax after three years of reduction in Medicaid birth rates. (I would also push for free roadside condom distribution and including state-funded advertising for Trojans during all sports programming and American Fucking Idol.)
She's a bit more direct than I would be in describing some of the nonsense the Christian Right gets up to. I often think the same thing about our friend Mud_Rake. But they make good points. Until I studied that map, I never realized the extent of the damage this Abstinence Only business can do.
It just happened to Bristol Palin, too. I try not to think about whether Levi is practicing safer sex these days. Bristol's parents are showing their selfish arrogance again by allowing her to be used for family propaganda.
Tabloid media saturation is actually an opportunity to get our national head out of our ass and grow up when it comes to sex. Teenagers need those of us who are adults to be adults. Those dependent, right or wrong, on the public dole can receive lots of information while they are seeking assistance from other agencies.
Bristol's mother needed to buy her condoms and tell her to use them, or watch her carefully enough and keep her busy enough that sex with Levi wasn't the only fun she could have.
What's your opinion? Do you think parents who want to teach their kids to abstain from sex until they're older or married but also want to educate them about birth control and its proper use are facing an impossible dilemma? Do you think kids who are old enough to discuss abstinence are old enough to learn about birth control options?
Aren't the highlighted states in Blue Girl's map the same ones which have lax gun control policies? Is there a correlation between the attitudes and educational policies that have led to high rates of welfare pregnancies and the heavy pro-gun position that we're so familiar with?
What's your opinion? What do you think about North Dakota? They've got lots of guns, very few murders and very few births financed by Medicaid. Man, I'm goin', that's all there is to it, I'm goin'.
Please feel free to leave a comment.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Pharmacy Shooter Charged With Murder
NewsOK.com has the whole story (h/t AztecRed).
An Oklahoma City pharmacist was charged today with first-degree murder in the May 19 shooting death of a would-be robber.Chickasha resident Jerome Ersland, 57, surrendered about noon, his attorney, Irven Box, said. He is being held without bail in the Oklahoma County Jail.
Box thinks a jury will exonerate Ersland.
The charge alleges Ersland shot Antwun Parker, 16, while he was incapacitated and lying on his back. Ersland’s account of the incident doesn’t match the video or the evidence collected at the scene, according to the affidavit written by Oklahoma City Police Detective David Jacobson.
Parker was shot once in the head and five times in the stomach area. The autopsy found Parker was still alive after the head shot and died from the stomach wounds.
Now, if that's an accurate description of what happened, is there anybody who could support the shooter? Is there anyone who would consider this anything less that murder? I would think not, but then I happened to come across what Aztec Red had to say about it.
Initially, this was a good shoot and perfectly within Oklahoma's Castle Doctrine. However, Mr. Ersland went beyond-self defense when he shot an incapacitated person an additional 5 times.
His second mistake was talking too much. Mr. Ersland spent way too much time talking to the press and as a result, there is a record of his account of the event that doesn't match the surveillance video. After a self-defense shooting, the after reporting the incident, any further talking you do on the subject should be done through your lawyer.
As if that's not enough, our friend and fairly frequent commenter, Aztec Red goes on to advise folks expecting to find themselves in the situation that Mr. Ersland did, to use a larger calibre gun. I'm absolutely appalled, but I must admit, not all that surprised by his response.
Calling murder "a mistake," advising defensive-gun shooters not to talk about the incident and recommending heavier firepower in order to avoid the whole mess, are the exact attitudes I often accuse pro-gun folks of having. I've been viciously attacked for making such claims. I've been assured these blood-thirsty types are the rarest of the rare.
What's your opinion? Are the attitudes Mr. Aztec demonstrates on his blog typical? Are you in agreement with him in supporting the pharmacist in this nasty shooting?
The defense attorney thinks the Oklahoma jury will exonerate his client. Lawyers always say that, but the sad fact is in Oklahoma it just might happen.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Military Suicide Rate Going Up
A few months ago we discussed the record year for Army suicides in 2008. Now it seems it's getting worse. CNN reports.
A big focus of the three-day event will be to convince the young soldiers that asking for help is not inconsistent with the other traditional values that have been drummed into them, things like strength and honor. It is a sign of strength, the general will tell them, when they reach out for help.
Do you think that approach will work? Is it possible for young men, trained the way they are for war in Iraq and Afghanistan, to incorporate these mental health principles into their lifestyle? I don't think so.
What's your opinion? It brings up the old questions of personal responsibility and individual freedom. Do you think those 11 soldiers who committed suicide on Fort Campbell this year had sound enough minds to make that decision? Did they enjoy personal freedom of choice the way everyone else does? I don't think so.
I think those poor guys were victims of a system that swallowed them up and crushed the life out of them. They probably suffered from terrible depression or fear or isolation, or perhaps all three, all the while trying to fake it and fit in. It's tragic and sad and something should be done about it. My heart goes out to their families and loved ones.
What's your opinion? What can be done about this terrible ongoing tragedy?
Please leave a comment.
A major United States military post is shutting down for three days following a rash of suicides, the post announced.Fort Campbell, home of the Army's 101st Airborne Division, is holding a three-day "suicide stand-down training event" starting Wednesday -- the second one it has held this year, a post spokeswoman told CNN.
At least 11 deaths of Fort Campbell soldiers this year are confirmed or suspected suicides, spokeswoman Kelly Tyler said. That's out of 64 confirmed or suspected suicides in the entire Army, according to official statistics. At that rate, the Army is on pace for a record number of suicides this year.
A big focus of the three-day event will be to convince the young soldiers that asking for help is not inconsistent with the other traditional values that have been drummed into them, things like strength and honor. It is a sign of strength, the general will tell them, when they reach out for help.
Do you think that approach will work? Is it possible for young men, trained the way they are for war in Iraq and Afghanistan, to incorporate these mental health principles into their lifestyle? I don't think so.
What's your opinion? It brings up the old questions of personal responsibility and individual freedom. Do you think those 11 soldiers who committed suicide on Fort Campbell this year had sound enough minds to make that decision? Did they enjoy personal freedom of choice the way everyone else does? I don't think so.
I think those poor guys were victims of a system that swallowed them up and crushed the life out of them. They probably suffered from terrible depression or fear or isolation, or perhaps all three, all the while trying to fake it and fit in. It's tragic and sad and something should be done about it. My heart goes out to their families and loved ones.
What's your opinion? What can be done about this terrible ongoing tragedy?
Please leave a comment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)