|
Crime (funny, not-so-funny, bizarre, and just plain stupid) and dealing with it
BRITISH TO USE GPS ON PRISONERS
The British prison system plans to introduce the satellite Global Positioning System to track criminals in England and Wales to save on prison space. GPS tracks all movements via an electronic anklet and sets off an alert when perimeters have been broken, the BBC reports. Inmates' movements can be tracked on computer to ensure they do not enter a restricted area, such as a school. The British government agency has been studying the U.S. Department of Corrections in Florida, which monitors 3,000 convicts by GPS. I think that's a pretty damned good idea@ Sidhe |
Would you consider yourself an animal lover? If you live in
Sweden, that description takes on a whole new meaning. Defying moral and ethical standards, sex with animals is legal in the Scandinavian country. As a result, between 200 and 300 pets are injured every year due to sexual assaults by their owners. And why is this act not illegal? After homosexual sex was decriminalized in 1944, the case for animal intercourse was raised and seen as comparably justified. Since then, veterinarians estimate that every 20th cat or dog that receives treatment is there as a result of sexual assault. Um, EW. Sidhe |
In perhaps one of the touchiest police standoffs of all time,
a 20-year-old female suspected of dealing drugs battled police for 10 hours after she shoved some crack in a crack of her own. After being spotted, the woman reached into her pants and a batch of suspected crack cocaine "disappeared". Unable to convince the woman to produce the evidence, she was taken to a San Francisco hospital for the drug's extraction. However, non-compliance from the suspect and hospital staff forced a legal standoff that spanned almost half a day. Finally, after obtaining a "body cavity search warrant", police persuaded the suspect to give up and take out the contraband herself. Sidhe |
An Iowa man whose wife testified his penis was too small to
be seen from 35 feet away now faces jail time for indecent exposure. Doug Neece, 41, has been on trial for three charges of indecent exposure, the Quad City Times reported Friday. Part of his defense entailed having his wife testify that he is not well-endowed enough for a female postal worker to have seen his penis from about 35 feet. That did not appear too convincing to the Scott County jury that took five hours to convict him. Neece faces up to a year in jail on each charge and will be placed on the state's sex offender registry. Sorry, but....HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!:biggrin: Sidhe |
"Saudi Takes Four Wives in One Night
to Spite His Ex" -- AFP headline "Fiji Village to Apologize for Eating English Missionary" -- AFP headline AMATEUR MEETS EXPERT: The manager of Action Video in Greensboro, N.C., looked at the gun held by the robber in front of him. "That is not a real gun," Ron Simpson told the robber. "This is a real gun," he added as he pulled out his own gun, which he has a permit to carry. The surprised robber grabbed a candy rack to use as a shield. "Like that's going to stop the bullet," Simpson told him as he picked up the phone to call police. The robber ran. "Police don't suggest this, I know," Simpson said later, but "I'd do it again." (Greensboro News & Record) RANK AMATEURS II: When two men stepped up to the counter at a convenience store in Stuart, Fla., the clerk asked if they were old enough to buy beer. When Winston Lamar, 22, handed over his ID, she noticed he had a gun. But before he could do anything with it, store clerk Marie Blanco, 42, grabbed it and the men ran, taking the beer. A half hour later, Lamar called the store to ask if he could come back for the gun and ID. Blanco said he could, telling him the police had left, but two sheriff's deputies were there to arrest him and Drew Nash, 21, when they returned. (Ft Myers News-Press) ...Old enough to buy beer: yes. Smart enough to buy beer: no. Sidhe |
Mechanic Held Without Bond In Florida Slaying
Sarasota, Fla. (AP)
A mechanic charged with kidnapping and killing an 11-year-old girl whose abduction was caught on a carwash surveillance camera was ordered held without bond on Saturday... Joseph P. Smith, who has been arrested at least 13 times in Fla. since 1993, waived his first court appearance in the slaying of Carlie Brucia a day after her body was pulled from thick underbrush in a church parking lot. Carlie's slaying has prompted Florida's attorney general to investigate stiffening penalties for criminals who violate the terms of their release. Smith has been free despite violating his probation, and Carlie's family has called for an investigation of how his numerous past arrests were handled. ((Now this is the problem, or at least part of it. This is someone with a history of unlawful behavior, and yet he was allowed to violate his probation with no repercussions. One can't help but wonder, if he had been slammed back in jail on his first violation, if this child would still be alive.--Sidhe)) "You can't help but think that some of the statutes are too permissive," Attorney General Charlie Crist said in an interview with the Associated Press. "I think it's important we review putting more teeth in our statutes...it's got to be ratcheted up very quickly." ((...the statutes are too permissive....well, no shit, Sherlock. It took a child being kidnapped and murdered for you to figure that out?? Our statutes ought to have teeth to BEGIN with. Penalties for crimes shouldn't be a slap on the hand. That's what you do to your kid when they try to play with the light socket. It's not what you do to serial criminals.--Sidhe)) Circuit Court Judge Harry Rapkin, who handled Smith's most recent probation hearings, said Friday he had received death threats. Carlie's family denounced the threats through a spokesman Saturday. Smith "should have been put in jail and put away," said Bruce Meeks, a family friend. "Somewhere in the cracks, our justice system failed us. Whose fault it is, we don't know." Now, this guy was apparantly caught on a video surveillance camera. Is THAT enough evidence to fry his useless ass?? Sidhe |
The surveillance video shows someone, likely him, having contact with the child. It does not show him murdering her on camera.
There are even ways that a video of a murder can be excluded from evidence. |
Ok, so what if they enhance the video, and find that it IS him? Say this proves that he kidnapped the child. Then we'll have kidnapping. Then say they find DNA evidence to link him to the murder of the child. (One can mess up DNA evidence in such a way so as to make it look like it ISN'T a person it IS, but you can't make it look like it IS a person it ISN'T.) Would THAT be enough?
What if he confessed? Would it then be said that he was coerced, or making it up for the attention? I'm not being contrary just for the sake of being contrary, understand. I just want to know what it takes to decide that someone deserves to die for the criminal actions s/he has committed.... Sidhe |
A clever lawyer and not-so-clever cops has lead to confessions, including videotaped ones being thrown out.
Even if he IS convicted, and gets the death penalty, he won't die for 14 - 20 years because of the appeals process anyway. It sometimes seems that prisoners on death row have a better chance of dying by natural causes or murder by other inmates than at the hands of the state. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
No shit, huh? I'm right there with you on that one. That's the whole reason the death penalty is so damned expensive as compared to "life in prison;" the appeals are what cost so much, not frying the SOB.... Sidhe |
And while I'm on the rant, you know what else pisses me off? When lawyers talk about "circumstantial evidence." Unless you have an eyewitness, an earwitness, or film, ALL evidence is "circumstantial."
"We will prove that the State's case is purely circumstantial...." Well, no shit. You don't think the guy's going to invite the press over when he commits the crime, do you?? *sheesh...*:rolleyes: Sidhe |
the latest on the killer mechanic
From CNN.com:
Key evidence missing in Carlie's killing Warrant: Smith told witness about killing girl Friday, February 6, 2004 Posted: 11:27 PM EST (0427 GMT) SARASOTA, Florida (CNN) -- Authorities are asking for the public's help in finding "key pieces of evidence" that could lead to the conviction of Joseph P. Smith in the death of 11-year-old Carlie Brucia, whose body was recovered Friday. Carlie's remains were discovered five days and a few miles from a car wash where a surveillance camera captured chilling images of her abduction Sunday. Sarasota County Sheriff Bill Balkwill said that key evidence includes a pink knapsack. "You can find that backpack for us -- do not touch it. Call the sheriff's office. We will come and retrieve it," he said. Authorities were able to recover Carlie's body because Smith confided in a jailhouse witness after his arrest on February 3, according to a warrant. "On February 5th," the affidavit says, "the defendant told a witness that he abducted and murdered Carlie Brucia. Based upon specific information provided to this witness by the defendant, this witness was able to lead investigators to the body of Carlie Brucia." Balkwill said Smith, a one-time auto mechanic with a long criminal record, has been charged with murder and kidnapping in Carlie's death and disappearance. Smith has been in jail in Sarasota since Tuesday on unrelated drug possession and probation violation charges. He has waived his first court appearance that had been set for this weekend. Carlie's body was found on the property of Central Church of Christ on Proctor Road near Interstate 75, about two miles from the car wash, law enforcement sources said. The girl was walking home from a friend's house when she disappeared. She may have walked through the parking lot of the car wash to get to her neighborhood. Kansler said he and his wife Susan Schorpen, Carlie's mother, want Smith to stand trial and get the death penalty. Smith's arrest affidavit also says Smith gave "misleading and false" information during an interview in which he admitted owning a yellow 1992 Buick Century station wagon that had been linked to the investigation. In that February 3 interview, the affidavit says, Smith denied being near the car wash where a surveillance video shows Carlie being accosted by a man in what appears to be a uniform. But, according to the affidavit, police saw the car in a surveillance video, "in the parking lot of the car wash approximately three minutes prior to Carlie's abduction." Kansler said early Friday that police told family members they found DNA evidence linking Carlie to the station wagon. The tag for the car is not registered in Smith's name. Authorities searched Smith's house in Sarasota's Kensington Park neighborhood Wednesday as well as a field with tall grass behind it. They found no evidence immediately linking Smith to the girl's disappearance, a law enforcement source involved in the investigation said. Forensic examinations will be conducted on certain items taken in the search, the source said. Kansler also said other people on a nearby driving range may have seen Smith. The videotape shows a dark-haired man approach Carlie, grab her arm and speak to her briefly before leading her away Sunday. The footage does not clearly show the man's face, but he appears to be wearing a uniform and has tattoos on his arms. Smith also has tattoos on his arms, authorities said. Smith was arrested Tuesday after tips from members of the community, authorities said. A woman who said she lives with Smith told CNN she turned him in after seeing the surveillance video on television. The sheriff called the owners of the car wash "heroes" for providing the videotape and said he wanted the public to know that Smith never worked there. So, apparantly, he HAS confessed.... Sidhe |
Oooh, this just burns me up....marriage is an institution comprised of two people who love each other and want to spend their lives together. It shouldn't matter if they're straight or gay....
Sidhe Ohio governor signs bill making state 38th to ban gay marriage Saturday, February 7, 2004 Posted: 11:39 AM EST (1639 GMT) COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) -- Ohio Gov. Bob Taft approved one of the country's most-far reaching gay-marriage bans on Friday, saying its adoption was urgent because the nation's first legally sanctioned same-sex weddings could take place as early as this spring in Massachusetts. ((OH, Gawd fah-bid that two people who love each other should get married!!!)) The bill, which Taft signed in private, also prohibits state employees from getting marital benefits for their unmarried partners, whether homosexual or heterosexual. ((now, that's just adding insult to injury)) Approving the bill to make gay marriages "against the strong public policy of the state" became more pressing after the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled 4-3 this week that denial of marriage to same-sex couples as unconstitutional, Taft said. (The Massachusetts ruling) ((it IS unconstitutional, because it is denying the basic right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to a select group of individuals based on their sexual preference)) "It is necessary for us to act now to safeguard Ohio's marriage laws," Taft said. "Ohio could have same-sex couples who were 'married' in Massachusetts taking legal action in Ohio to recognize that marriage and to obtain the resulting benefits." ((ok, and....what's the problem? Afraid that a gay marriage might end up being more solid than a hetero one?)) When the law takes effect in 90 days, Ohio will become the 38th state to adopt a "defense of marriage act" and the second to deny benefits to some employees' partners. ((noooo...it's a defense of marriage for straights only, not a defense of marriage.)) Taft, a Republican, denied assertions that the law promotes intolerance. He said the new law would send a strong positive message to children and families. ((Really? It doesn't promote intolerance? I must be missing the tolerant part....matter of fact, it sounds like he's trotting out the old "separate but equal" idea, just dressed up with new words....and it'll send a message to families and children that love and respect and a desire to spend your lives together isn't what matters in a marriage....what REALLY matters is whether you're straight or not)) "Marriage is an essential building block of our society, an institution we must reaffirm," he said. ((And so therefore we are going o undermine this building block by restricting it to only straights.)) Sidhe |
This relates to law, not to crime, but it's your forum and your thread.
Cheers to Ohio. |
My take: abolish marriage altogether, as a CIVIL process.
It's a religious ceremony. Give it back to the churches to administer. There should be no special privileges attaching to being married ... and there are other legal forms and doctrines to establish things like inheritance, right to make medical decisions when incapacitated, etc. |
(FindLaw) -- While the Ohio governor has signed a bill banning same-sex marriage in his state, four of the seven justices of the Massachusetts Supreme Court have cleared the last obstacle to same-sex marriage in theirs.
Thus, Massachusetts will now take the lead among states as the only one to grant the right of civil marriage to same-sex couples. Four other states have created alternative statuses -- more or less like marriage, depending on the state. For example, New Jersey recently enacted a domestic partnership law that provides formal recognition of same-sex relationships, but falls far short of marriage. At the same time, thirty-seven other states have passed laws banning same-sex marriage. Currently, however, Massachusetts is the only state that will actually permit gays and lesbians to marry. (Vermont permits same-couples to enter into "civil unions," a status virtually identical to marriage, and, beginning January 1, 2005, California will enlarge its existing domestic partnership status to be marriage-like in almost every respect. But neither state's alternative carries the name "marriage," and that may make a difference.) In November 2003, in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, the Massachusetts Supreme Court held that a ban on same-sex marriages violates the state constitution's guarantees of equality and due process. Denial of the right to marry, the Court explained, "works a deep and scarring hardship on a very real segment of the community for no rational reason." Moreover, the harm to gays and lesbians, the Court said, is not only the harm that comes from the denial of the benefits of marriage. It is also the harm of being deemed "second-class citizens" in the process. The Court gave the legislature 180 days to "take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of this opinion." The obvious implication of this language, given the holding and reasoning of the Goodridge opinion, was that the Legislature was to amend its statutes to permit same-sex couples to marry. But after the decision came down, the Massachusetts Senate did something different, and lesser, hoping it would pass muster with the Court. Specifically, the legislature rushed to pass a bill allowing same-sex couples access to a marriage-like status, but denying them the right to marriage itself. Instead, according to the bill, same-sex couples could enter into civil unions with all the "benefits, protections, rights and responsibilities" of marriage. The Senate then asked the state Supreme Court for an advisory opinion about the constitutionality of its law. (An "advisory opinion" -- forbidden in federal courts and most state courts -- counsels the legislature on the validity or constitutionality of a law outside the context of a particular court case or controversy.) The justices agreed to provide an Answer, given the importance of the question at stake and the "serious doubt" of the legislature about their authority to enact the civil union law. The Answer, joined by four Justices of the Court, responded with a resounding "No." It is no wonder that the legislature had "serious doubt" about its bill -- and no wonder the Court answered "No" to the legislature's question. The Goodridge decision had been quite clear that only a right to enter civil marriage would cure the constitutional infirmity in the state's laws. The reasoning of the case, which I discussed in an earlier column, could be read no other way. Thus, the Senate's attempt to read the opinion otherwise was, as the Justices observed in their Answer, a purposeful attempt to circumvent the opinion. The justices' Answer reminded the Senate that the Court, in Goodridge, had not only been concerned with the tangible benefits of marriage -- such as inheritance rights, tax deductions, evidentiary protections, and access to health insurance. It had also been moved, in its constitutional analysis in the first instance, by the fact that "intangible benefits flow from marriage." And it had stressed that, "[w]ithout the right to choose to marry, same-sex couples are not only denied full protection of the laws, but are excluded from the full range of human experience." Thus, the original Goodridge opinion had plainly held that gays and lesbians have the right to equality in marriage itself -- not to the "separate but equal" alternative of a marriage-like status with the benefits of marriage, but a different name. Upon hearing the news of the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision, many observers wondered why it is that, in Vermont, civil unions are constitutionally acceptable, but in Massachusetts, they are not. To answer that question, it's necessary to look to the Vermont Constitution, and the way it has been interpreted by Vermont courts. As in Massachusetts, change in Vermont came via its Supreme Court -- which held four years ago, in Baker v. State, that gays and lesbians could not be denied the benefits of marriage. But unlike in Massachusetts, the State ended up with an apparently constitutional Act Relating to Civil Unions, and not with same-sex marriage. In Baker v. State, the Vermont Supreme Court held that it was a violation of the Common Benefits Clause of Vermont's Constitution to deny same-sex couples the right to marry or the right enter into a substantially comparable, and legally recognized, relationship. The Court thus expressly sanctioned a marriage-like alternative because of the nature of the constitutional right at stake. There is no exact parallel in the federal constitution to Vermont's Common Benefits Clause. Courts prior to Baker had read it to provide protections somewhat similar to those guaranteed by the federal Equal Protection Clause. But in Baker, the Vermont Supreme Court distanced itself from those precedents. Rather than use the varying standards of review familiar from federal Equal Protection cases, it applied a different standard that sought to ensure that "any exclusion from the general benefit and protection of the law would bear a just and reasonable relation to the legislative goals." The Court found that the right being withheld was very significant, and that it was being withheld without appropriate justification. Accordingly, the Court found no basis for "the continued exclusion of same-sex couples from the benefits incident to a civil marriage license under Vermont law." It then gave the Legislature a "reasonable" period of time to "craft an appropriate means of addressing this constitutional mandate." And it stated that failure to do so would mean the plaintiffs could petition the Court for their originally requested remedy: the right to marry. The Legislature responded as directed -- and created a parallel status that would enable same-sex couples to gain formal recognition of their relationships, as well as entitlement to all the benefits, rights, and burdens of marriage, which numbered at least a thousand. However, it did not allow same-sex couples the right to marry. Why Massachusetts' Constitution was interpreted differently from Vermont's In contrast to Vermont's, the Massachusetts Constitution has no common benefits clause. Thus, the Massachusetts litigation went forward under its Constitution's equality and due process clauses -- which have been read to be generally similar to their federal parallels, only more protective of individual rights. There was no basis in the text of the Massachusetts' clauses for focusing on the benefits of marriage, as opposed to marriage itself. In Vermont, the Constitution stressed the "benefit and protection" of the law, but this was not the case in Massachusetts. Thus, when the Goodridge Court concluded that the government lacked a justifiable rationale for treating same-sex couples differently from heterosexual ones, the obvious remedy was ordered: Treat them the same. This is the usual remedy for a violation of principles of formal equality. Does it matter if same-sex unions are called 'marriage'? The Massachusetts Supreme Court's Goodridge opinion was quite clear that it was denouncing the exclusion of gays and lesbians from the institution of marriage itself, not just the denial of the benefits of marriage. The Senate's "separate but equal" response was thus constitutionally insufficient, and rightfully rejected. One Justice's separate answer to the Senate's query characterizes the dispute between the Court and the Senate as a "squabble over the name to be used." If the rights are truly identical, Justice Sosman argues, the Legislature should be permitted to call each status whatever it wants. (The majority's answer of course disagreed, explaining that the "dissimilitude between the terms 'civil marriage' and 'civil union' are not innocuous," but rather assign "same-sex, largely homosexual, couples to second-class status.") But that characterization misses the important question: Why is it so important to the Senate that a formally recognized, legally binding relationship between members of the same sex not be called marriage? One might trot out the old "it degrades the institution of marriage" argument, but that has never been very persuasive. After all, as Ellen Goodman pointed out in one of her recent columns, doesn't Britney Spears's 55-hour Las Vegas marriage to someone she apparently doesn't love disparage marriage more than this? The fight is probably not over in Massachusetts. The next step for opponents of same-sex marriage is an amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution banning it. But the procedure required for such an amendment means it could take effect, if ratified, no earlier than November 2006. The motivation to amend the Constitution may look different, even to opponents of same-sex marriage, when the issue is stripping citizens of a right they already have, as opposed to granting them a new one. Sidhe |
Quote:
Sidhe |
You got permission from the copyright holder to post the whole article, right?
|
More on the Mechanic
|
Dwight Steidel was sitting at a red light in
Allentown, Penn. When it turned green, the car in front of him didn't move -- the driver was chatting with a pedestrian on the sidewalk. "I rolled down my window and told him to move or pull over," Steidel says. "He immediately began to curse at me. I believe he did not know I was a police officer." Steidel, who was driving an unmarked police car, pulled the man over. The driver, Rico Cordero, was driving with a suspended license. And he was carrying cocaine and a large amount of cash. And the car he was driving was stolen. (Allentown Morning Call) Sidhe |
Police in Hillsborough, N.C., responded to a call from
a bank about a man there acting suspiciously. Capt. Dexter Davis confronted the man, and asked him if he had a weapon. "He pulled his book bag off his shoulders. He opened the bag up and held it open to me" to show he didn't have a gun, Davis said. When he looked inside, there was a note in clear view. It read, "I want $10,000 in $100 bills. Don't push no buttons, or I'll shot [sic] you." Davis said he laughed out loud. "I was looking for a weapon, but here was this note with nice large letters." Christopher Alexander Fields, 42, who also was carrying a 10-inch knife, was arrested and turned over to the FBI. (Durham Herald-Sun) MOOVE ALONG. NOTHING TO SEE HERE: "Jury Clears Cow in Car Accident" -- AP headline Sidhe |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:46 AM. |
Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.