This has to be one of the best stories I've seen in a long while:
Police in Mexico City said a drunken
driving suspect stopped at an alcohol checkpoint was betrayed by his pet
parrot, which told police "he's drunk."
Investigators said Guillermo Reyes, 49, was pulled over last week at a
routine checkpoint in the city and officers heard a voice in the car
repeating "he's drunk, he's drunk," Spanish-language newspaper El
Universal reported Tuesday.
Police said they looked inside the vehicle, expecting to find another person, but instead discovered Reyes' pet parrot.
Reyes
failed a sobriety test and was arrested on a drunken driving charge.
The parrot was supposed to be taken away by Animal Surveillance Brigade
officers, but Reyes told them the bird is with him at all times and
could suffer stress if separated.
The parrot was allowed to accompany Reyes to jail.
Showing posts with label In the news. Show all posts
Showing posts with label In the news. Show all posts
Thursday, January 16, 2014
Monday, July 15, 2013
The Zimmerman Case - an opinion
I've been asked countless times in recent days to give my opinion about the George Zimmerman case. That can mean a couple of things, of course: my opinion on the incident, or on the trial. I have no desire to second-guess someone else's trial work, and don't plan to. And I hadn't really planned on saying anything about the incident, either, until I read the words of a friend, fellow author, and former cop.
His name is John Levitt and I asked (and received!) his permission to post here, in its entirety, his view of what happened and why. I thought it one of the most insightful things that I've read on the matter, and hope you find it interesting.
And for context, he was responding to this opinion:
These stand your ground and concealed carry laws seem to me like something that can give guys with chips on their shoulders a perceived opportunity to do what they've always fantasized about--getting away with killing someone they don't like.
John said:
But not this time, not when George Zimmerman is on the job. So you follow him. You're not particularly worried -- the cops (your backup) are on their way, and besides that, you're packing. That criminal better not give you any trouble if he knows what's good for him. George Zimmerman is nobody to mess with.
I don't think he thought it through. I don't think he thought at all. He just thought he was going to catch a burglar and be a hero.
Then, when he comes out of the darkness to confront Martin, things don't go according to his fantasy. The black "criminal" (Martin) doesn't meekly surrender, or try to run away. He sees Zimmerman as a threat and defends himself.
Suddenly Zimmerman is in a fight. A real fight, not like sparring in the dojo. He gets hit, and it hurts. He gets knocked to the ground. And at this point, he stops thinking at all, if ever he had been.
A dangerous black criminal that he confronted is kicking his ass. His life is in danger. Why does he think that? Because black criminals are violent and dangerous. It's him or them. So he pulls out his gun and shoots him.
What's more, he feels totally justified. In his little cop fantasy world, he simply did what he had to do.
And guess what? The cops buy it. Dangerous black kid, up to no good. That's a part of this story that gets overlooked, but that mindset is telling.
The whole thing is more sad, pitiful, and disgusting than evil.
His name is John Levitt and I asked (and received!) his permission to post here, in its entirety, his view of what happened and why. I thought it one of the most insightful things that I've read on the matter, and hope you find it interesting.
And for context, he was responding to this opinion:
These stand your ground and concealed carry laws seem to me like something that can give guys with chips on their shoulders a perceived opportunity to do what they've always fantasized about--getting away with killing someone they don't like.
John said:
I really don't think that's what Zimmerman was about. He was a wannabee cop, imo, and I've run into plenty of them in my time.
A police job can seem incredibly tempting for a certain type of person. It's not, like you might assume, about having the power to push people around. It's about being part of a special group, living a life most people don't get, doing a job most people can't. Like being an Army ranger. Or part of an elite sports team. It feels special
You cruise around in your patrol car on a late graveyard shift, watching out for your city, listening to radio chatter from people you know well, people you've worked with for years, people who have possibly saved your skin more than once and perhaps you've saved theirs as well. You belong.
It's an attractive prospect -- esp for someone who has been a "loser," an outsider for much of their lives. Never one of the cool kids.
So you try to join up -- but more often than not, you don't make the grade. Wannabees exude a certain desperation that makes departments shy away from them.
So you take criminal justice courses. You go to self defense classes. You get a job as security guard, or become a neighborhood watch person.
But just doing the job of neighborhood watch is not enough. You want to play cop. So you call in everything you can -- not just because you're being suspicious, but because that way you get to talk to dispatch, maybe even talk to the cops when they show up -- hey, guys, I'm one of you. You're part of the fraternity -- or so you imagine.
So when you see a "suspicious character" namely a young black male, you call the cops. But then you decide to go a little further, to play cop yourself. I mean, you're almost a cop yourself, anyway, right?
'These punks always get away.'
A police job can seem incredibly tempting for a certain type of person. It's not, like you might assume, about having the power to push people around. It's about being part of a special group, living a life most people don't get, doing a job most people can't. Like being an Army ranger. Or part of an elite sports team. It feels special
You cruise around in your patrol car on a late graveyard shift, watching out for your city, listening to radio chatter from people you know well, people you've worked with for years, people who have possibly saved your skin more than once and perhaps you've saved theirs as well. You belong.
It's an attractive prospect -- esp for someone who has been a "loser," an outsider for much of their lives. Never one of the cool kids.
So you try to join up -- but more often than not, you don't make the grade. Wannabees exude a certain desperation that makes departments shy away from them.
So you take criminal justice courses. You go to self defense classes. You get a job as security guard, or become a neighborhood watch person.
But just doing the job of neighborhood watch is not enough. You want to play cop. So you call in everything you can -- not just because you're being suspicious, but because that way you get to talk to dispatch, maybe even talk to the cops when they show up -- hey, guys, I'm one of you. You're part of the fraternity -- or so you imagine.
So when you see a "suspicious character" namely a young black male, you call the cops. But then you decide to go a little further, to play cop yourself. I mean, you're almost a cop yourself, anyway, right?
'These punks always get away.'
But not this time, not when George Zimmerman is on the job. So you follow him. You're not particularly worried -- the cops (your backup) are on their way, and besides that, you're packing. That criminal better not give you any trouble if he knows what's good for him. George Zimmerman is nobody to mess with.
I don't think he thought it through. I don't think he thought at all. He just thought he was going to catch a burglar and be a hero.
Then, when he comes out of the darkness to confront Martin, things don't go according to his fantasy. The black "criminal" (Martin) doesn't meekly surrender, or try to run away. He sees Zimmerman as a threat and defends himself.
Suddenly Zimmerman is in a fight. A real fight, not like sparring in the dojo. He gets hit, and it hurts. He gets knocked to the ground. And at this point, he stops thinking at all, if ever he had been.
A dangerous black criminal that he confronted is kicking his ass. His life is in danger. Why does he think that? Because black criminals are violent and dangerous. It's him or them. So he pulls out his gun and shoots him.
What's more, he feels totally justified. In his little cop fantasy world, he simply did what he had to do.
And guess what? The cops buy it. Dangerous black kid, up to no good. That's a part of this story that gets overlooked, but that mindset is telling.
The whole thing is more sad, pitiful, and disgusting than evil.
Friday, February 1, 2013
A Tragedy in Kaufman, A Shock For Us All
By now, I expect you've read about the prosecutor gunned down as he was on his way to work. If not, read this. You'll know, too, that I don't often touch subjects that are fresh in the news or dwell on matters of great seriousness because this blog has always lived on the lighter side of life.
But I can't let this pass.
I didn't know Mark Hasse, though maybe our paths crossed at a conference somewhere. I'm shocked at his death nonetheless because by all accounts he was nothing but a white knight, looking out for the good people of Kaufman and putting away the bad guys. And I desperately hope that with the Texas Rangers, the FBI, and agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives on their trail, the bastards who shot Mark Hasse will be brought to justice.
There are prosecutors all over the country, I think, who will feel the reverberations of this crime and I was interested to read that it's already being talked about in the media: the fear that we all carry within us, the danger that is slight, never discussed, but lurks in the back of our minds. Could it be me?
In my short career as a prosecutor, not even five years, I've been in three situations where I felt threatened, where I looked over my shoulder every night for two weeks. Trust me, it's no way to live. Only once did I truly believe someone might be angry (and stupid) enough to retaliate but of course how can you ever know?
Erik Nielsen, a former ADA here and now a trainer of prosecutors, wrote on his Facebook page: "we routinely deal with very dangerous people; people whose thoughts on life and violence are skewed or completely severed." He said what I was thinking the moment I heard about this shooting: "Every prosecutor has this fear." HuffPo quoted him today with an article entitled just that.
This hits home for me not just because I am a prosecutor (because of one of those threats I mentioned, I am now a gun owner) but because I ride out most weeks with the cops. I see the guns and tasers they carry, the vests they wear, I know about the hand-to-hand training they receive. For sure, the dangers they face are tenfold, a hundredfold, what we are likely to encounter but thinking about this incident makes me realize how defenseless and unready we prosecutors are for naked aggression.
But as Erik said and as the people who shot Mark Hasse need to know: you can't stop justice with a bullet. You can scare the good people who prosecute cases and you can even kill us. But guess what? The moment you do that others will step into our shoes, and you will lose that fight because there are more of us than there are you, there are more good people than bad.
I am confident that the cowards who did this will be caught, but I am absolutely certain that the wheels of justice will continue to turn. And the bad guys who stand there with guns drawn trying to slow or stop the good guys like Mark Hasse will never, ever prevail.
RIP Mark Hasse.
But I can't let this pass.
I didn't know Mark Hasse, though maybe our paths crossed at a conference somewhere. I'm shocked at his death nonetheless because by all accounts he was nothing but a white knight, looking out for the good people of Kaufman and putting away the bad guys. And I desperately hope that with the Texas Rangers, the FBI, and agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives on their trail, the bastards who shot Mark Hasse will be brought to justice.
There are prosecutors all over the country, I think, who will feel the reverberations of this crime and I was interested to read that it's already being talked about in the media: the fear that we all carry within us, the danger that is slight, never discussed, but lurks in the back of our minds. Could it be me?
In my short career as a prosecutor, not even five years, I've been in three situations where I felt threatened, where I looked over my shoulder every night for two weeks. Trust me, it's no way to live. Only once did I truly believe someone might be angry (and stupid) enough to retaliate but of course how can you ever know?
Erik Nielsen, a former ADA here and now a trainer of prosecutors, wrote on his Facebook page: "we routinely deal with very dangerous people; people whose thoughts on life and violence are skewed or completely severed." He said what I was thinking the moment I heard about this shooting: "Every prosecutor has this fear." HuffPo quoted him today with an article entitled just that.
This hits home for me not just because I am a prosecutor (because of one of those threats I mentioned, I am now a gun owner) but because I ride out most weeks with the cops. I see the guns and tasers they carry, the vests they wear, I know about the hand-to-hand training they receive. For sure, the dangers they face are tenfold, a hundredfold, what we are likely to encounter but thinking about this incident makes me realize how defenseless and unready we prosecutors are for naked aggression.
But as Erik said and as the people who shot Mark Hasse need to know: you can't stop justice with a bullet. You can scare the good people who prosecute cases and you can even kill us. But guess what? The moment you do that others will step into our shoes, and you will lose that fight because there are more of us than there are you, there are more good people than bad.
I am confident that the cowards who did this will be caught, but I am absolutely certain that the wheels of justice will continue to turn. And the bad guys who stand there with guns drawn trying to slow or stop the good guys like Mark Hasse will never, ever prevail.
RIP Mark Hasse.
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
Kids on a Plane
I've been reading news stories about an airline policy that forbids men from sitting next to unaccompanied kids on flights. A couple of times, men have been asked to swap seats with women because their neighbor is a child (or two) traveling alone. One story here, another here.
One of the men (a nurse, the other was a fireman) says the experience was humiliating because the whole cabin was watching, no doubt wondering why this chap was being asked to move away from a child.
Now, I have kids and I'm usually in the "better safe than sorry" camp. But this is a bridge too far. As the fireman put it later:
"[The attitude of the airline] is 'we respect you but as soon as you board a Virgin airline you are a potential paedophile', and that strips away all the good that any male does regardless of his standing in society, his profession or his moral attitudes," he said. Remember, fireman. Saves kids from burning buildings.
"Here's a parachute, now get lost."
"Well, at least I get a parachute. One, two, three... wheeee!"
"Sucker. It' was a backpack, not a parachute."
*splat*
What do you think?
One of the men (a nurse, the other was a fireman) says the experience was humiliating because the whole cabin was watching, no doubt wondering why this chap was being asked to move away from a child.
Now, I have kids and I'm usually in the "better safe than sorry" camp. But this is a bridge too far. As the fireman put it later:
"[The attitude of the airline] is 'we respect you but as soon as you board a Virgin airline you are a potential paedophile', and that strips away all the good that any male does regardless of his standing in society, his profession or his moral attitudes," he said. Remember, fireman. Saves kids from burning buildings.
"Here's a parachute, now get lost."
"Well, at least I get a parachute. One, two, three... wheeee!"
"Sucker. It' was a backpack, not a parachute."
*splat*
What do you think?
Thursday, July 26, 2012
Oh, media, how could you?
Dear Media,
I turned on my TV this morning, as I do every day while I drink my first cup of tea. I like these times when we're together, slowly warming up to the day. Of course, you get up first, by the time my kettle boils you've been up for a while, gathering news, readying it for me, sorting and condensing so I can go into the world knowing a little, just a little, of what's going on. I appreciate that, and I always have.
But lately things have been getting weird. I don't know, it's almost like you're not really trying any more. As if our morning routine has become a burden and other things (dare I say other people?) have caught your eye and drawn you away from me.
Why do I bring this up now? Because I'm not a nag and haven't wanted to pester you with my own insecurities over recent months. Maybe I should have because this morning you went too far.
It started out okay, when you covered the Olympics in London, which I think of as necessary fluff (after all, the events themselves haven't started, what else can you do?). After that segment, though, you cut to the news.
Let me repeat that: The News. Definition: "a person, thing, or event considered as a choice subject for journalistic treatment; newsworthy material."
As you cut back to the news studio, I steeled myself, ready for distressing reports from Syria and Afghanistan, maybe an update on the Colorado shooter. Perhaps even some economic news, I knew some housing reports were due.
You know, News.
You ignored me, though, you paid my needs no attention and I might almost think you did it on purpose because you know I am not interested in this stuff, and more importantly you know that we both know, this isn't News.
You told me that a 22-year-old girl cheated on her boyfriend.
That was your lead story for the News. And you lingered on it, too, showing me photos and film clips as though you had a war reporter on scene sending back vital footage of an actual event. I couldn't believe my eyes. Why would you do this to me, why would you betray me in my own living room, my tea barely cool enough to sip? This was our special time, our time to commune and you knowingly, intentionally, on purposely, violated what I thought was a beautiful relationship.
I'm not naive, I know that people, many people, are interested in this particular 22-year-old girl. But did you think the Internet didn't have it covered in the gossip blogs? Did you not think your own network would cover it on some entertainment show?
Even now, do you really think it is News?
Let me try and remain rational, logical, composed. Because I want us to get over this, get past it. But I don't want you doing it again, I don't want to turn my TV on in the future and find that, behind my back, you've constructed a story about a drunken movie star tossing dwarfs in a rundown London pub. Or even tossing off dwarfs. Those things aren't News.
You see, no one is affected when a 22-year-old cheats on her boyfriend (or tosses off a dwarf), except the boyfriend and the family of the dude she cheated with. Which adds up to about five people. In the world. So how is it news?
Here's the distinction as I see it:
I can assume by your coverage of this "story" that loyalty is important to you, as you know it is to me. Life partners have bumps over the years and I'm willing to work with you to get past this.
But please, don't do this again. Especially when I'm trying to drink tea, it just isn't civilized. And it certainly isn't News.
I turned on my TV this morning, as I do every day while I drink my first cup of tea. I like these times when we're together, slowly warming up to the day. Of course, you get up first, by the time my kettle boils you've been up for a while, gathering news, readying it for me, sorting and condensing so I can go into the world knowing a little, just a little, of what's going on. I appreciate that, and I always have.
But lately things have been getting weird. I don't know, it's almost like you're not really trying any more. As if our morning routine has become a burden and other things (dare I say other people?) have caught your eye and drawn you away from me.
Why do I bring this up now? Because I'm not a nag and haven't wanted to pester you with my own insecurities over recent months. Maybe I should have because this morning you went too far.
It started out okay, when you covered the Olympics in London, which I think of as necessary fluff (after all, the events themselves haven't started, what else can you do?). After that segment, though, you cut to the news.
Let me repeat that: The News. Definition: "a person, thing, or event considered as a choice subject for journalistic treatment; newsworthy material."
As you cut back to the news studio, I steeled myself, ready for distressing reports from Syria and Afghanistan, maybe an update on the Colorado shooter. Perhaps even some economic news, I knew some housing reports were due.
You know, News.
You ignored me, though, you paid my needs no attention and I might almost think you did it on purpose because you know I am not interested in this stuff, and more importantly you know that we both know, this isn't News.
You told me that a 22-year-old girl cheated on her boyfriend.
That was your lead story for the News. And you lingered on it, too, showing me photos and film clips as though you had a war reporter on scene sending back vital footage of an actual event. I couldn't believe my eyes. Why would you do this to me, why would you betray me in my own living room, my tea barely cool enough to sip? This was our special time, our time to commune and you knowingly, intentionally, on purposely, violated what I thought was a beautiful relationship.
I'm not naive, I know that people, many people, are interested in this particular 22-year-old girl. But did you think the Internet didn't have it covered in the gossip blogs? Did you not think your own network would cover it on some entertainment show?
Even now, do you really think it is News?
Let me try and remain rational, logical, composed. Because I want us to get over this, get past it. But I don't want you doing it again, I don't want to turn my TV on in the future and find that, behind my back, you've constructed a story about a drunken movie star tossing dwarfs in a rundown London pub. Or even tossing off dwarfs. Those things aren't News.
You see, no one is affected when a 22-year-old cheats on her boyfriend (or tosses off a dwarf), except the boyfriend and the family of the dude she cheated with. Which adds up to about five people. In the world. So how is it news?
Here's the distinction as I see it:
- if something happens and lots of people are affected, or some are affected in dramatic or unusual ways, then it is News.
- if something ordinary happens and hundreds/thousands/millions of people express an interest because the person is famous, it's Entertainment.
I can assume by your coverage of this "story" that loyalty is important to you, as you know it is to me. Life partners have bumps over the years and I'm willing to work with you to get past this.
But please, don't do this again. Especially when I'm trying to drink tea, it just isn't civilized. And it certainly isn't News.
Thursday, June 14, 2012
Oh Canada, you're killing me!
Warning: this post contains black humor. The author does not find actual murder funny. He does, however, relieve the agony of all criminality with humor. And if you've not figured that out yet, you're either new to the blog (welcome!) or . . . well. New to the blog.
You've been warned. . .
Canada, you have a reputation. You're the girl we show to our mothers, or marry when we're 35. You're not the girl wearing short skirts and fending off our grubby, desperate approaches, because we know you're not like that. Good for you.
But sometimes you might want to think about letting go a little, exhibiting some flair and flash. Show a little leg. I mean, your national sport is one in which we can't see even the object the players are hitting. Your national food is a topping, a syrup, not even the main event. You don't even touch any of the interesting U.S. states. Mexico jostles with Texas and California, you have Washington and a Dakota (North, I'd guess, but who cares?). You don't even make it to Wisconsin.
And now look what you've done.
You have one of the most interesting murderers in a decade, and you screw that up, too. He's a cross-dressing, media-whoring, victim-chopping, parts-mailing, police-fleeing porn star. And, of course, like every newsworthy (alleged) murderer he needs a punchy nickname for the TV and newspapers. My goodness, with all that he's done, with all that he is, anyone with any imagination could come up with half-a-dozen names for him.
Except you, Canadians, apparently.
Your best effort: "Psycho Killer."
Yes, I know it comes from a song, but seriously? That's the kind of name that (1) any serial killer could have, and (2) my kids would come up with. Psycho Killer? How about Bad Meanie Pants? Nasty Life-Stealer?
I happen to know you have people who can do better. One of my favorite authors, Jennifer Hillier has a delightfully twisted, creepy-fueled imagination. She could do better in a moment. A sleeping moment.
So, Canada, I'm going to let you back up and try again.
And no, I'm not going to help with suggestions. He's your psycho killer, you get to name him. Just do it properly this time.
You've been warned. . .
Canada, you have a reputation. You're the girl we show to our mothers, or marry when we're 35. You're not the girl wearing short skirts and fending off our grubby, desperate approaches, because we know you're not like that. Good for you.
But sometimes you might want to think about letting go a little, exhibiting some flair and flash. Show a little leg. I mean, your national sport is one in which we can't see even the object the players are hitting. Your national food is a topping, a syrup, not even the main event. You don't even touch any of the interesting U.S. states. Mexico jostles with Texas and California, you have Washington and a Dakota (North, I'd guess, but who cares?). You don't even make it to Wisconsin.
And now look what you've done.
You have one of the most interesting murderers in a decade, and you screw that up, too. He's a cross-dressing, media-whoring, victim-chopping, parts-mailing, police-fleeing porn star. And, of course, like every newsworthy (alleged) murderer he needs a punchy nickname for the TV and newspapers. My goodness, with all that he's done, with all that he is, anyone with any imagination could come up with half-a-dozen names for him.
Except you, Canadians, apparently.
Your best effort: "Psycho Killer."
Yes, I know it comes from a song, but seriously? That's the kind of name that (1) any serial killer could have, and (2) my kids would come up with. Psycho Killer? How about Bad Meanie Pants? Nasty Life-Stealer?
I happen to know you have people who can do better. One of my favorite authors, Jennifer Hillier has a delightfully twisted, creepy-fueled imagination. She could do better in a moment. A sleeping moment.
So, Canada, I'm going to let you back up and try again.
And no, I'm not going to help with suggestions. He's your psycho killer, you get to name him. Just do it properly this time.
Monday, May 21, 2012
Justice - you fickle beast
I saw a news story that shocked me, just a little, and I wondered whether I've because too used to harsh Texas justice.
Although in Austin, "harsh" may not be the right word. But you know what I mean. SO here's the body of the story, the first few paragraphs.
A Dutch paedophile referred to as Robert M has been sentenced to 18 years in prison for abusing more than 60 children, some just a few months old.
So let me understand. This guy molested 67 kids, some a few months old, and actually confessed to even more. He planned the abuse systematically, shows no remorse, and it's the worst case Holland has ever seen.
And for that he gets 18 years in prison.
Ask anyone around this courthouse who the most lenient prosecutor is and I'll be in the top five. Ten, certainly.
And I'm horrified by this. For crying out loud, he managed to earn the nickname the "Monster of Riga." Around here, monsters get a lot more time than that. And so they should. He's getting 3.2 months per victim.
Sometimes I think Texas can be an unforgiving place.
And sometimes I think other jurisdictions should be.
Although in Austin, "harsh" may not be the right word. But you know what I mean. SO here's the body of the story, the first few paragraphs.
A Dutch paedophile referred to as Robert M has been sentenced to 18 years in prison for abusing more than 60 children, some just a few months old.
Robert M was arrested after a US investigation into an international paedophile ring.
The Latvian-born Dutch defendant has been dubbed "The Monster of Riga" by the national press.
This is the worst case of its kind the Netherlands has ever seen, says the BBC's Anna Holligan in the Netherlands.
There were dramatic scenes in court, our correspondent says, with the accused throwing water and directing obscene gestures at the judge.
The presiding judge said he had imposed a long sentence in view of the "nature of the facts, the refined way they were planned and their duration".
The entire story is here, courtesy of the BBC.So let me understand. This guy molested 67 kids, some a few months old, and actually confessed to even more. He planned the abuse systematically, shows no remorse, and it's the worst case Holland has ever seen.
And for that he gets 18 years in prison.
Ask anyone around this courthouse who the most lenient prosecutor is and I'll be in the top five. Ten, certainly.
And I'm horrified by this. For crying out loud, he managed to earn the nickname the "Monster of Riga." Around here, monsters get a lot more time than that. And so they should. He's getting 3.2 months per victim.
Sometimes I think Texas can be an unforgiving place.
And sometimes I think other jurisdictions should be.
Thursday, May 10, 2012
Gay marriage: I'm serious, I want to know.
I never talk about political issues, especially controversial ones. But I'm breaking that rule today because I feel like a civil rights moment happened yesterday when President Obama spoke out in favor of gay marriage.
Now, I know some of my readers are opposed to gay marriage but I hope you will read on and maybe comment because the whole point of this post is to understand the arguments against. And I am very serious about that.
Now, as I see it, the reasons to oppose gay marriage take these forms:
1. The Bible says it's wrong.
2. Allowing gays to marry will redefine/harm traditional marriage.
3. It's bad for the children
4. Gay = icky
Here are my responses to each.
1. The Bible says it's wrong.
It does. And people are free to believe this if they choose. Moreover, ministers should never be required to perform weddings for gay couples if doing so would offend their beliefs.
But.
The First Amendment says you cannot impose your beliefs on others, that you cannot legislate your Christian beliefs the same way Hindus and Muslims and Wiccans may not. To allow some people to marry and others not based purely on religious beliefs is a violation of the First Amendment.
I will reveal myself here: I think all arguments against gay marriage fail, other than this one. And I wish those opposing gay marriage would admit they do so based on religious grounds because I find the other arguments weak, if not spurious. I would have a lot more respect for those opposing if they would abandon the pretense that it's not about their religious beliefs.
And my final word on the Bible, because I'm no scholar. But it seems to me that basing our views of marriage according to the Bible is absolutely not something anyone in the modern world would endorse. Here's why:
2. Allowing gays to marry will redefine/harm traditional marriage.
It will redefine marriage, absolutely.
But so what?
I have long sought a firm and logical response explaining the harm gay marriage might cause and this is usually the answer I get. But these are conclusions, not harms.
So I agree it will redefine marriage and I say again, "So what?" Redefining isn't a harm. Will two women marrying in Vermont affect my own marriage? Unless one of those women is my wife, I can't imagine how.
People also argue that it not just redefines but waters down the institution of marriage. But if two people who love each other enough to get married "waters down" marriage, we have a problem.
I have also heard people say, "What's next, people marrying pigs, or chairs?" It's as if by widening the definition to include gay people we have to widen it to include farm animals and furniture. But the law makes distinctions all the time, we draw lines in the sand with everything we do. I can approach an acquaintance and pat him on the shoulder. I can even give him a gentle squeeze as I say "Hello." But I can't pinch or punch him. Do we outlaw friendly pats and squeezes because they somehow automatically lead to punches? Of course not, it sounds silly. Because it is. The idea that allowing adult humans to marry each other will magically open the door to babies marrying coffee cups is equally silly (and it always strikes me as rather insulting to equate a gay person with a chair).
So my question is, what is the precise harm? I just don't get it, and I want to.
3. It's bad for the children
This argument is essentially: the best environment for kids to grow up in is one father and one mother. And, you know, with some rephrasing I could get on board:
"In theory and in a perfect world, a well-adjusted and happy home containing a mother and father appears to me likely to give more balance and perspective than any other pairing."
(I am editing this after my wife made some good points: no marriage is ever perfect, not all straight men are masculine, not all women are traditionally feminine, and even if they were, then the kid would miss out on having non-masculine/feminine perspective. Which is to say, no one marriage will ever afford a child a look at or understanding of every single aspect of the human experience.)
The problem is, of course, we don't live in a perfect world. Heterosexual couples can be unhappy, abusive, neglectful, etc. and does anyone really disagree that a happy and loving gay couple is less damaging to their kids than an abusive and neglectful same-sex couple?
And what about single parents? I see no clamor to outlaw them.
A variant of this argument is that the purpose of marriage is primarily to have kids. It isn't of course, there's no law (natural or man-made) that says once you marry you have to have kids, or that you can't have them until you are married. That people tend to wait until they are married to have kids is a social construct, nothing more. I know that because I don't hear people fighting for ballot initiatives and constitutional prohibitions to prevent old people from getting married, or sterile people, or disabled people, or people who flat don't want to have kids. Kids are frequently a product of marriage but that doesn't make them the purpose of marriage.
This one, from where I sit, simply isn't about the children.
4. Gay = icky
As a teenager, I remember sitting on a train as it pulled into a station in Switzerland. I looked onto the platform and saw two men kissing. My visceral reaction was, "Eeewwwww, gross!" Even now, if I saw that, I'd probably be a little uncomfortable. But you know what else is icky and gross? When my kids see my wife and I kissing. A total "Eeeewww" moment. We all know and agree that's no basis for constitutional amendments.
So I want to know what I'm missing. If someone is willing to take a shot, I will not just post your comment/reply here, but I'll open my blog to a reasoned argument as to why gay marriage is harmful.
Because, as I keep saying, I really want to understand.
Now, I know some of my readers are opposed to gay marriage but I hope you will read on and maybe comment because the whole point of this post is to understand the arguments against. And I am very serious about that.
Now, as I see it, the reasons to oppose gay marriage take these forms:
1. The Bible says it's wrong.
2. Allowing gays to marry will redefine/harm traditional marriage.
3. It's bad for the children
4. Gay = icky
Here are my responses to each.
1. The Bible says it's wrong.
It does. And people are free to believe this if they choose. Moreover, ministers should never be required to perform weddings for gay couples if doing so would offend their beliefs.
But.
The First Amendment says you cannot impose your beliefs on others, that you cannot legislate your Christian beliefs the same way Hindus and Muslims and Wiccans may not. To allow some people to marry and others not based purely on religious beliefs is a violation of the First Amendment.
I will reveal myself here: I think all arguments against gay marriage fail, other than this one. And I wish those opposing gay marriage would admit they do so based on religious grounds because I find the other arguments weak, if not spurious. I would have a lot more respect for those opposing if they would abandon the pretense that it's not about their religious beliefs.
And my final word on the Bible, because I'm no scholar. But it seems to me that basing our views of marriage according to the Bible is absolutely not something anyone in the modern world would endorse. Here's why:
2. Allowing gays to marry will redefine/harm traditional marriage.
It will redefine marriage, absolutely.
But so what?
I have long sought a firm and logical response explaining the harm gay marriage might cause and this is usually the answer I get. But these are conclusions, not harms.
So I agree it will redefine marriage and I say again, "So what?" Redefining isn't a harm. Will two women marrying in Vermont affect my own marriage? Unless one of those women is my wife, I can't imagine how.
People also argue that it not just redefines but waters down the institution of marriage. But if two people who love each other enough to get married "waters down" marriage, we have a problem.
I have also heard people say, "What's next, people marrying pigs, or chairs?" It's as if by widening the definition to include gay people we have to widen it to include farm animals and furniture. But the law makes distinctions all the time, we draw lines in the sand with everything we do. I can approach an acquaintance and pat him on the shoulder. I can even give him a gentle squeeze as I say "Hello." But I can't pinch or punch him. Do we outlaw friendly pats and squeezes because they somehow automatically lead to punches? Of course not, it sounds silly. Because it is. The idea that allowing adult humans to marry each other will magically open the door to babies marrying coffee cups is equally silly (and it always strikes me as rather insulting to equate a gay person with a chair).
So my question is, what is the precise harm? I just don't get it, and I want to.
3. It's bad for the children
This argument is essentially: the best environment for kids to grow up in is one father and one mother. And, you know, with some rephrasing I could get on board:
"In theory and in a perfect world, a well-adjusted and happy home containing a mother and father appears to me likely to give more balance and perspective than any other pairing."
(I am editing this after my wife made some good points: no marriage is ever perfect, not all straight men are masculine, not all women are traditionally feminine, and even if they were, then the kid would miss out on having non-masculine/feminine perspective. Which is to say, no one marriage will ever afford a child a look at or understanding of every single aspect of the human experience.)
The problem is, of course, we don't live in a perfect world. Heterosexual couples can be unhappy, abusive, neglectful, etc. and does anyone really disagree that a happy and loving gay couple is less damaging to their kids than an abusive and neglectful same-sex couple?
And what about single parents? I see no clamor to outlaw them.
A variant of this argument is that the purpose of marriage is primarily to have kids. It isn't of course, there's no law (natural or man-made) that says once you marry you have to have kids, or that you can't have them until you are married. That people tend to wait until they are married to have kids is a social construct, nothing more. I know that because I don't hear people fighting for ballot initiatives and constitutional prohibitions to prevent old people from getting married, or sterile people, or disabled people, or people who flat don't want to have kids. Kids are frequently a product of marriage but that doesn't make them the purpose of marriage.
This one, from where I sit, simply isn't about the children.
4. Gay = icky
As a teenager, I remember sitting on a train as it pulled into a station in Switzerland. I looked onto the platform and saw two men kissing. My visceral reaction was, "Eeewwwww, gross!" Even now, if I saw that, I'd probably be a little uncomfortable. But you know what else is icky and gross? When my kids see my wife and I kissing. A total "Eeeewww" moment. We all know and agree that's no basis for constitutional amendments.
So I want to know what I'm missing. If someone is willing to take a shot, I will not just post your comment/reply here, but I'll open my blog to a reasoned argument as to why gay marriage is harmful.
Because, as I keep saying, I really want to understand.
Friday, February 24, 2012
Inside the jury's mind
Okay, so technically a jury doesn't have a mind, but I wanted to share with you an article I read on Slate.com titled:
The article includes an interview with one of the jurors who talked about how they arrived at their guilty verdict, which guilty verdict they chose, and how they got to the prison sentence of 26 years. Interesting to me as a prosecutor to see what carries weight in deliberations, and some tips in there for defense lawyers, too.
Inside the Jury That Convicted UVA Student George Huguely of Murder
If you're not familiar with the case, the bare facts are: student George Huguely was dating Yeardly Love and ended their conflict-filled relationship by killing her in a drunken rage.The article includes an interview with one of the jurors who talked about how they arrived at their guilty verdict, which guilty verdict they chose, and how they got to the prison sentence of 26 years. Interesting to me as a prosecutor to see what carries weight in deliberations, and some tips in there for defense lawyers, too.
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Set your DVRs for Discovery (alas, no horse this time)
For those of you who missed the 48 Hours episode about my cold case, or simply can't get enough of me on television, the Discovery Channel is going to air their own show about it next week.
Here's the preview (words, no clip). It's Discovery ID, their Cold Blood series.
And as the title says, no horse, no footie, nor other elaborations for this one. I know, I know, but enjoy it just the same.
Here's the preview (words, no clip). It's Discovery ID, their Cold Blood series.
And as the title says, no horse, no footie, nor other elaborations for this one. I know, I know, but enjoy it just the same.
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Not your usual letter of apology.
It's fairly common for a defendant to be required to write a letter of apology to the victim of a crime. Usually, this is done as a part of probation, and that department vets the letter to make sure it's heart-felt (or at least vaguely sincere).
I've actually read a few very moving letters of apology and, believe it or not, they can mean a lot to the victim.
Still, a good thing they are vetted before being passed on, you know, in case some jackass burglar writes things like:
"Basically it was your fault anyway" ... "your dumb" ... "your thick enough to leave your downstairs kitchen window open" ... "I don't feel sorry for you" etc etc.
Charming young lad, I'm sure. Read his letter of "apology" yourself.
I've actually read a few very moving letters of apology and, believe it or not, they can mean a lot to the victim.
Still, a good thing they are vetted before being passed on, you know, in case some jackass burglar writes things like:
"Basically it was your fault anyway" ... "your dumb" ... "your thick enough to leave your downstairs kitchen window open" ... "I don't feel sorry for you" etc etc.
Charming young lad, I'm sure. Read his letter of "apology" yourself.
Saturday, November 5, 2011
Monday, September 26, 2011
I thought this was a myth?
Spontaneous human combustion, I mean.
I really thought it was all a myth. But apparently there's been a (new?!) case of it, in Ireland. And those Irish coroners, they know what they're talking about. I guess.
Anyway, the BBC wrote that the poor gentleman was found dead at his home.
"The fire had been confined to the sitting room. The only damage was to the body, which was totally burnt, the ceiling above him and the floor underneath him."
Every other cause of death/fire was ruled out. Here's the rest of the story.
So, there you have it: spontaneous human combustion -- just one more thing I have to worry about.
I really thought it was all a myth. But apparently there's been a (new?!) case of it, in Ireland. And those Irish coroners, they know what they're talking about. I guess.
Anyway, the BBC wrote that the poor gentleman was found dead at his home.
"The fire had been confined to the sitting room. The only damage was to the body, which was totally burnt, the ceiling above him and the floor underneath him."
Every other cause of death/fire was ruled out. Here's the rest of the story.
So, there you have it: spontaneous human combustion -- just one more thing I have to worry about.
Thursday, September 1, 2011
Can't we all just be friends? Err... no!
Every time we have a trial, Judge Lynch goes to great pains to explain to jurors that 'not communicating' with trial participants, each other, and the media includes every known form of technology. It's kind of cute because, legal genius that he is, Judge Lynch probably doesn't use too many of the social media outlets. You can tell by the way he talks about them. Anyhoo. . .
If only all jurors everywhere listened to their judges instructions.
The story begins like this:
A North Texas juror who was booted from a trial has been cited for contempt after trying to “friend” the defendant on Facebook.
Yeah, I know. Amazing. Full story here.
If only all jurors everywhere listened to their judges instructions.
The story begins like this:
A North Texas juror who was booted from a trial has been cited for contempt after trying to “friend” the defendant on Facebook.
Yeah, I know. Amazing. Full story here.
Monday, May 2, 2011
Osama and the Royal Wedding
It's been a weird week for news what with the Royal Wedding (technically last week, I know) and the killing of Osama bin Laden. Got me to wondering. . .
What do these events have in common?
1. Everyone wants to see pictures.
2. They made the world a happier place.
3. The central figure in each event was wearing a white dress (so I'm told).
4. Shares in retailers like Flags 'R' Us sky-rocketed.
5. No more virgins for one guy, plenty for the other (so I'm told).
6. Shoes. Crazy ones for Posh Spice, concrete ones for Osama.
It's a little odd to see some of the celebrations, to be honest. Bad, nasty dude for sure and not one person on the planet should shed a tear, but to see a young college kid on TV saying "It makes me proud to be a Texan"? What's that got to do with it?
Cheeky bugger was probably trying to co-opt this for his own dastardly ends.
Big day in history, though. Which is why I had to add my two cents.
What do these events have in common?
1. Everyone wants to see pictures.
2. They made the world a happier place.
3. The central figure in each event was wearing a white dress (so I'm told).
4. Shares in retailers like Flags 'R' Us sky-rocketed.
5. No more virgins for one guy, plenty for the other (so I'm told).
6. Shoes. Crazy ones for Posh Spice, concrete ones for Osama.
It's a little odd to see some of the celebrations, to be honest. Bad, nasty dude for sure and not one person on the planet should shed a tear, but to see a young college kid on TV saying "It makes me proud to be a Texan"? What's that got to do with it?
Cheeky bugger was probably trying to co-opt this for his own dastardly ends.
Big day in history, though. Which is why I had to add my two cents.
Friday, April 22, 2011
APD Cold Case on local TV
This is a neat story about our cold case unit, and by "our" I mean Austin Police Department's. A really neat bunch of people who work incredibly hard to solve the most difficult murders. And they're damn good at it, too.
The reporter, Noelle, sat through my recent trial and got to talking to Ron Lara afterwards, I'm glad she's giving them some publicity. Ron was invaluable to that case, from start to finish, and the other two people you see on the video pretending to work, Jerry Bauzon and Angel Hernandez, also put in several shifts helping track people and evidence down. Rock stars, all of them.
The reporter, Noelle, sat through my recent trial and got to talking to Ron Lara afterwards, I'm glad she's giving them some publicity. Ron was invaluable to that case, from start to finish, and the other two people you see on the video pretending to work, Jerry Bauzon and Angel Hernandez, also put in several shifts helping track people and evidence down. Rock stars, all of them.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Can YOU help catch a killer?
I make some assumptions about my small but loyal gathering of readers: First, that they are interested in crime. Second, that they are intelligent.
The first assumption is based on the fact you are, well, readers of a criminal law blog. Duh. The second is based on your comments and those of you I have met.
And this is why I thought you might be interested in a post the FBI has up on their site. Basically, they need help deciphering a note found on a murder victim. Yes, the FBI needs YOUR help:
(Go here for the full story.)
Any of you masterminds able to crack it?
Because that would be very, very cool.
The first assumption is based on the fact you are, well, readers of a criminal law blog. Duh. The second is based on your comments and those of you I have met.
And this is why I thought you might be interested in a post the FBI has up on their site. Basically, they need help deciphering a note found on a murder victim. Yes, the FBI needs YOUR help:
On June 30, 1999, sheriff’s officers in St. Louis, Missouri discovered the body of 41-year-old Ricky McCormick. He had been murdered and dumped in a field. The only clues regarding the homicide were two encrypted notes found in the victim’s pants pockets.
Despite extensive work by our Cryptanalysis and Racketeering Records Unit (CRRU), as well as help from the American Cryptogram Association, the meanings of those two coded notes remain a mystery to this day, and Ricky McCormick’s murderer has yet to face justice.
Here's one of the notes:(Go here for the full story.)
Any of you masterminds able to crack it?Because that would be very, very cool.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Community, vigilantism, and karma
Now all my readers know I do not venture into topics that are controversial, political, or (frankly) interesting.
Just the bland and informative for D.A. Confidential.
But I would like to take a stand today and remind the good people of the world that vigilante justice is never okay. That taking the law into your own hands is always wrong.
I refer, specifically, to this story:
Shortly after finishing their protest at the funeral of Army Sgt. Jason James McCluskey of McAlester, a half-dozen protesters from Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kan., headed to their minivan, only to discover that its front and rear passenger-side tires had been slashed.
Rest of the story here.
So, a reminder to other communities: do not do this.
Nope.
It's not okay.
Ever.
Never.
No matter what.
No matter why.
Ever.
hehe
Just the bland and informative for D.A. Confidential.
But I would like to take a stand today and remind the good people of the world that vigilante justice is never okay. That taking the law into your own hands is always wrong.
I refer, specifically, to this story:
Shortly after finishing their protest at the funeral of Army Sgt. Jason James McCluskey of McAlester, a half-dozen protesters from Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kan., headed to their minivan, only to discover that its front and rear passenger-side tires had been slashed.
Rest of the story here.
So, a reminder to other communities: do not do this.
Nope.
It's not okay.
Ever.
Never.
No matter what.
No matter why.
Ever.
hehe
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Robbery is never the answer - even a polite robbery
I think I may be the last person on the planet to see this video, and certainly I'm late in posting it, but it's mesmerizing. It's almost like a Monty Python sketch, with the excess of politeness, the apologies, and the calm displayed by the victim.
But I'm guessing it was a real gun, which might have been used, and the robber's underlying sense of desperation makes this a bizarre and frightening exchange.
But I'm guessing it was a real gun, which might have been used, and the robber's underlying sense of desperation makes this a bizarre and frightening exchange.
Friday, January 28, 2011
Size doesn't matter. . . to the folks at Gatwick airport
Here's what happened:
"The crouching, camouflaged figure is most certainly armed. But few would say he was dangerous. Security officials disagreed however when he passed through a scanner at Gatwick Airport. His three-inch, plastic toy gun was branded a ‘firearm’ and banned from a transatlantic flight."
Here's the full story. Well, as full as you ever get from a newspaper.
And a lot of people are outraged, but I'm with the officials on this one. I mean, not a week goes by when I don't wander into my son's room to give him a kiss good night and step on a toy soldier in my bare feet. Bloody hurts! So don't stand there with your civil rights wrapped around you and try to tell me this kind of so-called "toy" isn't dangerous.
And another thing: feather boas. Just last night I snuck into my eldest daughter's room (her turn for a goodnight kiss) and I was attacked by a ferocious, snuggly-blue boa. Wrapped it's evil self around my ankles and nearly took me down. Ban those suckers, too.
Also, the last time I was on a plane some ne'er-do-well had his iPod blaring out "Danger Zone." Seriously, that song was taking us both on a highway to the danger zone, it bloody well said so! Ban it.
I like the way this is going, these flights could soon become super safe with all that kind of nonsense outlawed.
What else can we think of. . . ?
"The crouching, camouflaged figure is most certainly armed. But few would say he was dangerous. Security officials disagreed however when he passed through a scanner at Gatwick Airport. His three-inch, plastic toy gun was branded a ‘firearm’ and banned from a transatlantic flight."
Here's the full story. Well, as full as you ever get from a newspaper.
And a lot of people are outraged, but I'm with the officials on this one. I mean, not a week goes by when I don't wander into my son's room to give him a kiss good night and step on a toy soldier in my bare feet. Bloody hurts! So don't stand there with your civil rights wrapped around you and try to tell me this kind of so-called "toy" isn't dangerous.
And another thing: feather boas. Just last night I snuck into my eldest daughter's room (her turn for a goodnight kiss) and I was attacked by a ferocious, snuggly-blue boa. Wrapped it's evil self around my ankles and nearly took me down. Ban those suckers, too.
Also, the last time I was on a plane some ne'er-do-well had his iPod blaring out "Danger Zone." Seriously, that song was taking us both on a highway to the danger zone, it bloody well said so! Ban it.
I like the way this is going, these flights could soon become super safe with all that kind of nonsense outlawed.
What else can we think of. . . ?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)