One of the more depressing things about these [London] riots is the way that the only thing that the Police can think of to say to us non-looters and non-arsonists is: "Don't join in" and "Let us handle it." If the bad guys start to torch your house, let them get on with it. If they attack your next door neighbour, don't join in on his side. Run away. Let the barbarians occupy and trash whatever territory they pick on and steal or destroy whatever property they want to.
There was a fascinating impromptu TV interview with some young citizens of Clapham last night, not "experts," just regular citizens, one of whom stated the opposite policy. Law abiding persons should get out of their houses, he said, en masse, and be ready to defend them.
The trouble with "letting the Police do their job" is that in the precise spot in which you happen to live, or used to live, their job probably won't start, if it ever does start, for about a week. In the meantime, letting the Police do their job means letting the damn looters and arsonists do their job, without anyone laying a finger on them, laying a finger on them being illegal. This is a doomed policy. If most people are compelled by law to be only neutral bystanders in a war between themselves and barbarism, barbarism wins. The right to, at the very least, forceful self defence must now be insisted upon.
Recently in Use of Force Category
Question: How did we get the intelligence that made possible the raid that killed Osama?
Fake answer: By whimpering, "Why do they hate us?"
Real answer: By extracting information that, left to their own devices, captured al Qaeda operatives would never have divulged. Fortunately, under President Bush, they were not left to their own devices.
John Hinderaker makes the point on Powerline:
More information is coming out about how American intelligence identified and tracked down the al Qaeda courier who led to Osama bin Laden. It appears that the CIA's interrogations of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Faraj al-Libi provided the information that began the chain the culminated in bin Laden's death yesterday:
Officials say CIA interrogators in secret overseas prisons developed the first strands of information that ultimately led to the killing of Osama bin Laden.
Current and former U.S. officials say that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, provided the nom de guerre of one of bin Laden's most trusted aides. The CIA got similar information from Mohammed's successor, Abu Faraj al-Libi. Both were subjected to harsh interrogation tactics inside CIA prisons in Poland and Romania.
KSM and Libi are two of the three al Qaeda leaders who were waterboarded. Published accounts indicate that waterboarding was key to getting valuable information from them. Our intelligence on al Qaeda and other terrorists groups is of course much better than it was in 2001, but it is still possible that in the future we may capture a terrorist who has information that we have an imminent need to extract. Should that happen, it is unfortunate that waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation techniques, which can best be viewed as humane alternatives to torture, have been taken off the table.
I have often questioned this Administration's seriousness in fighting crime. It happily went along with the Crack Dealers Relief Act (formally known as the Fair Sentencing Act); it appointed an Attorney General who gushes all over himself seeking the approval of the defense bar but can't decide where, or whether, to try terror mastermind KSM; and we have a DOJ that looks the other way at club-wielding thugs menacing a polling station.
This story, however, reaches the point of low comedy. Frankly, it sounds so bizarre that I have trouble believing it. But so far as I have been able to discover, the Administration does not deny it.
The story is, in short, that we are fighting the war on illegal immigration at the border, and its intimately related massive drug smuggling, with beanbags. Not too surprisingly, the opposition is not returning the favor, and is using guns. One of them killed a federal agent. If this has inspired any re-thinking of the Administration's policy, however, I haven't been able to discover that either.
Why a terrorist, or even a cat burglar, would take this crew seriously remains a mystery.
Had Californian Wesley Jones read this case, maybe he would have thought twice about rigging a grenade to his vacation home door. He apparently did not, and is now dealing much more serious - and criminal - consequences than his Iowa farmer counterpart. Jones's wife heard the pin drop when she opened the booby-trapped door, but fortunately the grenade did not detonate. Jones originally faced an attempted murder charge, but pleaded guilty to lesser offenses and was sentenced to eight years for burglary, assault, and weapons charges. Read the AP story here.
After 55 1/2 hours, it finally was over.The stalemate between authorities and a mentally unstable and wanted man holed up for more than two days in a Sacramento apartment with a 16-month-old boy as his hostage ended Friday evening with the man dead and the boy safe.
"This is, in fact, by any measure a very, very successful outcome," said Sheriff John McGinness who said he gave the green light for deputies to use deadly force against Anthony Alvarez, 26, if the boy could be safely rescued.
Salinas police have said Moore, 29 at the time, pushed Harish Dinesh Davis to the ground on Dec. 26, 2008, causing him to hit his head on the pavement. Police have said Moore shoved Davis after the transient, about age 60, ignored repeated requests to stop washing the windshield of Moore's BMW.
A shove is not force likely to cause great bodily injury. It is force likely to cause no injury at all. It is an entirely appropriate amount of force to use when a trespasser to one's chattels refuses to desist after being warned. In this case, it caused accidental injury resulting in death. But a legal use of force against the transgressor does not become a crime because of an unlikely and unintended consequence, however unfortunate. That consequence is the result of Davis's own misconduct, and that is where the blame lies.* * *On Thursday afternoon, Moore pleaded no contest to assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury. He also admitted to an enhancement of causing great bodily injury. He is scheduled for sentencing July 7.* * *Before the confrontation, police have said Moore and a female companion stopped at the gas station while traveling through Monterey County on Highway 101.
They said Davis was seeking donations in exchange for washing windshields, and Moore walked into the station store to complain about him. They said Moore saw the transient arguing with the woman, came outside and pushed Davis, causing him to hit his head.
We need to revise California's law of authorized use of force. Given that our state cannot afford to protect us, it can at least allow us to protect ourselves.
Reed Elsevier and Mac's Shell address areas copyright and franchise law, but today's decision in Johnson held that in the context of the Armed Career Criminal Act's definition of "violent felony," the phrase "physical force" means violent force. This means that in order to qualify for enhanced sentencing under "violent felony" section of the Armed Career Criminal Act, a person must have engaged in "force capable of causing physical pain or injury to another person." The individual could not be sentenced for a violent felony if the person had been convicted for "unwanted touching."
In 2007, Curtis Johnson pleaded guilty to knowingly possessing ammunition after having been convicted of a felony. This violated 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(1). Based on its determination that Mr. Johnson had three earlier convictions for violent felonies, the district court sentenced him to 185 months in prison. Mr. Johnson appealed the court's determination with respect to his 2003 conviction for "unwanted touching," which had been elevated from simple battery to felony status because of a prior battery conviction.
In today's 7-2 decision, Justice Scalia wrote that Johnson's 2003 "conviction was a predicate conviction for a 'violent felony' under the Armed Career Criminal Act only if '[a]ctually and intentionally touch[ing]' another person constitutes 'physical force' within the meaning of §924(e)(2)(B)(i)." When the Court ruled that it was not, it reversed the judgment of the Eleventh Circuit, set aside Johnson's sentence, and remanded the case for further proceedings. Justice Alito wrote a dissent, which Justice Thomas joined.
Prompt legislative action is in order.
Notably, opposition to the investigation runs much higher among the attentive public -- Americans who say they follow news about national politics "very closely." Among this group, 36% approve and 63% disapprove of the investigation. On the other hand, a majority of Americans who follow national political news less closely approve of the investigation.
We address the Fourth Amendment's exigent circumstances doctrine in the context of armed standoffs. Steven Fisher triggered a standoff with San Jose police after he pointed a rifle at a private security guard who was investigating loud noises in Fisher's apartment complex. When the police arrived at his apartment, a noticeably intoxicated Fisher pointed one of his eighteen rifles at the officers and threatened to shoot them. The ensuing standoff lasted more than twelve hours and ended peacefully when Fisher finally emerged and allowed himself to be taken into custody. We hold that Fisher's civil rights were not violated when police arrested him without a warrant.Nothing remarkable there. Here is the weird part. Believe it or not, there is actually a dissent to that, and the final vote is only 6-5 in a clear, easy case that should be unanimous.
A man is under arrest on suspicion of murder after police say he pushed a panhandler away from his car at a gas station, resulting in a fatal head injury.
Salinas police say 29-year-old Orion Christopher Moore was at the Pilot Truck Stop gas station on Friday when an unidentified homeless man offered to wash Moore's windows.
Moore declined the offer, but the homeless man, who police say was about 60 years old, reportedly began washing the windshield anyway. Police say Moore pushed the man away from his car, causing him to fall and hit his head on the pavement. The man died at Natividad Medical Center.
Moore is being held at the county jail.
Huh? Murder? First, giving police the benefit of the doubt, there may be more to the story than what we read in this brief report. If there is not, though, Moore should not have been arrested at all and most certainly should not have been charged with murder.
There are several mental state alternatives to the crime of murder. One is specific intent to kill. There is no indication of that in the story. The other is an act of extreme recklessness, such as shooting the windows out of occupied buildings. Intent to kill a person inside is not required; it is enough that there is a known, strong possibility, and the perpetrator recklessly commits the act anyway. There is no indication of anything close to that in this story. A third guilty mental state is killing a person in the course of a felony, such as rape or robbery, but again there is no indication of that here.
But why charge him with anything at all? Simply pushing a person is nondeadly force. True, even "nondeadly" force can result in a person's death under highly unusual circumstances, but that unforeseen consequence does not change the legality of the act. Nondeadly force is an appropriate and legal response to a trespass, which the decedent clearly committed. There is nothing wrong, much less illegal, about using such mild force in this circumstance. It is unfortunate that this person's annoying and illegal tactics resulted in his death, but he was the one who set the wheels in motion, not Moore.
