tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post8305203968599602739..comments2024-02-05T03:41:13.688+01:00Comments on Mikeb302000: A Case of American Blind Justice as Arlo Guthrie Would SayAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09806175370305006933noreply@blogger.comBlogger36125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-63350175125571712712014-03-29T18:37:15.537+01:002014-03-29T18:37:15.537+01:00So, Mikeb, would Miller's omission, in one of ...So, Mikeb, would Miller's omission, in one of her articles, of the discredited allegations against Mr. Witaschek be somewhat akin to the <a href="http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2014/03/29/nyt-takes-gun-out-aps-original-gun-corruption-charges-leland-yee-headlin" rel="nofollow"><i>New York Times'</i> decision to not mention the word "gun"</a> in their coverage of Hero of "Gun Control" Leland Yee?<br /><br />Well, since my questions apparently frighten you, due to the contained "accusations" which only you can see, I'll answer it myself. Miller's decision to stop repeating the meritless allegations is <i>nothing</i> like the <i>NYT</i> editing the most newsworthy part out of the <i>Associated Press</i> headline.Kurt '45superman' Hofmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14091930034162667742noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-65397993542038086722014-03-29T15:30:52.442+01:002014-03-29T15:30:52.442+01:00What hypocrisy? I'll freely admit Miller is p...What hypocrisy? I'll freely admit Miller is pro gun and that it's appropriate to double check her based on that potential bias. I double check Fox based on my knowledge that they'll be biased toward the right and MSNBC because I know they'll be biased toward the left.<br /><br />YOU are the one who called Miller a shill and implied that we couldn't trust her reporting. You are the one who then turned around and asked why you would ever want to criticize a guy for being a potential gun control shill. And you and Laci both seemed to miss the fact that the Media Matters report you were trying to discredit Miller with actually used her past reporting on this subject as the source of its information about the old allegations.<br /><br />It's beginning to look like she did a better job of putting aside her bias and being a good reporter since she told us about these allegations along with everything else.Simon J.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-12138187769046533812014-03-29T15:25:27.479+01:002014-03-29T15:25:27.479+01:00No, Mike. Charges dismissed because they were fou...No, Mike. Charges dismissed because they were found to be without merit means that the judge saw no proof. If there was a plea bargain, we would have been told that he plead guilty of some reduced charge. If he got off on a technicality, the report would have been that charges were dismissed due to improper _________. Etc. Etc. Etc.<br /><br />And as we keep noting: Miller included it in previous articles when she was reporting on the raid--in fact MEDIA MATTERS CITED HER AS THEIR SOURCE ON THE ALLEGATIONS.<br /><br />She just left it out of a report on this decision which was made after the allegations were found to be groundless and on which those allegations had no bearing.<br /><br />So I'll ask again: What bearing do those allegation have on the propriety or impropriety of this "ludicrous" decision? And how would it have made sense to smear him by bringing them up again when the discussion is about the judge's and prosecutor's legal gymnastics in this case?Simon J.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-26006661532960710502014-03-29T13:45:26.492+01:002014-03-29T13:45:26.492+01:00"Are you guys really saying that her not ment..."Are you guys really saying that her not mentioning those allegations was not a purposeful attempt to increase sympathy for his plight?"<br /><br /> As I said in my earlier comment Mike, Miller mentioned it in her first article, in about the fourth paragraph I believe. She also mentions it in other articles, giving many more details that the media matters article. In fact, with so many "facts" supplied by Miller, shouldn't it have been easier for the "respectable" media matters "journalist" to bring any supposed fabrications by Miller to light? But all they were able to say was he was accused. As opposed to Miller who supplied this in an article just last month.<br /><br />" Mr. Witaschek’s ex-wife, Gabriella Landinez, told police in May 2012 that her estranged husband had unregistered firearms in the home, and he said that he said he would kill her on the phone one time.<br />The police never seemed to have investigated the matter. Mr. Witaschek denies ever having guns in D.C. and making a threat. <br />A temporary protection order was granted ex parte (without Mr. Witaschek answering the complaint.)<br />But in court, Judge Jose Lopez denied Ms. Landinez’s request for a civil protection order (CPO) (and financial support) in Aug. 2012, saying there was no evidence of a threatening phone call.<br />“There’s no history of violence in this family,” the judge said. “There is no history of that type of manipulation in this family to lead to any inference that he would have said that statement…”<br /><br />http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/feb/23/trial-mark-witaschek-washington-dc-one-shotgun-she/?page=all<br /><br /> Your argument about Miller mentioning these allegations doesn't hold water. Laci seems to have worked hard to not notice it earlier. <br /><br /><br />ssgmarkcrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14480230040370709682noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-73234469411250013102014-03-29T11:37:15.757+01:002014-03-29T11:37:15.757+01:00I don't know, and I don't think you do eit...I don't know, and I don't think you do either. Isn't it possible that "without mert" are code words for plea bargaining, or getting off on a technicality, or any number of other possibilities. Emily Miller should have included it in her piece, that is if she were a real reporter and not a shill for the NRA.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09806175370305006933noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-79144870040688740932014-03-29T11:33:51.228+01:002014-03-29T11:33:51.228+01:00Wait a minute, you hypocrites. I don't hear yo...Wait a minute, you hypocrites. I don't hear you guys equally criticizing both sides. Al made a nonsensical attack of me using the words "intellectual dishonesty," something he probably read on a gun blog and though sounded cool, and now you guys are doubling down on it, insisting it makes sense and that YOU would never do something so despicable. You guys are full of it.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09806175370305006933noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-74712580794580122482014-03-29T11:05:00.631+01:002014-03-29T11:05:00.631+01:00And as Ssg. pointed out, she Did mention them back...And as Ssg. pointed out, she Did mention them back when it was relevant. Of course, you keep ignoring that because it doesn't fit with the narrative in your head.Simon J.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-43231587153821872792014-03-29T11:03:27.375+01:002014-03-29T11:03:27.375+01:00And again--Those allegations were dismissed as hav...And again--Those allegations were dismissed as having no merit, so what's the point of bringing them up to smear the man? How does it impact the appropriateness of the verdict here?<br /><br />You guys just keep bringing it up to smear the man and try to spin away from the fact that he was convicted on charges you have admitted are ludicrous.Simon J.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-2570890849462058572014-03-29T10:29:29.257+01:002014-03-29T10:29:29.257+01:00Are you guys really saying that her not mentioning...Are you guys really saying that her not mentioning those allegations was not a purposeful attempt to increase sympathy for his plight? C'mon, guys. Admit it. She's as good a spin doctor as there is for your side.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09806175370305006933noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-20786575024666510762014-03-28T18:54:05.039+01:002014-03-28T18:54:05.039+01:00Well, Mike, I actually laughed when I read your re...Well, Mike, I actually laughed when I read your response; unfortunately, I don't think you intended to make a joke. Yes, you basically nailed the definition of intellectual dishonesty: when you seek to discredit your opponents for some reason, but fail to acknowledge that your allies have the same faults, you are being intellectually dishonest. The fact that you think "that's pretty stupid" is so sad it's funny.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13139196646530878676noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-1645525406734628242014-03-28T15:48:45.044+01:002014-03-28T15:48:45.044+01:00And if you feel like speaking for Laci since he pr...And if you feel like speaking for Laci since he probably won't show up, tell us why Miller should be shamed for her defense of a domestic abuser--especially when said individual had the abuse charges dropped because they were "without merit."Simon J.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-74068109153892201122014-03-28T15:47:21.672+01:002014-03-28T15:47:21.672+01:00Please--explain how the unproven allegations, late...Please--explain how the unproven allegations, later found to be without merit, add anything to the equation of whether he was guilty or innocent?Simon J.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-27994015937020430562014-03-28T15:44:40.572+01:002014-03-28T15:44:40.572+01:00Ah, so potential bias in someone you don't agr...Ah, so potential bias in someone you don't agree with makes them a bad shill, but potential bias on the part of people you agree with does nothing to damage their credibility?Simon J.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-55397792082289349202014-03-28T15:38:02.031+01:002014-03-28T15:38:02.031+01:00Those allegations, which were found groundless, on...Those allegations, which were found groundless, only explain how the initial search happened. They have no bearing on the final verdict or the analysis of the law.<br /><br />Strike that--they SHOULD have no bearing on the final verdict and analysis of the law--of course, this judge has shown himself to be so incompetent, it wouldn't be surprising if he inappropriately took old false allegations into account.Simon J.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-14888528007176646912014-03-28T08:27:34.594+01:002014-03-28T08:27:34.594+01:00I agreed right away the charges and conviction sou...I agreed right away the charges and conviction sound absurd, but the "unproven allegations" do add some possibilities to the equation. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09806175370305006933noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-85956750855487595082014-03-28T08:24:40.305+01:002014-03-28T08:24:40.305+01:00Why would I criticize the Media Matters guy with w...Why would I criticize the Media Matters guy with whom I agree? You accuse me of intellectual dishonesty because I criticize those I disagree with but not those I agree with. <br /><br />That's pretty stupid, Al.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09806175370305006933noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-20097282910909305812014-03-28T08:08:27.066+01:002014-03-28T08:08:27.066+01:00Mike, the allegations were mentioned quite clearly...Mike, the allegations were mentioned quite clearly in the first article. And also mentioned was the judge's finding no merit in the allegations. Miller then covered the trial. My guess is that her neglecting to mention it again was because the domestic assault allegations couldn't be proven. ssgmarkcrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14480230040370709682noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-78362132658733107952014-03-28T07:56:27.265+01:002014-03-28T07:56:27.265+01:00Her write up was intentionally manipulative by omi...Her write up was intentionally manipulative by omitting the domestic violence allegations against the man. Something like that could explain the extreme behavior of the cops, but Miller painted him as the poor persecuted gun owner who was unfairly treated badly.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09806175370305006933noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-19348718707149457802014-03-28T06:29:57.594+01:002014-03-28T06:29:57.594+01:00So, you dismiss Emily Miller as a "shameless ...So, you dismiss Emily Miller as a "shameless shill for the gun-rights movement", but have nothing to say about mediamatters' Timothy Johnson, the author of the opposing piece, whose byline bio includes "...time at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence Legal Action Project and the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence." So much for your intellectual honesty, and thus your credibility.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13139196646530878676noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-75617497597204759122014-03-28T06:16:20.088+01:002014-03-28T06:16:20.088+01:00Mr. Dog (may I call you Laci?), this man is *not* ...Mr. Dog (may I call you Laci?), this man is *not* known to be a domestic abuser, and the "...allegation that this person threatened another person with a gun..." is *not* "...curiously absent from the right wing accounts." This is addressed in this Miller article:<br /> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/23/miller-dc-businessman-faces-two-years-jail-unregis/?page=all<br /><br />Ironically enough, this is the article that the mediamatters spin doctor linked to substantiate his claim of "alarming allegations"; presumably he hoped that his readers would, like you, fail to read his source and notice that it was actually just one discredited allegation. Since you clearly missed it in your 'due diligence', here's the paragraph from the article I cite:<br /><br />"Police based their search on a charge made by Mr. Witaschek’s estranged wife, who had earlier convinced a court clerk to issue a temporary restraining order against her husband for threatening her with a gun, although a judge later found the charge to be without merit."<br /><br /> Thanks for reminding us that lawyers are no more immune to prejudice, or inadequately researched opinions, than the rest of us.<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13139196646530878676noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-77274134402542061402014-03-28T00:33:14.450+01:002014-03-28T00:33:14.450+01:00Mike and Laci,
"Another point, I am curious ...Mike and Laci,<br /><br />"Another point, I am curious as to why Emily Miller is so enthusiastic about defending a domestic abuser?"<br /><br />What the Fuck, Laci? Has he been convicted of domestic abuse? Media Matters told us about the allegations, but even they only called them allegations. There have been no charges or evidence, just allegations--allegations which hold little water considering the wife claimed she was threatened with a gun, and it turned out that there were NO guns in the District.<br /><br />It's obvious why you guys like the Media Matters report--it smears the guy you don't like with unproven allegations. You want to be able to ignore this case, because after all, he's just an abuser. I can see many activists feeling that way, but Laci is a lawyer and should know better--you don't dismiss a case just because the defendant is a douche, because otherwise prosecutors find douches and use prosecution of them to advance their encroachments on our rights--look at 4th Amendment jurisprudence to see how this has been attempted and done repeatedly.<br /><br /><br />Also, none of the information given by Media Matters contradicts the relevant legal issues in this case. The DO misstate the facts about the Gregory incident, claiming that there was a miscommunication with police, when in reality NBC was told no quite clearly.<br /><br />But since Laci seems to believe that Witaschek was guilty, and since Mike agrees with him about Miller being so untrustworthy that he can't believe her account, please tell us your interpretations of why Witaschek was in the wrong and should have been convicted as he was.Simon J.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-61973872792540487032014-03-28T00:13:11.203+01:002014-03-28T00:13:11.203+01:00Mike,
I don't know. I've never heard you...Mike,<br /><br />I don't know. I've never heard your position on banning possession of ammo or ammo components as is done in D.C., NJ, etc. All I know is that you were unsympathetic to the guy who pulled over for a nap in NJ rather than pushing on through the state, and got charged with violating their gun possession laws. Their interpretation is that you lose your federal protection of just passing through if you stop for a nap, for gas, to pee, or for any other reason.<br /><br />To me that sounds pretty darn unreasonable and on par with this.<br /><br />As for whether Miller would give us all the facts, I found her write up to have more facts and intelligible details than many write ups of court cases. I tried to find other reports to compare this with, but it looks like no other media outlets are covering the case--all I found were blogs and even local news outlets, citing Miller's piece. You imply that Miller would manipulate the story and give us a skewed view, but the rest of the media are doing us a disservice by not even reporting on the case, skewing the media picture as a whole to appear as if there are no cases like this going on.Simon J.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-53816124801880136382014-03-27T23:36:24.935+01:002014-03-27T23:36:24.935+01:00"Another point, I am curious as to why Emily ..."Another point, I am curious as to why Emily Miller is so enthusiastic about defending a domestic abuser?"<br /><br /> Laci, do you have any information to dispute this portion of the article I cited? Hopefully something more substantial than "I don't like Emily Miller" or the Moonies own the paper. <br /><br />"Police based their search on a charge made by Mr. Witaschek’s estranged wife, who had earlier convinced a court clerk to issue a temporary restraining order against her husband for threatening her with a gun, although a judge later found the charge to be without merit."<br /><br /> As the Media Matters article stated, this all took place over a year and a half ago, yet, all they can say is accused. No mention of any domestic assault charges, or even that Miller's article from six months earlier was inaccurate because the protection order hadn't been dismissed. This would suggest that Miller was telling the truth.<br /> I'm not a lawyer, but for the audience here, can you describe what the term, "without merit" means? Could it mean that possibly his estranged wife lied when the protection order was requested. This has been known to happen in a contentious divorce.<br /><br /><br />ssgmarkcrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14480230040370709682noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-76511048909166173482014-03-27T22:18:08.588+01:002014-03-27T22:18:08.588+01:00I am curious as to why a D.A. for the District of ...I am curious as to why a D.A. for the District of Columbia is so enthusiastic about defending a domestic abuser? If they are so geared to the stopping the "gun rights" ideology, why would they trade this “credible” woman's safety for $2,000 a month and health insurance.Thomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17279097946597602013noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-4299098368016425052014-03-27T15:57:25.260+01:002014-03-27T15:57:25.260+01:00No, Miller doesn't forget that she's a wom...No, Miller doesn't forget that she's a woman. She's smart enough not to believe your nonsense assertions about the risks of gun ownership.Greg Camphttp://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.com