Page 1 of 21
Posted on February 22 at 7:54 a.m.
I tend to want to give women the benefit of any doubt on issues such as this, but perhaps I should make an exception for my good friend ;-) [ http://www.independent.com/news/2013/... ] Hannah-Beth Jackson.
realitycheck88 makes some good points regarding what "the devil" might be in "the devil is in the details" of my previous comment, and regarding Priceless's final paragraph: perhaps at least it should be required that a law be repealed before any new law added. I remarked similarly, in a comment at the link above, regarding Hannah-Beth Jackson's attempt to prevent eight million law-abiding California residents from owning a reproduction of a Civil War era hunting rifle:
"These tyrant-wannable clowns in Sacramento and Washington would better serve the public by studying the constitution and repealing the unconstitutional nonsense that's been passed than by adding more to their stinking piles of crappy laws."
So I'd like to revise the gist of my initial comment to: I'd like to think this could be a positive bill, but would have to first review cost estimates and the text of the bill.
The text of the bill:
On Jackson Bill Would Benefit College Sex Assault Victims
Posted on February 21 at 9:13 a.m.
I'm no Hannah-Beth Jackson fan, even for additional reasons than that made evident by my 34 comments here [ http://www.independent.com/news/2013/... ] and elsewhere, but this sounds like a positive bill.
It's been widely reported that women rape victims (possibly more than 80 in 2012 at UCSB, assuming H-B J's "...fewer than 5 percent of rapes on campuses are reported..." is accurate, and which seems credible to me) are reluctant to report this horrendous crime, due to the fact that they are treated as criminals for reporting, rather than victims.
The "devil is in the details" of course, but if reasonable mandated campus policies helps to correct this low reporting rate, that has to be a net positive, whether the crime would be reported to campus police or the local community law enforcement.
Regarding my link above: considering the widespread statistics from federal and other very credible sources that crimes of all types go down when concealed carry laws are liberalized (no pun intended), perhaps women, after proper training of course, should "start packing," as a preventative measure, assuming the recent federal ruling regarding California's concealed carry law is not reversed:
'2nd Amendment (#1): bad news for California criminals' https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/S...
Posted on February 21 at 8:19 a.m.
[COMPLETION OF MY PREVIOUS COMMENT]
"…gang-related Part 1 crimes (aggravated assault, forcible rape, murder, robbery, arson, burglary, larceny theft and motor vehicle theft)…increased from 52 in 2012 to 70 in 2013, but decreased from 23 in November to nine in December. The most common charge was graffiti vandalism—eight in November and four in December."
There's seems to be a discrepancy above that might be nice to clear up: there's no ellipses within the parentheses, which indicates the list of Part 1 crimes is complete; yet it then discusses graffiti vandalism apparently as a Part 1 crime.
Regardless, total Part 1 gang-related crimes in 2013 were 70 (i.e. 1.3 per week); December's total was only 39% of November's; it might be worthwhile to compare:
(1) January of 2014 gang-related Part 1 total, in order to determine whether December of 2013 was a remarkable (positive) outlier (holiday season?) or not, and
(2) total per week 2013 NON-gang related Part 1 crimes compared to 1.3 per week gang-related
— though some are charging that Chief Sanchez is manipulating the statistics which, if true, obviously would make any statistical analysis worthless.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I'm going with this, at least for now:
“This is a completely unreasonable, poorly drafted injunction,” said Santa Barbara lawyer Neil Levinson…“It’s wasting a lot of money and not really getting to the root of the cause."
On About Santa Barbara's proposed gang injunction …
I've done some additional research since my previous comment, and this thing seems quite gnarly to me, to the point where I can't imagine how it could survive a competent constitutional challenge. Other injunctions elsewhere have, of course, but my understanding is that this one has some key differences, among which is the very broad geographical scope.
Excerpts are from…
'Judge Denies Preliminary Gang Injunction'Mission & State10 February 2014http://www.missionandstate.org/blog/j...
…though my comments are based on information from eight additional articles as well.
(Excerpts from the article are within quotes; the rest is mine.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~"Attorney Tara Haaland-Ford: 'If she [Judge Sterne] was to find it against the Eastside and the Westside [gangs], they could serve every person they believe is Eastside or Westside—juvenile, adult, it doesn’t matter,” said Haaland-Ford, adding that there is not an opt-out clause in the preliminary injunction.
“ 'It wouldn’t be the tool they want it to be if it was just for these 30 people [named]. Half of those people are in prison and [others] are never getting out…' "~~~~~"…the proposed injunction raises issues of due process, an individual’s ability to contest being enjoined, the process for opting out of the injunction…"
Does this remind anyone of secret federal lists, such as the no-fly list and DHS "suspected terrorist" lists?~~~~~"…the use of juvenile records in making the case against named individuals…"
So does it, in fact, even target juveniles, as claimed, or just legally or illegally use juvenile records as a pre-crime tool?~~~~~"The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that a City of Orange gang injunction violated the Constitution, saying that its scope was extraordinarily broad, encroached on the plaintiffs’ civil liberties and failed to give individuals named in the injunction the opportunity to contest allegations of gang membership."
My understanding from another source (but which I haven't confirmed) is that Santa Barbara's geographical scope is even broader, essentially forcing people (who have been accused of no crime, much less convicted) not just from their homes, but from entire neighborhoods.~~~~~
[THIS COMMENT COMPLETED IN MY NEXT COMMENT]
Posted on February 20 at 5:47 p.m.
Good point, and thanks for the correction.
My understanding [*** see bottom] is that, like stop and frisk in New York City, while it may initially target exclusively or mostly non-white people, just about anyone can be classified as a gang member.
I've seen reported, but have not confirmed, that the California legal definition of a criminal gang is simply "three or more people engaged in criminal activity."
Does anyone reading this engage in any activity with two others that some authority might *construe* as "illegal"? Are you sure?:
'The Over-Policing of America'http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chase-m...
*** My understanding: In following most of the local reports on this, I've noticed no reference to an actual draft text, which at this point I'd much prefer to more news reports that lack specifics. I can research this myself, of course, but if anyone reading this happens to know of a source of something in writing that is definitive of what this thing potentially can do and how it can do it, I'd appreciate being directed to that.
Posted on February 20 at 8:58 a.m.
From a local article about the proposed gang injunction, dated 24 January:
"The government would be able to serve the injunction on people who are not part of this case now, then arrest them for violating its terms without any court hearing to determine whether they are a gang member or not, Bibring [ACLU] said."
This is similar to the federal NDAA provisions 1021 and 1022, now law, which allow for the indefinite detention of law-abiding citizens without due process or right to an attorney. (Incidentally, a coalition of groups from across the political spectrum — 99%ers, the California Libertarian Party, the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, the California Republican Liberty Caucus, ACLU, OathKeepers, and others — worked together to pass AB351, the California Liberty Preservation Act — introduced by Tim Donnelly [R] — which nullifies these federal provisions within California. More details can be found at this post on a Santa Barbara discussion group: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/S... .)
Regarding the third option of the poll, whether a gang injunction "works" or doesn't work is irrelevant, of course, in determining whether it is racist or unconstitutional.
The proposed gang injunction is racist and unconstitutional because it restricts the liberties of brown people (both criminal *and law-abiding*) but not non-brown people, even if they commit the same crimes as brown people who have been convicted.
US covert and overt criminal wars of aggression caused 20-30 million deaths of mostly yellow and brown human beings since World War II, in 37 countries that did not attack us and posed no threat to us [ http://www.examiner.com/article/us-wa... ].
The crimes against yellow and brown people are coming home and oozing down from federal to local.
Posted on February 20 at 1:03 a.m.
There is no excess water in the Great Lakes ecosystem and, though I don't know for certain, I suspect not in the Northeast either.
Water levels on the Great Lakes have been declining since 1998, and currently are at the lowest levels ever recorded.
It will take much more than a particularly snowy winter or two to make up this deficit.
Reduced evaporation due to greater ice cover (such as this winter) will make little difference, especially considering that much of the usual winter evaporation, combined with winter winds, results in "lake-effect snow" being deposited within the Great Lakes watershed (as in Buffalo, NY, for instance), from where it drains back into the lakes.
Most importantly: once a giant straw has been stuck into the Great Lakes, can anyone be confident it will ever be shut off, regardless of what it might be doing to the Great Lakes ecosystem, sacrificing Phoenix, Las Vegas, California agriculture, etc, considering there's so much more political power in the southwest, due to the population migration out of the midwest.
On Presidential Plumbing
Posted on February 19 at 9:20 p.m.
foofighter wrote, at February 19, 2014 at 9:10 a.m.:"Go MidWest, young man and farm where Nature intended you to farm..."
Good point (move the people, not the water).
Much of my family is still in Michigan, and though I've been in Santa Barbara for fourteen years, I've told them I'll watch California dry up and blow away before I'll support sticking a giant straw into the Great Lakes (there have been proposals, even prior to this drought, I believe originating in Arizona).
Posted on February 19 at 8:26 p.m.
sbresident2 wrote:"So, is an armed society a polite society?"
Besides Robert Heinlein, whom you may be quoting [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pol... ], and the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy research (linked at my previous comment), I suspect both George Washington and Thomas Paine, though they didn't use the word "polite," might answer yes.
George Washington's address to the second session of the First U.S. Congress:
"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty, teeth and keystone under independence. The church, the plow, the prairie wagon and citizens' firearms are indelibly related. From the hour the pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that, to ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable.
"Every corner of this land knows firearms, and more than 99 and 99/100 percent of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil influence. They deserve a place of honor with all that's good. When firearms go, all goes. We need them every hour."
Thomas Paine, writing to religious pacifists in 1775:
"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them; the weak would become a prey to the strong."
In addition, and regarding, from the George Washington quote, "…more than 99 and 99/100 percent of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands…," some may be interested in the defensive gun use statistics [ http://www.noozhawk.com/article/randy... ], published in:
The Journal of Criminal Law & CriminologyNorthwestern University School of Law(Volume 86, Number 1, Fall, 1995)
(Link above goes directly to a comment I posted at Randy Alcorn's piece at Noozhawk one month ago today, that begins:
"Jean also fails to acknowledge the fact that gun ownership by 80-100 million law-abiding US citizens — including 8 million law-abiding Californians — saves FAR MORE lives than it harms….")
On Man with Gun Arrested on De La Vina Street
Posted on February 19 at 7:01 p.m.
Besides the fact that one can't really blame the SBPD for wanting to dress up in all that military gear the feds keep giving away [ https://www.aclu.org/militarization ] (though I hope we won't be seeing an announcement that, like increasing numbers of local law enforcement agencies, SBPD SWAT team members will be going to Israel to be trained, in order to return and treat US citizens as Israel treats Palestinians), I agree with both nuffalready's sentences at February 19, 2014 at 5:56 p.m. , though I wonder:
(1) In addition to the commotion, if any particular SBPD announcement to Cummings convinced him to leave his home (possibly an error on his part), and
(2) How this might have played out, had he refused to leave his apartment or unlock the door.
One of Hawaii’s most popular artists, Keali‘i (kay-ah-LEE-ee) Reichel performs ... Read More
Previous Month | Next Month