When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Prosecutors say a man intentionally shot and wounded his 2-year-old son in the face during a fight with the boy’s mother in southern Michigan.
The Jackson Citizen Patriot reports 32-year-old Michael Glance of Jackson County’s Blackman Township was arraigned by video Thursday on charges including assault with intent to murder.
California could become one of the first states to outlaw racial discrimination because of hairstyles - such as braids and dreadlocks - in a move aimed at challenging long-held standards of professionalism in the workplace.
On Census Citizenship Question, Supreme Court’s Conservatives Appear United
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority seemed ready on Tuesday to allow the Trump administration to add a question on citizenship to the 2020 census, which critics say would undermine its accuracy by discouraging both legal and unauthorized immigrants from filling out the forms.
The case, the latest test of executive power in the Trump era, was heard by the court against the backdrop of the administration’s aggressive efforts to reduce illegal immigration as well as accusations of bad faith against the architect of the revised census questionnaire, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross. It appeared to divide the court along the usual lines, with its five conservative members poised to defer to the administration and the court’s four liberal members ready to question its motives and methods.
The court’s decision, expected in late June, will be consequential. By one government estimate, about 6.5 million people might not be counted if the citizenship question is allowed. That could reduce Democratic representation when congressional districts are allocated in 2021 and affect how hundreds of billions of dollars in federal spending are distributed. Courts have also found that Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois, New York and Texas could risk losing seats in the House, and that several states could lose federal money.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who took the lead in challenging the administration’s proposal, said that adding the question would do damage to the fundamental purpose of the census, which is to count everyone in the nation. “There is no doubt that people will respond less,” she said. “That has been proven in study after study.”
...
"The federal government has long gathered information about citizenship. But since 1950, it has not included a question about it in the census forms sent once a decade to each household. Adding it could reduce Democratic representation when congressional districts are allocated in 2021 and affect how hundreds of billions of dollars in federal spending are distributed.
Courts have found that Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois, New York and Texas could risk losing seats in the House, and that several states could lose federal money."
"Courts have found that Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois, New York and Texas could risk losing seats in the House, and that several states could lose federal money."
Interestingly, there's been a lot of attention lately on Cook County's efforts to educate everyone about the census and encourage residents to take part in it. The fact that federal funding is directly tied to census data is a major point in the "raising awareness."
I'm curious as to why the NYT article does not mention Nevada, Maryland, Georgia or Massachusetts. All of those states have a higher percentage of illegal immigrants than New York, according to The Pew Research Center.
Lie, as in intentionally misrepresent the facts as they know them. The prosecutors and law enforcement are also allowed to do that to the defendant himself.
Here is a very interesting talk given by an author who was amazed as she learned more and more about the process and how it was stacked against any defendant.
Prisoners of Politics: Breaking the Cycle of Mass Incarceration by Cato Event Podcast https://player.fm/1vKtHh
It's a curious reaction to the fact that the court itself has historically tended to be rather strict about rules of evidence and rules of procedure in ways which favor the defense.
It's also a fact that the vast majority of people who are both arrested and charged with a crime tend to be guilty*.
* = whether the charge of which they are guilty is justly a crime is another matter. IOW, I agree that drug offenses are routinely over-charged, and that the criminal penalties attached to them are often senselessly strict, but the police and the DA don't get to decide whether laws and penalties are just, only whether someone is guilty of violating said laws.
It's a curious reaction to the fact that the court itself has historically tended to be rather strict about rules of evidence and rules of procedure in ways which favor the defense.
It's also a fact that the vast majority of people who are both arrested and charged with a crime tend to be guilty*.
* = whether the charge of which they are guilty is justly a crime is another matter. IOW, I agree that drug offenses are routinely over-charged, and that the criminal penalties attached to them are often senselessly strict, but the police and the DA don't get to decide whether laws and penalties are just, only whether someone is guilty of violating said laws.
People charged with a criminal offense overwhelmingly take the plea deal whether guilty or not.
People charged with a criminal offense overwhelmingly take the plea deal whether guilty or not.
While that's true, I'm talking about actual guilt, not copping a plea. Eg: did the person actually do whatever crime they are charged with.
As a broad generalization, police don't typically arrest people without a reason, and prosecutors don't press charges they think they'll lose. Plea deals are mostly a tool for allowing the DA to rack up more convictions more quickly, as this is a metric that they're graded on.
So while I freely admit that there are instances in which an innocent* person is wrongly arrested, charged, and sometimes found guilty (due to some combination of incompetence, malice, or just stupidity on the part of the police and the court), these situations are exceedingly rare as compared to the number of trials which silently take place every day with zero press coverage, in which people who did in fact commit assault, or robbery, or DUI, or burglary, or any one of a number of crimes so routine that we hardly notice them, plea to the thing that they did.
* = of whatever specific thing they're charged with, because very few people are truly "innocent" of everything that you could be charged with. Hell, I once messed with Texas and never got caught.
Marvel President: Movies Will Go ‘Inclusive,’ Adding ‘Gay’ and ‘Body Positive’ Heroes
By Gabriel Hays April 23, 2019 5:10 PM EDTPhase II of the Marvel comic book cinematic universe is going to involve a few less of our classic superheros in favor of a bold new array of diverse and inclusive characters. Yes, Marvel’s going a lot more ethnic, and a lot more gay because what’s cooler than finding out that your new favorite Avenger enjoys his skintight latex suit for far more than just crime-fighting purposes?
According to Marvel Studios, the upcoming film Avengers: Endgame “will close a massive chapter in Marvel’s decade of film-making.” But no need to shed a tear. Marvel intends a whole new round of comic book film adaptations, but this time with a new age twist. Nerd culture outlet The Mary Suewrote that, “Marvel head Kevin Feige is looking towards the bold, inclusive future of the brand,” that includes all sorts of LGBTQ and “body-positive” characters.
That’s right. If anyone couldn’t tell by the heavy PC feminist marketing behind their latest blockbuster Captain Marvel, Marvel intended on slowly stepping into the identity politics playing field. Feige told The Mary Sue about next foray into the big diverse world with Marvel’s first-ever Chinese-American crimefighter, Shang Chi.
Feige stated, “We only want to do movies that people seem to think are risks. Doing the story of an Asian-American hero of Chinese heritage is something that is very intriguing to us. It will be really different and special.” All right, fine. Nothing wrong with a Chinese-American crimefighter, but, as this is a play for being the most diverse entertainment company in the universe, the social justice agenda goes way further than that.
Marvel is already in pre-production on another film, The Eternals, starring Angelina Jolie, and super lefty Kumail Nanjiani. Feige’s ideas for finding something “really different and special” involve wrangling up “a gay Asian male lead in what will be their first openly gay character.” Oh, and the film also sports its first-ever woman of color director in Chloe Zhao.
But that’s not all. Fat acceptance and body positivity heroes are on the docket as well. Now, that’s more like it! Feige acknowledged that “traditionally” comic book heroes have “iconic mythic proportions,” as do some of the actors and actresses in the business. Though this had been the trope, he admitted that “yes” there will be a slate of everyman heroes that represent “real bodies” and that they will be introduced “perhaps sooner than you’d think.”
As if suspending disbelief for a strong man superhero weren’t enough, now we’re being asked to believe that a morbidly obese superhero will have the strength and stamina to save us. But then again, unattainable beauty standards are the main villain these days.
While that's true, I'm talking about actual guilt, not copping a plea. Eg: did the person actually do whatever crime they are charged with.
As a broad generalization, police don't typically arrest people without a reason, and prosecutors don't press charges they think they'll lose. Plea deals are mostly a tool for allowing the DA to rack up more convictions more quickly, as this is a metric that they're graded on.
So while I freely admit that there are instances in which an innocent* person is wrongly arrested, charged, and sometimes found guilty (due to some combination of incompetence, malice, or just stupidity on the part of the police and the court), these situations are exceedingly rare as compared to the number of trials which silently take place every day with zero press coverage, in which people who did in fact commit assault, or robbery, or DUI, or burglary, or any one of a number of crimes so routine that we hardly notice them, plea to the thing that they did.
* = of whatever specific thing they're charged with, because very few people are truly "innocent" of everything that you could be charged with. Hell, I once messed with Texas and never got caught.
I believed that once myself. Please make time for the podcast when you are able. I'd like your opinion on some of the points presented.*
Not intending at all to give a busy man like yourself a homework assignment but rather to genuinely hear your opinions if you (or anyone else) are interested. I was fascinated.
I believed that once myself. Please make time for the podcast when you are able. I'd like your opinion on some of the points presented.*
Not intending at all to give a busy man like yourself a homework assignment but rather to genuinely hear your opinions if you (or anyone else) are interested. I was fascinated.
I'll queue it up for Friday, as I'm planning to head downtown. Train time is my usual podcast time. (Annoyingly, that episode isn't in their RSS feed yet. Downloaded the MP3 like an old fart.)
It's a curious reaction to the fact that the court itself has historically tended to be rather strict about rules of evidence and rules of procedure in ways which favor the defense.
It's also a fact that the vast majority of people who are both arrested and charged with a crime tend to be guilty*.
* = whether the charge of which they are guilty is justly a crime is another matter. IOW, I agree that drug offenses are routinely over-charged, and that the criminal penalties attached to them are often senselessly strict, but the police and the DA don't get to decide whether laws and penalties are just, only whether someone is guilty of violating said laws.
I have personal experience watching the legal process about the (scary) friend of an extended relative. I watched as a drug bust involving a truckload of marijuana and meth (weighed in pounds, not ounces) get plead down from a multi-year felony to time served. And then it happened again, and the sentence was still frighteningly light. Sure he's a drug mule, but every batch of Fentanyl that he delivers equals probably 10 O.D.'s
It's not a victimless crime.
Speaking of which, Bernie really does want felons to be able to vote in prison -- ostensibly for people pushing for light criminal sentences. That makes sense. :/
04-24-2019, 10:33 AM
0
