AndyBoyd

Well, there was a time when he was a respected journalist. He broke the My Lai story. Yes, but all of the other things you mentioned have been suspect. So, yes, while he did write a book on the Korean shoot down, I also know several people who have written books on various D.B. Cooper theories and at most only one could possibly be the correct story and more than likely none of them are. I am aware that there is still some controversy over the KAL 007 incident. I read the book after it came out. The quick bit of research I did on the book before I made the recent post seemed to indicate that it was well-researched and credible. I suppose I could be wrong about that. As far as Abu Ghraib, I hope you're not arguing that nothing wrong happened there. It seems fairly obvious from the pictures and countless media reports that something went terribly wrong in that place. I'm just trying to point out that Hersh has done some very good work in the past. You seemed to suggest that he was the equivalent of a reporter for the National Enquirer.

Well, there was a time when he was a respected journalist. He broke the My Lai story: http://www.pierretristam.com/Bobst/library/wf-200.htm He wrote what seemed to be a credible book on the incident where the Russian military shot down a Korean airliner: http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20094683,00.html I don't think he was the only one responsible for breaking the Abu Ghraib story, but he was deeply involved in reporting it: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2004/05/10/torture-at-abu-ghraib Is he off target with this one? His story seems pretty far fetched, and I am not arguing he is right. I sure hope it didn't happen the way he said it did. But at the time the story broke, no one believed something like My Lai could happen, either. But it did.

Great song. I'm not getting what it has to do with this thread, though. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnC88xBPkkc

I'm a liberal, and I'm sorry when anyone is murdered, regardless of the skin color of the murderer or the victim. If you really believe that liberals support the murder of police officers by anyone, all I can do is feel sorry for you.

Yep. Public defenders who specialize in appellate work aren't bad, either.

Oh, OK. I must have misunderstood you when you said "crappy public defender."

Please explain why it is you believe that public defenders are "crappy" attorneys.

I don't really disagree with the argument that everyone should meet the same standard. The article seems to indicate that the testing was changed so that failing one portion of the overall test did not mean the "probie" failed the whole test. Apparently, she did really well on the academic portion of the test, which offset her failing functional skills score. Here is the reason they made the change: "Last December, Fire Commissioner Daniel Nigro told a City Council hearing on the FDNY’s efforts to recruit women that he had changed FST requirements to lower obstacles. “We still grade the people. You can still fail it if you go beyond the time, but you’re not automatically failed from the program,” he said. He also indicated he wanted to act before a possible sex discrimination lawsuit after the city paid $98 million to settle a lawsuit that accused the FDNY of discriminating against minorities. “We must no longer wait for a judge’s ruling to tell us what fairness means,” Nigro said." It looks like the city is trying to insulate itself against a lawsuit. So blame the lawyers. BTW, there is no way in the world I could pass that test. Sounds brutal.

This was and is a very controversial decision around here. This was a bench trial. The judge basically said that he thought the defendant was guilty of intentional murder, but because he was charged only with recklessness, and there was only evidence of intent, he found the guy not guilty. Some people agreed with the judge, while others argued that the more culpable mental state (intent) necessarily included the lesser mental state (recklessness). I tend to think the second argument was the better one, but that's just my 2 cents.

Ryoder's post addressed probable cause to arrest. Terry stops have to do with reasonable suspicion to briefly detain and investigate. These are two different concepts. http://thelawdictionary.org/article/definitions-of-probable-cause-vs-reasonable-suspicion/ Yes, officers may use force to effect a Terry stop, but that force must be reasonable under the circumstances. Reasonable suspicion does not give the officer the right to beat the crap out of some poor guy. Or to bounce him around in the back of a paddy wagon until his spine snaps. https://www.fletc.gov/sites/default/files/imported_files/training/programs/legal-division/downloads-articles-and-faqs/research-by-subject/4th-amendment/terryfriskupdate.pdf

Well, yes, it does rain in the Midwest from time to time. I've jumped here for over 25 years and yes, Memorial Day weekend weather can be sketchy. Over the years, I've seen some perfect 3-day weekends, and some complete wash-outs. Most years are somewhere in between. Leaving aside the hyperbole, Tim is basically right, though. Your chances of jumping a lot on Memorial Day weekend are better in AZ than in the Midwest.

Great video. Nice job by Mr. Kent.

Yes, my last post was snarkier than it needed to be. My bad. I just got a little frustrated with what I perceived to be an extraordinarily unlikely scenario you presented.

No, the government does not force a lawyer on anyone. Criminal defendants have the right to proceed "pro se," which means on their own, without a lawyer. If a criminal defendant does not have the $ for a private attorney, and all the public defenders are gay (give me a break dude, what a dumb question), the defendant can represent himself. So yes, in your silly and stupid scenario, if there is a crazy right wing religious nut criminal defendant who does not have enough money to hire a lawyer, and every single public defender in whatever county we are talking about is gay and the crazy right wing religious nut refuses the services of the all gay public defender's office, yes, the crazy right wing religious nut can represent himself. Any more silly questions?

It's not real clear from your post who "the members" are, or who "they" are. I assume you are asking about a member of the Westboro church, who is arrested in a state where his or her lawyer is not licensed to practice. If I am misunderstanding your question, I apologize. Criminal defendants only get a public defender if they are indigent, i.e., they cannot afford a private attorney. The Westboro people are not indigent, and have skilled lawyers who took their case to the United States Supreme Court and won. http://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/get-involved/constitution-activities/first-amendment/protests-flash-mobs/facts-case-summary.aspx Assuming for a moment that a Westboro member had been charged with a crime and was indigent, he would be represented by a public defender. If the public defender was gay, he or she would advocate zealously on behalf of the Westboro member, because that's what is required by the canons of legal ethics. I'm a public defender, and I don't always like my clients. It doesn't matter. I represent them as best I can because that's my job.

I don't much care what question you asked Wendy. You asserted "as a business or service provider, you have the choice to whom you serve and why." That assertion is clearly and obviously incorrect, because the law very plainly says that business owners do not have that choice when it comes to things like race, religion, and sexual orientation. I take it you don't like that law, and that you disagree with it. Fine. But you cannot make the obviously false factual statement that business ?owners are free to refuse service to blacks, Muslims, gays, if the business owner doesn't like that group. As a country, we got past that crap a long time ago. It's not 1950 anymore. Get over it. Then a gay lawyer should be forced to represent the Westbourgh Baptist church. Right? I think Champu has explained this pretty well, but since you asked me, I'll answer. The Westboro people would not ever want to hire a gay lawyer. They hate gays with every fiber of their souls, assuming they have souls. In the extraordinarily unlikely event they insisted on hiring a gay lawyer, yes, you could make a solid argument that the gay lawyer would be required by law to represent Westboro. I did a quick bit of research and found that law firms do seem to be considered places of public accommodation, subject to the ADA and anti-discrimination laws. Here's a quick blurb from one of the cases I found: "When Joseph Stropnicky contacted Attorney Nathanson in order to retain her to review his divorce settlement, he became the impetus of a discrimination litigation that would have repercussions throughout the Massachusetts legal community in the coming years. For the first time, Massachusetts had to confront the question: may a lawyer discriminate against a potential client on the basis of gender? In this case of first impression, the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) held that a law firm is a place of public accommodation, and as such, lawyers are barred from discriminating against potential clients on the basis of a protected class." Keep in mind that I just did a quick investigation into your question. It was a fair question, and the answer seems to be yes.

I don't much care what question you asked Wendy. You asserted "as a business or service provider, you have the choice to whom you serve and why." That assertion is clearly and obviously incorrect, because the law very plainly says that business owners do not have that choice when it comes to things like race, religion, and sexual orientation. I take it you don't like that law, and that you disagree with it. Fine. But you cannot make the obviously false factual statement that business owners are free to refuse service to blacks, Muslims, gays, if the business owner doesn't like that group. As a country, we got past that crap a long time ago. It's not 1950 anymore. Get over it.

Sorry, but this is flat-out wrong. Under the law, businesses are considered "places of public accommodation." Discrimination against certain groups, i.e. racial minorities, religious minorities, etc., by places of public accommodation is unlawful. Many states have added sexual orientation to that list. http://civilrights.findlaw.com/enforcing-your-civil-rights/discrimination-in-public-accommodations.html It is absolutely not OK for businesses to deny access to certain groups of people. Obviously, folks can pick and choose who they let into their homes. But when you open a place of public accommodation, you cannot discriminate, unless you enjoy being the target of a federal lawsuit.

Yeah, that's where things could get tricky. A business owner might get away with that once or twice, but if there is a repeated pattern of being too "tired" or "busy" to serve gays, look out for the lawsuit.

I'm not replying to Wendy, just to the last post in the thread. Indiana is changing the law to make it clear that businesses may not refuse service on the basis of sexual orientation, race, religion, etc. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/religious-freedom-controversy-indiana-legislators-announce-changes-law-n334541 Looks like the nice people who own that pizzeria will have to cater the gay wedding after all.

OK, so Turtle is just trolling Kallend? Sorry I got in the middle of it. I guess it's a little funny. Thanks for filling me in.

Oh...he lives on the south side. Bad part of town. Officially, I have never and if I have anything to say about it, will never live in Chicago. Why do you think I live in the south side? I'm a Texas boy.

Oh...he lives on the south side. Bad part of town. Officially, I have never and if I have anything to say about it, will never live in Chicago. Why do you think I live in the south side? I'm a Texas boy.

Just wondering, do you live in Chicago? I did for a long time, but I moved out because I got tired of the congestion and the noise.

You concede that innocent people have been executed, yet you still wholeheartedly support the death penalty? Is that really what you are saying? I personally find the thought of an innocent person being executed by the State absolutely horrifying. Yet you just shrug your shoulders and say, well, too bad, dead innocent guy and his family and friends, our system of justice is imperfect, so sorry. I find that attitude incomprehensible and incredibly cold-hearted. The only way to avoid executing innocent people is to stop executing people.