home

Saturday Night Open Thread

I'm still following the developments in Peru in the case of Joran Van der Sloot, so for those with other things on your mind, here's an open thread. All topics welcome.

< Peru Extends Joran Van der Sloot Detention For 7 Days | LA Murder Suspect Dead After Being Tased During Stand-off >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    One hundred (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by desertswine on Sat Jun 05, 2010 at 10:27:12 PM EST
    blazing degrees in Santa Fe today. It has never, I repeat, never, hit 100 degrees before.

    It was 100 in Albuquerque too, the earliest in the year that it has ever hit a hundred.

    Did I foresee this? Maybe that is why (none / 0) (#5)
    by oculus on Sat Jun 05, 2010 at 10:57:45 PM EST
    I didn't get opera tickets for this summer.  For the first time in many years.

    Parent
    Go at the end of the season...after July (none / 0) (#7)
    by christinep on Sat Jun 05, 2010 at 11:23:37 PM EST
    I usually go in August but am determined (none / 0) (#8)
    by oculus on Sat Jun 05, 2010 at 11:28:52 PM EST
    not to miss any chamber music concerts here during August festival.  Plus I am not all that excited about the operas this year.  Would like to see the new one and Albert Herring though.

    Parent
    Yesterday, there were around 600 (5.00 / 7) (#3)
    by Joan in VA on Sat Jun 05, 2010 at 10:40:42 PM EST
    dead birds, turtles and dolphins total. Today, there are 800. The oil is coming to shore much faster as well. An avalanche of death and destruction is hitting the Gulf. Devastating.

    CNN showed video of the recently discovered large coral reef there. It is amazingly beautiful. Like the most colorful saltwater tank you may ever see x 1000. Some species there are found nowhere else. They said it is very sensitive to even suntan lotion in the water so it seems impossible that it will survive. Every dollar that BP has can't compensate for that loss.

    And there are increasing numbers of sick workers (5.00 / 5) (#14)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Jun 06, 2010 at 03:31:47 AM EST
    The following is a portion of a comment I made on a previous thread, in response to a question about why BP wasn't allowing workers to use respirators:
    If BP were to equip workers with air masks [respirators] it would indicate that BP knows there is something toxic about the $hit workers are being exposed to. Admission of a problem is admission of guilt -- which would, and should, be used against them in a court of law [to assess liability].

    I've since found this matter was recently addressed, within the context of a broader discussion, on Democracy Now, May 27/10: Coast Guard Grounds Ships Involved in Spill Cleanup After 7 Fall Ill; BP Reportedly Preventing Fishermen from Wearing Respirators. Amy Goodman interviewed Clint Guidry, President of the Louisiana Shrimp Association, who did maintenance on oil refineries in 1980s-90s for Brown & Root Industrial Services. Excerpt:

    AMY GOODMAN: What about respirators? Are people wearing respirators?

    CLINT GUIDRY: No, ma'am. Having had prior experience...I brought them down to these people. And when they tried to wear them, the BP representatives on site told them that it wasn't a dangerous situation, and they didn't need to wear them, and if they did, they would be taken off the job.

    AMY GOODMAN: But how does wearing respirators threaten BP? How do the workers, the cleanup crews, wearing respirators, how does that threaten BP?

    CLINT GUIDRY: If you would do your research, the same situation occurred with Exxon Valdez over twenty years ago. It is a question of liability. The minute BP declares that there is a respiratory danger on the situation is the day that they let the door open for liability suits down the line. If they could have gotten away with covering this up, like they did in Alaska Valdez situation, like Exxon, they would not have to pay a penny for any kind of health-related claims...

    I worked with a company by the name of Brown & Root Industrial Services...you're exposed to all the dangerous chemicals that come with oil refinery work--the benzenes, the ethylenes, the tylenes. My specialty was working acid units...I've worked in Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, California.

    The last job I held with Brown & Root was in St. Croix at the Hess refinery. I was responsible for up to 800 people. And we always got the job done safely, and we always got it in on time. But we had proper protective equipment. What you want to do when confronted with a situation like this is stop. Stop. If anything, you overprotect. Nobody has ever been killed by being overprotective.

    Imo, there's a lot to be learned from the whole interview. It's a nice change to hear about this situation from people who are actually living through it.

    Parent

    Thank you (none / 0) (#52)
    by The Addams Family on Sun Jun 06, 2010 at 07:40:08 PM EST
    for reposting that part of your comment from the previous thread. Presumably the interview you quote here will begin to satisfy the dude on that thread who was mocking you for this assertion and demanding that you back it up.

    No doubt you're aware of the connection between what was then Brown & Root Industrial Services and Halliburton (scroll up to top of article).

    Thanks for all your posting on the BP disaster.

    Parent

    BS (none / 0) (#53)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 06, 2010 at 08:45:41 PM EST
    Did you actually read the whole interview?

    There is no indication that BP will be any less liable for sickness of workers or residents had they handed out protective masks.

    If anything they will be more liable for recklessly endangering the workers. My guess, and the guess of Albert Huang, is that BP, who of course does not give a sh*t about workers safety compared to their image at this point, did not want the optics of workers wearing respirators.

    These are known chemicals. They have data safety sheets. BP will be paying for a long time.,..

    Parent

    more and more BS (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by ZtoA on Sun Jun 06, 2010 at 09:17:27 PM EST
    legal liability for BP will depend on connections.

    "More liable" for endangering first responders health and lives? You are confirming the thoughts from the commenters who you were arguing against in earlier threads. And in a way, who the F cares about legal liability at this particular point in time? That is in the future. What is happening now is that actual people are getting sick. "Optics" is what is enabling that.

    And IF as you contend  "These are known chemicals They have data safety sheets" Corexit is in fact "known" and has been completely tested (which you know is absolutely NOT true) then the administration is ALSO criminally liable for exposing people to it. And they will be paying and paying along with BP.

    Parent

    well then you are nitpicking imo (none / 0) (#56)
    by The Addams Family on Sun Jun 06, 2010 at 10:59:51 PM EST
    you seem to be saying the same thing as Foxhole but quibbling over details?

    it is all about the optics & i think that is what Fox was basically saying - the optics as bad if/when there are lawsuits at some future time

    w/ever, dude

    Parent

    He is saying that BP won't supply respirators (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Jun 07, 2010 at 04:42:18 AM EST
    to workers because they (BP) are concerned about the optics.

    So, what is BP going to say in court? Your Honor, we didn't issue respirators to the workers because we thought it would look bad to the public.

    Or, are they more likely to say that, according to their 'expert testing', the air quality didn't show any levels of toxicity that exceeded EPA standards. Ergo, there was no need to supply respirators -- and all those workers with respiratory failure are sick due to some other reason.

    Parent

    lol (none / 0) (#59)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 07, 2010 at 02:08:00 PM EST
    That argument will work out just fine. Hospital reports of sick workers, BP not allowing respirators, as part of the record. BP, an oil company who produces the toxic materials, claiming ignorance...

    Hilarious, if you believe that BP disallowed respirators because they would escape legal responsibility, I have a bridge to sell you.

    BP made a cold hearted business decision. IMO, they calculated that it would cost them less $$ paying liability of sick workers, than the world wide business loss due to countless pictures distributed around the world of workers in gas masks cleaning up their product. Oil and gasoline are toxic chemicals. The oil and gas industry spends billions on PR concealing that fact that the products we use every day are extremely toxic. Look at the BP logo. Green, sunshine, stuff your child could drink... lol

    And when you find the law, stating that BP's liability would increase if they handed our respirators, let me know.

    Parent

    What a patently absurd proposition (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Jun 07, 2010 at 05:44:21 PM EST
    Squeaky:
    When you find the law stating that BP's liability would increase if they handed our respirators, let me know.

    Why don't you hit the books, for a change, and let me know when you find the law stating that BP's liability would decrease if they handed our respirators.

    Parent

    Because I Never Made The Claim (none / 0) (#62)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 07, 2010 at 11:07:29 PM EST
    You did.

    Parent
    TL sidebar earlier today (none / 0) (#60)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 07, 2010 at 02:12:56 PM EST
    stated, in headline, more people think BP event is bigger disaster than Katrina.  But those pictures of people on rooftops, dying in hospitals and nursing homes, being barred from leave via the bridge, conditions at the dome, moving to Houston and other places.  Hard to believe.

    Parent
    I realized later that it wasn't on CNN- (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by Joan in VA on Sun Jun 06, 2010 at 09:18:15 AM EST
    it was on PBS. CNN is sticking with the rest of the MSM in highlighting the economic toll on humans, while downplaying the existence toll on non-humans. The only wildlife that gets much attention are fish and oysters and only because they are now inedible. I would like to see this disaster become a teaching moment about the environment and our place in it since there are still so many who deny the connection between our activities and the health of the planet we live on. I don't have much hope that will happen but I just can't help wanting something positive to come from this catastrophe.

    Parent
    CNN yesterday (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by brodie on Sun Jun 06, 2010 at 09:32:06 AM EST
    ran some decent coverage of the oil-soaked birds and the time-consuming and tricky cleanup attempts at saving them.  Also Anderson Cooper's AC 360 evening show has actually done a good job overall in covering the disaster from various angles, while taking a somewhat skeptical attitude towards BP's public pronouncements.  

    It's also where James Carville has been going off on the Obama admin (until backing off in recent days), and where local LA officials have gone to denounce BP for their foot-dragging.  It's the one show on CNN apparently that BP officials do not like, and they've only appeared once in 6 weeks.  That must mean Cooper et al are actually doing their jobs as journalists.

    Parent

    Our local chapter of the Audubon Society (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by KeysDan on Sun Jun 06, 2010 at 12:00:11 PM EST
    is watching the situation with great concern. About 300 species that use the Tortugas as a rest stop or a permanent home. Oil reaching the bird's habitat and the fish they feed on would impact bird populations around the globe, as the Tortugas is the main highway for bird life. Pretty depressing in its own right, and even more so with the front page Sunday NYT background article (which has been covered, in large measure, by TL commenters over the past six weeks) by Ian Urbina.

    Parent
    Forty-two years ago today Bobby Kennedy (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by caseyOR on Sat Jun 05, 2010 at 10:46:51 PM EST
    was shot. Another of the sad, sad anniversaries from "The '60s."

    Bobby Kennedy was the last politician I fell in love with. I was 16 and so excited about the possibilities. Terrible things had happened, terrible things, but there was still a little bit of hope. After Bobby died, not so much.

    How did Sirhan Sirhan know RFK would walk through the kitchen? It was a last minute decision to take that exit. Was Sirhan just the luckiest assassin ever?

    I remember the shock of that night (none / 0) (#9)
    by christinep on Sat Jun 05, 2010 at 11:32:20 PM EST
    In the 1968 Indiana primary, Bobby Kennedy became the first person for whom I ever voted. It is a special memory.  Very special as well was the day that he came to Indianapolis (as his brother John had done those years before him) to enter his first primary. My friend Janet & I cut class at IU in Bloomington that day to come up and await on the steps of the capitol. After all these years and all the other politicians for whom I worked and voted, standing on those steps and his handshake...never forgotten.

    Then we watched the train carrying him to New York.  

    Parent

    It was a very good guess (none / 0) (#15)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jun 06, 2010 at 08:37:58 AM EST
    According to trial testimony, he badgered hotel employees beforehand asking if RFK would go through the pantry/kitchen.

    Parent
    RFK had such an exciting (none / 0) (#17)
    by brodie on Sun Jun 06, 2010 at 09:19:24 AM EST
    campaign that year, though put together at the last minute (brother Ted didn't want him to run and other advisers were split).  I had the privilege as a youngster to see him one week before the CA primary at a campaign stop in my town.  

    It's telling that a few weeks after Kennedy got in, LBJ got out.  Johnson always was, uh, "conflict averse."

    Humphrey at that point became the candidate and defender of the administration's war, but he supposedly lamented privately to Johnson that he would "never be able to beat the Kennedys."  Lyndon basically told him to stop whining and suck it up like a man.  Elsewhere, when he heard the news of Johnson's withdrawal, MLK privately told associates that it seemed like the wily LBJ was just stepping aside temporarily, that later in the season he would re-emerge to grab the nomination.  And indeed the record shows that Johnson in the weeks before the convention wanted to do just that.

    As for Sirhan, the official LAPD-derived evidence (not surprisingly) doesn't add up.  Plenty of material on the internet (see CTKA site) and several fine books cover this (e.g., by Phil Melanson, and the classic early book by authors Wm Turner and Jonn Christian, plus the more recent book The Assassinations edited by DiEugenio and Pease)

    I recall seeing a presentation of some of the early conspiracy evidence presented at my university's law school back in the mid-70s by Allard Lowenstein, ex congressman from Long Island.  He and actor Rbt Vaughn (The Man from U.N.C.L.E.) were some of the first public figures to come forward with their doubts about the official story.  Unfortunately, a few yrs later, Lowenstein himself was murdered in his office, and so a major credible voice that could have brought more attention to this case was silenced.  

    Parent

    Can't see any reason why firing anything at him (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by ruffian on Sat Jun 05, 2010 at 11:59:04 PM EST
    was justified. He's sitting on the edge of a cliff with nowhere to go. Calling the bean bag or taser or whatever it was 'non-lethal force' in that situation is ridiculous.

    I'm not liking the world much these days.

    he was threatening to jump (none / 0) (#13)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jun 06, 2010 at 12:55:52 AM EST
    or fall on the sword and kill himself. The cops say they tasered him to stop him from killing himself. Some news articles say he collapsed and fell off the cliff after being tasered, others say he jumped. In the video, it looked to me like he jumped.

    Parent
    But collapsing and falling (none / 0) (#20)
    by ruffian on Sun Jun 06, 2010 at 10:22:49 AM EST
    are the normal responses to being tasered.  Seems like tasing someone in an effort to prevent him from jumping is rather counterproductive - he's just going to fall instead of jumping. A lasso or net would have been better. Even if the intention was for the best, the decision to use the taser is questionable to me.

    Parent
    Didn't the man have a sword? (none / 0) (#21)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 06, 2010 at 10:32:13 AM EST
    Yes. Samurai sword. Suspected of (none / 0) (#26)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 06, 2010 at 12:20:31 PM EST
    kllling person and injuring five others w/a samurai sword.  Told law enforcement to stay back.  

    Parent
    Tasing, screaming and brandishing (none / 0) (#27)
    by jondee on Sun Jun 06, 2010 at 12:38:43 PM EST
    guns have NEVER been taught by psychologists as a tool of crisis intervention in a situation involving one person threatening suicide. And there are good reasons for that.

    Parent
    Of course not. Although there is much (none / 0) (#28)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 06, 2010 at 12:41:01 PM EST
    more to the event than a John Doe standing on the edge of cliff perhaps contemplating suicide.

    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#29)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 06, 2010 at 01:26:43 PM EST
    The police figured he was guilty of murder and wanted to save the state some money, both in their overtime and a costly trial.

    And torture by tasing, is seen as fine and dandy, no liability there.

    Parent

    Ridiculous. 20-20 hindsight. (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 06, 2010 at 01:51:06 PM EST
    Do Tell (none / 0) (#32)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 06, 2010 at 02:15:23 PM EST
    Although there is much more to the event...

    Yeah, enough to tase a man standing near the edge of a cliff?

    Parent

    Given the man is wanted for first (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 06, 2010 at 02:25:06 PM EST
    dgree murder and injury of five other people and he is armed with a samurai sword, which is the same method he allegedly used in the murder, and he is telling law enforcement to stay away, what, if any, means of force should law enforcement have employed under these circumstances, viewed objectively?

    Parent
    Digby says after law enforcement (none / 0) (#35)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 06, 2010 at 02:45:12 PM EST
    tasered the man, and before he jumped, law enforcement was moving in on him.  IMO, suicide by cop.

    Parent
    None (none / 0) (#36)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 06, 2010 at 02:46:16 PM EST
    No one was under any threat. Taser at the edge of a cliff is not only torture but a death sentence.

    And not sure why you commented about 20/20 hindsight, yet included the fact that he was wanted for murder.

    That was precisely why I suggested that the police may have wanted to save the state money.

    Maybe I missed the fact that the police did wind up getting overtime, is that why you said something about 20/20 hindsight?

    Parent

    CNN reporting two men arrested (none / 0) (#11)
    by jeffinalabama on Sun Jun 06, 2010 at 12:37:49 AM EST
    for terrorist conspiracy. Not much other information at the moment, except nobody injured. Apparently linked to Somali terrorists.

    More (none / 0) (#22)
    by jbindc on Sun Jun 06, 2010 at 10:59:59 AM EST
    From CNN:

    Two New Jersey men arrested at a New York airport planned to travel to Somalia to "wage violent jihad," and also had expressed a willingness to commit violent acts in the United States, according to prosecutors and a federal criminal complaint.

    Mohamed Mahmoud Alessa, 20, of North Bergen, New Jersey, and Carlos Eduardo Almonte, 24, of Elmwood Park, New Jersey, were taken into custody Saturday at John F. Kennedy International Airport. The two intended to take separate flights to Egypt on their way to Somalia "to join designated foreign terrorist organization al-Shabaab and wage violent jihad," federal prosecutors said in a statement.

    The two are charged with conspiring to kill, maim and kidnap people outside the United States, according to court documents.

    The FBI received a tip regarding the men's activities in October 2006, according to the U.S. Attorney's office in New Jersey.



    Parent
    and he's dead (none / 0) (#12)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jun 06, 2010 at 12:40:02 AM EST
    speaking of young (none / 0) (#19)
    by cpinva on Sun Jun 06, 2010 at 09:51:52 AM EST
    mr. van der sloot, i am a bit confused with respect to the alleged "extortion". absent a threat of some kind, on his part, how is the act of simply offering to sell the halloway family information considered extortion? this isn't a case of threatening to send those incriminating pictures to your wife, unless you pay me to not do so, and for the photos and negatives, it's a case of simply offering to sell information.

    this is an act committed 1'000's of time daily, all over the world, in the regular course of business. in this case it's clearly skeevy, but i sure don't see the illegality in it. absent a contract, where he agreed to provide true information, and then didn't, what laws has he violated? even assuming he provided false info, it's strictly a civil matter, breach of contract.

    i'm a little surprised the FBI braintrust allowed their people to involve themselves in this nonsense. i sympathize with the girl's family, but this was a complete waste of scarce, allocable public resources.

    I wonder whether (none / 0) (#23)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jun 06, 2010 at 11:38:31 AM EST
    information pertaining to a crime, especially one in which you are admitting to have participated, falls under a different category.

    Jeralyn I think posted a link to the FBI court filing on this case.  That would presumably cite the specific laws broken.

    Parent

    Im curious if anyone else here (none / 0) (#30)
    by jondee on Sun Jun 06, 2010 at 01:36:15 PM EST
    believes that the presence of illegal immigrants in this country was a more potent factor in the weakening of the power of organized labor in this country than the lobbying efforts of big business and Wall St.

    Anyone else care to offer an opinion on this?

    Parent

    Labor's high water mark was (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by jeffinalabama on Sun Jun 06, 2010 at 03:12:29 PM EST
    sometime in the 1950s, and the decline has been ongoing. I think it's not a matter of migration, but the changing economy-- movement away from manufacturing, toward non-union activities.

    I would argue that migration has had almost nothing to do with union decline. Transnational movement of manufacturing, intranational movement from closed shop to open shop states, this has done more. Look at the movement of manufacturing to the sun belt first, then, in the case of mature industries, such as textiles, to overseas. Automation has been an issue also-- examine how many tire manufacturing plants have closed because of new, smaller-workforce plants.

    The issue is much more complicated than big business versus migrants, imo. Rural or Development Sociology departments have examined these issues since the 1970s... I can't recall any researcher at the moment, but I'll see what I can find.

    Parent

    Two counts (none / 0) (#34)
    by jbindc on Sun Jun 06, 2010 at 02:41:30 PM EST
    18 USC 1951 (a) (none / 0) (#51)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jun 06, 2010 at 04:39:52 PM EST
    Can anyone translate into plain English for us layperson types?  (I believe the second count is wire fraud in support of the first count, no?)

    Parent
    count one, (none / 0) (#55)
    by cpinva on Sun Jun 06, 2010 at 10:33:00 PM EST
    extortion, requires the commission of a coercive act, a threat of some kind. absent one by mr. van der sloot, it will be dropped. if the FBI is now asserting that the mere act of offering information in return for pay now constitutes extortion, every publisher in the world is guilty.

    the second count, fraud, assumes a knowing act, that mr. van der sloot offered to provide, for pay, information he knew to be false.

    while this may well be the case, this instance hardly rises to a level worthy of the investment of limited FBI assets. someone at the FBI needs to answer for this questionable judgment call.

    Parent

    Couldn't it be (none / 0) (#58)
    by jbindc on Mon Jun 07, 2010 at 08:08:38 AM EST
    About the circumstances?  Telling a grieving mother that - "Hey, I'll tell you where your daughter's body is and I'll tell you how she died, but first you have to pay me $250,000," (Or, "If you don't pay me $250,000, you will never find out what happened to your daughter") is not the same as a publisher publishing works.  If that's the case, then why is it illegal when people demand payoffs to keep affairs secret?  Adultery isn't illegal (well, okay, it technically still is illegal in many jurisdictions, but it's never prosecuted).

    Parent
    I read the citations but i (none / 0) (#38)
    by ruffian on Sun Jun 06, 2010 at 03:05:32 PM EST
    just don't understand extortion law. I understand it when someone is extorting money in return for not hurting someone's reputation or business, or physical harm, but I don't get this.

    Parent
    Assuming the man could reach (none / 0) (#40)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 06, 2010 at 03:13:43 PM EST
    the sword, had been ordered to submit to arrest based on probable cause, and did not submit, IMO law enforcement had discretion to employ least amount of force viable in the situation.  Probably not close enough to pepper spray and couldn't get close enough for pepper spray to be effective given the man had access to the sword.  Tough situation.  Danger to self and others.  

    Tough Situation (none / 0) (#41)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 06, 2010 at 03:19:10 PM EST
    No doubt, but not because the guy had a sword, but because the guy was not giving himself up.

    Last time I checked a sword is at best 3 feet long. No match for guns or tasers, or bored police, evidentially.

    Parent

    Very tough situation (none / 0) (#42)
    by jondee on Sun Jun 06, 2010 at 03:22:51 PM EST
    no doubt about that.

    There ARE people who are very good at "talking people down" in these situations..But all the screaming and gun brandishing has to be cut out and a non-threatening (appearing) perimeter set up.

    But, as we say, it's all 20/20 now.

    Parent

    It is my understanding, perhaps (none / 0) (#43)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 06, 2010 at 03:26:41 PM EST
    in error, law enforcement did try to talk the man into cooperating.  Am I wrong?

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#44)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 06, 2010 at 03:39:58 PM EST
    You are not wrong. Trying and then deciding that a death penalty was in order, sort of mitigates the trying part, imo.

    Parent
    Did I miss the part where you opined (none / 0) (#45)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 06, 2010 at 03:41:18 PM EST
    as to what law enforcement should have done under the circumstances?

    Parent
    Wait (none / 0) (#46)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 06, 2010 at 04:06:52 PM EST
    Seems obvious to me, although many may have had dinner plans, and did not want to keep their date waiting.

    Parent
    Starve him out? (none / 0) (#47)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 06, 2010 at 04:08:06 PM EST
    Funny, Not (none / 0) (#48)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 06, 2010 at 04:09:10 PM EST
    See section 20.45: (none / 0) (#49)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 06, 2010 at 04:21:15 PM EST
    Immoral (none / 0) (#50)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 06, 2010 at 04:30:15 PM EST
    But I am sure that no fault will be found on the part of the police.

    A death could have been avoided. Tasering in this case was a death sentence, despite the legality of if, imo.

    Parent