Tag: Justice

Innocence is Not Proof of Innocence

Another big week, but I thought I’d put this up. How bad has our college kangaroo court system gotten? You can now be effectively expelled for rape when the supposed victim says she wasn’t raped. At all. As long as someone at some point thinks the sex was non-consensual, it’s fair game.

The good news is that the student is fighting back and is suing the Office of Civil Rights itself for demanding that college water down their judicial systems like this.

Thursday Roundup

A few stories that have been cluttering my tabs:

One subject that came up at the debate was the support Bernie Sanders (and, in fact, most Democrats) gave to a bill that immunized gun manufacturers from lawsuits. You can check out Walter Olson and David Freddoso on why this law was absolute necessary and correct. The law does not protect them from being sued if they produce defective products or break the law. What it protects them from is the “legislation through litigation” tactics Democrats were using to bypass the political process. The idea was that, unable to get what they wanted through the legislature, they would sue and sue and sue and sue the gun makers until the gun makers capitulated to Democratic demands.

There are a lot of Democrats who think that politicians with unlimited resources suing businesses into compliance with their demands is legitimate. A friend described this as “business and government working together for the common good”. I ask them to imagine how they’d react if Republican Governor’s started suing abortion clinics.



Two investigators have determined that the shooting of Tamir Rice was justified. Leon Neyfakh walks through the logic that is being in these analyses, which basically ignore any of the circumstances and require juries to engage in what Ta-Nehisi calls “an act of telepathy” to judge the officer’s thoughts in that moment. Basically, you’re supposed to ignore the decision to roll up right next to him in a car and jump out waving a gun. You’re supposed to ignore that they left him bleeding to death for many minutes. All you’re supposed to consider is what they thought in the precise moment they pulled the trigger. Under that logic, it’s hard to think of a situation where a shooting wouldn’t be justified.

Keep in mind, ordinary citizens are not usually given this benefit of a doubt. If you wake up to find someone smashing down your door and fire a gun, you can be be prosecuted for attempted murder.

Also keep in mind that these were both prosecution-picked experts who have a history of deferring to law enforcement on these matters. Kimberly Crawford is a name that should ring some bells. She was the investigator who concluded that the sniper shot that killed Vicki Weaver — an unarmed woman standing in the door of her own home carrying a 10-month old baby — was justified. That conclusion was so egregious even if the FBI rejected it. You don’t ask someone like Crawford their opinion unless you already have the answer in mind.



The worst answer Hillary Clinton gave the other night was about her enemies. Among those she listed were the pharmaceutical and insurance industries. But these are actually her biggest backers.

This is why I like Sanders better than Clinton. At least he’s an honest socialist. Clinton is a lying crony capitalist.



There is a quiet budget battle going on. As far as I can tell, the fight is between Republicans who want to increase spending and Democrats who want to increase spending.

For all the grief the sequester gets, it has cut our deficit to the lowest level, as a percent of GDP, since Clinton was in office. And I have yet to see the country descend into chaos and anarchy. I see no reason to end the sequester now.

Obamacare keeps on giving.. (UPDATED)

Been a while since I pointed out how well Obamacare was working out for all, so this update, is due:

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told a House panel Wednesday that nobody knows how many Obamacare enrollees have actually paid their health insurance bills.

“People are buying a product in the private market,” Sebelius told the House Ways and Means Committee, which was holding a hearing on the 2015 HHS budget. “As soon as we have accurate information, we will give it to you. But we do not currently have information about how many people have paid.”

The White House yesterday announced that 4.2 million people have signed up for Obamacare through insurance exchanges ahead of a March 31 deadline. About one quarter of the enrollees are in the 18 to 34 age bracket, far lower than the nearly 40 percent of young people the administration had anticipated would enroll by now.

Republicans are now pressuring the administration to find out who has actually paid for the plans they signed up for.

“How can it be that HHS, in charge of this program, cites a number, 4.2 million people signed up, but has no idea how many people have paid?” Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., asked.

Sebelius said the government does not have access to the information, “because the consumers don’t pay us, they pay their insurance company.”

Sebelius said she does not know how many enrollees were previously uninsured.

What a fucking copout. This is the government that has been spying on all of us and pretending they are not using anything they gather on their political enemies when the evidence stinks to high heaven. They would know the numbers if they wanted to. In fact, I bet they know exactly how bad was and it is, and that’s why they are playing dumber than they usually are.

And man, are they desperate. They thought the brainwashed fucking idiots that vote for them would go along despite the fact that these brainwashed idiots would be the ones hardest hit. Once that didn’t happen they had to resort to telling idiotic lies about how Obamacare would cost less than their cell phone bill. Unfortunately for the collectivist cocksuckers, too many of these brainwashed idiots can still do enough math and thinking to see that they are being sold a pile of shit. Who would have thunk it?

But it doesn’t stop there. While they feel fine cutting money from the military, where we at least have people that actually do something of value for the country, was a great thing, they got pissed that their moocher voter base, whom unlike the people in the military don’t seem to do much for the country other than bleed it dry, would also have to give up some shit. But they really drew the line at their pet project not being funded. But lucky for us, the writing is on the wall.

Oh, I am sure they will desperately try to sell this shit sandwich as a fillet mignon and lobster 7 course dinner, but even with the mass of idiots always willing to suck their cock, even when pre-offered covered with shit, are going to balk this time. That’s what happened in Florida, where a no name republican with little money fought a well known democrat whose campaign coffers were loaded with special interest money that wanted to keep that seat, only to see it all go down the drain. The problem the donkeys have is that the moochers are not getting any free shit from this deal, and in fact, many of them are going to have to pay up, so they are not happy anymore. Of course, the left knows that the deal is dead if they have to really give out this shit to the moochers for free.

The left is finally gonna reap their just rewards. Even their cheerleaders have to admit they are going to be bending over, and that just is like music to my ears. When the left is dealt a healthy dose of their own medicine, it is just deserts. Doubly so since they fucked over the country doing this crap. The fight isn’t over, but things are going in the right direction. And considering the climate we are in, that is a real special thing these days.

UPDATE: The fact that our neighbor’s Obamacare site is fubar is just another long list of stunning successes for the collectivist takeover of healthcare in this country. And they are desperate to hide the truth.

The Law is the Law

I want to address a point that came up in our discussion of the the Kaitlyn Hunt case last week (which is turning out to be a little more complicated than my initial post). No one questions that Kaitlyn was in literal violation of the law. She was an 18-year-old who has sexual contact with a 14-year-old, which is illegal in Florida (and most other states). So shouldn’t we enforce the law? Whatever we may think of the law, she broke it and should be punished, right?

Let’s pull back a moment from that particular case into the broader legal issue. There is a school of thought that says that we should enforce all the laws without exception. If a law is badly written, we should change it. But refusing to enforce a law or making an exception to the law that is not written into it is the pathway to anarchy. That used to be my philosophy but I’ve come to realize that such a rigorous approach puts us on a short road to legal disaster.

The problem is best illustrated in this excellent cartoon. First, we have thousands of laws that apply to any of us at any time. It is almost impossible to go through your life without having violated one of them. We have bureaucrats who are constantly extending not just the law but very real criminal sanctions for violating those laws. Second, we have abandoned the concept of mens rea, that someone had to have had evil intent in violating the law. And so we end up with a situation where a woman picks a father up off the ground and end up with felony charges for violating the Migratory Bird Act.

In an ideal society, we would be constantly looking over our books to remove bad laws, clarify unclear ones and modify or remove outdated ones. But we don’t live in that society. On the contrary, we live in a society where bureaucrats are constantly pushing the boundaries of law and politicians are afraid to change obviously bad laws for fear of being pilloried. Sex offender laws are a perfect example. We’re putting children on these things and ruining their lives. But no politician is willing to do anything about it because they don’t want to be branded as sympathetic to child molesters (even though molesters are a small fraction of those on the registers).

To prevent innocent people from being gobbled up by bad laws, we used to fall back on Common Law. We recognized that laws are not written on stone tablets by God, but crafted by men. As such, they are imperfect and can not anticipate every eventuality. Bureaucracies specifically tend to see things in a very narrow light. So we used to apply common sense to law enforcement, recognizing when someone might be technically violating the law but it made no sense to prosecute them. We recognized that the law is not an end in an of itself. The law is a means. The end is justice. What would be just about putting a woman in prison for picking up a hawk feather?

We should enforce our laws. But we also need to recognize when a law is unjust or when it is simply inappropriate to a situation. We’ve gotten away from the idea that judges and juries are supposed to judge both the case and the law. We think only the Supreme Court can judge laws. But jury nullification and prosecutorial discretion are in the very DNA of this nation, from when juries and prosecutors refused to enforce the King’s unjust laws. Putting someone in jail for violating a badly written law and only then changing the law is like mapping out a minefield by stepping on all the mines.

The Hunt case, specifically, is a little more complicated than her supporters let on. But the general point stands. We should not become robots mindlessly enforcing laws in a Napoleonic fashion. The intent of the law is to protect young teenagers from being taken advantage of by grown adults. If the law is threatening felony charges against a high school senior for having consensual sex with a high school freshman (14 and 18 years old, not 15 and 17), I would submit that the law is faulty. And it is the duty of the prosecutors, the judge and the jury to recognize that and account for that.

“But we need to be a society of laws, not men!” Yes. But if we become a society of rigid adherence to every law on the books, we will all end up in prison. We will all find, whenever the authorities don’t like us, that we have violated some obscure law intended for some completely different purpose. We will find that a federal law intended to protect migratory birds from being hunted to extinction is jailing some lady who picked a feather up off the ground. We will find that sex offender registries intended to protect us from predators ruin the lives of 12-year-old kids. We will find 16-year-old girls who take nude pictures of themselves prosecuted for child pornography. We will find that laws intended to stop 50-year-old men from taking advantage of naive 14-year-old girls snare high school seniors instead.

The law is not perfect. Nor is not perfectible. Let’s not pretend that it is. The question in the Kaitlyn Hunt case — and in any similar case — should not be if she technically violated the law since she clearly did. The question should be if applying the law in this case is just. I’m witholding judgement now since some of the information circulated by her supporters has turned out to be inaccurate (H/T to Thrill for fact-checking me on that). But “that’s what the laws says so … too bad” is simply not enough when it comes to a potentially life-ruining prosecution.