Posts filed under ‘Laws / Judiciary’
Here is the July 17, 2014 video showing Eric Garner, a resident of New York City who was stopped for allegedly selling cigarettes illegally (not for breaking up a fight as the narrator says), dying after police put him in a chokehold and wrestled him to the ground.
<iframe width=”430″ height=”242″ src=”//www.youtube.com/embed/j1ka4oKu1jo?rel=0&controls=0&showinfo=0″ frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen>
On August 1, the NYC Medical Examiner ruled Garner’s death a homicide and said he died from compression to the neck and chest.
It’s all there, on video. The cops are the ones who compressed his neck and chest. Yet, today this happened: Grand Jury Not to Charge N.Y.P.D. Officer in Garner’s death.
So, what good are body cameras going to do if even when a homicide is filmed, the officer(s) go unpunished? The system is in absolute shambles.
This sentence pretty much sums up where we’re at here in the U.S. when it come to our politicians:
Later today, according to press reports, President Obama will visit LA for a series of events including a speech on income inequality and, in awkward contrast, a $34k-a-ticket fundraiser at the home of Gwyneth Paltrow.
“Awkward contrast” is right.
From The Onion but spot on, especially #2:
- Shy away from dangerous, heavily policed areas.
- Avoid swaggering or any other confident behavior that suggests you are not completely subjugated.
- Be sure not to pick up any object that could be perceived by a police officer as a firearm, such as a cell phone, a food item, or nothing.
- Explain in clear and logical terms that you do not enjoy being shot, and would prefer that it not happen.
- Don’t let society stereotype you as a petty criminal. Remember that you can be seen as so much more, from an armed robbery suspect, to a rape suspect, to a murder suspect.
- Try to see it from a police officer’s point of view: You may be unarmed, but you’re also black.
- Avoid wearing clothing associated with the gang lifestyle, such as shirts and pants.
- Revel in the fact that by simply existing, you exert a threatening presence over the nation’s police force.
- Be as polite and straightforward as possible when police officers are kicking the shit out of you.
Colorado’s Obsessed Anti-Gay Marriage Republican AG John Suthers Finally Shuts Down Boulder Gay Marriage Licenses
It’s good to know that Colorado is such a crime-free, graft-free, corruption-free state that the number one priority of the Republican Attorney General is to stop the Boulder County Clerk from issuing marriage licenses to people of the same sex who love each other and want to get married:
The Colorado Supreme Court today ordered Boulder County Clerk Hillary Hall to stop issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
The order was issued in response to a filing by Colorado Attorney General John Suthers on Friday asking the court to stop Hall — who was the only clerk in the state at that time giving marriage licenses to gay couples — from issuing the licenses.
The Supreme Court said it will take up the case and ordered a stay on Hall while the case is resolved.
In Friday’s filing, Suthers argued that Hall issuing licenses was causing “statewide confusion and legal chaos.”
Suthers has previously tried to stop Hall in two other courts and was unsuccessful both times.
ARE YOU HAPPY NOW JOHN? What an idiot. He’s obviously pandering to the Tea Party while trying to position himself for a run for governor but by the time that happens he’ll look like a dinosaur. Gay marriage will likely be legal in the U.S. next year.
Kind of funny actually. Guys like Suthers live in such a bubble. When you only watch Fox and you only listen to Rush you think the whole world thinks like you do.
Happy 4th everyone.
We’re all going to rue the day the Hobby Lobby ruling came down. It wasn’t about birth control or abortions per se, it was about,
a Religious Right movement on the offensive…one that is trying to carve out exemptions as popular culture and American public opinion grind it to irrelevancy.
Read that sentence a couple times. The right is trying to create its own world and Hobby Lobby is only the beginning. Now there’s almost no end to what corporate “persons” could petition the Supreme Court to keep from having to comply with because of their “closely held” religious beliefs.
Heck, at this point, corporations are more of a person than I am. Do I imagine having a chance in hell of winning a case because I have a “closely held” religious belief that my tax dollars shouldn’t pay for wars or anything having do with them? No way Jose.
That said, this is what we’ve got to do in response to Hobby Lobby (via Mad As Hell Doctors) in its first incarnation (as there will be many more):
(I think history will judge this Roberts court as the worst, most destructive of American values, ever.)
UPDATED: Upps. Here we go. Round two from a few minutes ago:
Supreme Court Order Suspends Contraception Rule for Christian College
In a decision that drew an unusually fierce dissent from the three female justices, the Supreme Court sided Thursday with religiously affiliated nonprofit groups in a clash between religious freedom and women’s rights.
The decision temporarily bars the government from enforcing against a Christian college part of the regulations that provide contraception coverage under the Affordable Care Act.
The court’s order was brief, provisional and unsigned, but it drew a furious reaction from the three female justices — Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan — who said the court had betrayed a promise it made on Monday in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, which involved for-profit corporations.
The Supreme Court couldn’t be more hypocritical in a ruling it handed down today:
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously struck down a Massachusetts law that barred protests near abortion clinics.
The law, enacted in 2007, created 35-foot buffer zones around entrances to abortion clinics.
So now people can scream “baby killer” at women who come and go from those clinics. But as for the home of the Supremes? They issued this order almost exactly a year ago today:
No person shall engage in a demonstration within the Supreme Court building and grounds. The term “demonstration” includes demonstrations, picketing, speechmaking, marching, holding vigils or religious services and all other like forms of conduct that involve the communication or expression of views or grievances, engaged in by one or more persons, the conduct of which is reasonably likely to draw a crowd or onlookers. The term does not include casual use by visitors or tourists that is not reasonably likely to attract a crowd or onlookers.
Disgusting. I’d love to see someone challenge this new law based on the Supreme Court’s own restrictions…if that’s possible.