Alright, alright, I know; I said I would be "speedy" with my next post on the Bill of Rights...I am not pleased that I am so late in writing about the Sixth Amendment, especially given what it covers. I am going to give you a little quiz right now; what does the Sixth Amendment entail? If you guessed it entails the right of an accused to a speedy trial, you would be correct. In fact here is what the Sixth Amendment says verbatim: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."
Broken down, what we see is the Sixth Amendment "guarantees" a speedy, public trial by a jury of one's peers, ensuring the accused knows what crime the are accused of committing, the right to have an attorney to defend the accused in court and the right to have favorable witnesses testify on the accused's behalf. Pretty straightforward don't you think? Well it's not quite that simple, folks.
First off, there is no set time limit to define a "speedy" trial. In fact, the idea of a speedy trial is outlined like this: A delay of a year or more from the date of arrest or indictment, whichever happened first, is termed "presumptively prejudicial". The prosecution may not excessively delay the trial for its own advantage, but a trial may be delayed to secure the presence of an absent witness or other practical considerations. If a defendant agrees to a delay when it works to his own benefit, he cannot later claim that his Sixth Amendment right was violated.
Ok, so what about a "public" trial? Well, in 1966 the Supreme Court ruled that the right to a public trial is not absolute. What that means is, if excessive publicity could possibly affect the outcome of a trial, that trial can be closed to the public. Simply put, if the government thinks publicity could harm their case against the accused, they can ask for a closed hearing. Also, if the accused feels that publicity could affect his right to a fair trial, he can request the trial be closed as well...but the burden is on the accused to show proof that publicity would affect the trial.
Ok, so now we know that a speedy and public trial has several different meanings, but what about a trial by jury? Surely any accused person has the right to be tried by a jury, right? Wrong. If you have ever been to traffic court, you know what I am talking about here. Jury trials are dependent on the nature of the crime that was committed. If one is accused of stealing and the maximum punishment allowed is six months or less, a jury trial is not required. Likewise, the requirement to have 12 jurors and a unanimous verdict is not absolute. In the Fourteenth Amendment the Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, while requiring States to provide jury trials for serious crimes, does not incorporate all the elements of a jury trial within the meaning of the Sixth Amendment and does not require jury unanimity...in other words, a defendant can be tried by six people and a majority vote is all that is needed to either convict or exonerate.
A defendant also has the right to know what charges are being brought, the courts cannot just have someone arrested and tried without them knowing what they are accused of...I'm pretty sure if you are accused of a crime, you are going to know what crime you are being accused of. Other defendant's rights include the right to confront his accuser and witnesses, the right to have an attorney represent him, and the right to represent himself.
Now there have been arguments in the past that this Amendment has been abused by career criminals in order to intimidate witnesses, rig juries, and essentially get off scot-free. In some cases this may be true but you are more likely to see this on Law & Order than in real life. Now I know I will probably be publicly flogged for saying that but, to me, it is true. Our justice system is the finest in the world and, despite a few flaws here and there, is the most fair to everyone. If you don't believe me, check out some of the outrageous stories you read in your email about idiots suing companies for their own idiocy (Winnebago being sued by the guy who crashed his motor home because he set it on cruise control and went to the back to make coffee is a good one), check out the hoax-buster site www.snopes.com. Most of the stories you and I have heard over the years are urban legends.
So, let's wrap this up, shall we? By virtue of the Sixth Amendment, one is not subjected to a kangaroo court, one will not languish for years in jail waiting for a trial, and one will always have the opportunity to defend one's self. So why are the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay not afforded these rights? Well, in my opinion, it is because they are NOT citizens of the United States and therefore are not allowed the rights and freedoms provided for citizens in the Bill of Rights.
Whether or not you agree with me on that point is moot. Yes, the Amendment does not specifically mention "citizens" per se but it does say, "...accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed..." Those prisoners committed their crimes not on US soil but in the Middle East and the last time I checked there were no US states over there. Kinda proves my point, doesn't it?
23 September 2009
11 September 2009
Do You Remember?
Do you remember? That is a question everyone is asking today. Do you know what happened eight years ago today at 8:46 am EDT? If you are an American citizen over the age of 10 you should have this date indelibly etched in your memory. Eight years ago today, at 8:46 am EDT, a hijacked airliner crashed into the Twin Towers in New York City.
I was stationed at Special Boat Unit 22 then; that morning we had just finished our morning PT. I was just getting out of the shower, putting on my BDUs and getting ready for the rest of my day. I was thinking about the Smoky Mountain vacation my wife and I were taking in a few weeks and what to get her for our first wedding anniversary on the 22nd.
That’s when it happened to me. As I was getting dressed one of the guys ran into the locker room yelling about a jet hitting the World Trade Center. Shocked, I hurried and finished and ran to the compound thinking, “Oh my God what a terrible accident!” As I crossed the quarterdeck, I stopped to look at the TV behind the watch station just in time to see the second jet hit the other tower. Right at that instant I thought, “We are going to war.” We all listened and watched in disbelief as the towers burned, horrified when we watched them collapse and shuddered when we heard the continuing news reports; a jet hit the Pentagon and another crashed in Pennsylvania. And just like that, we were transported away from the cozy little world that was life in the United States of America.
Now we were in a new world; a world of fear and mistrust, suspicion and dread. Everything we knew was gone. Numb in disbelief we went through our day as we went to Threat Condition Delta, the worst of the four; condition Delta is when an attack has happened and we are on full alert, ready for another imminent attack. If you don’t understand that part, just ask a veteran, they will know all too well what that means to us.
Fast-forward to this morning; I was driving to work, listening to NPR when Steve Inskeep, the host of Morning Edition, announced that through the day we would hear stories from survivors of that terrible and tragic day. John Vigliano related his story over the radio; he told us about his two sons, Joe and John Jr., one a member of NYPD and the other FDNY. He told the story of how, on the afternoon of September 10th, he spoke with John Jr. on the phone, their conversation ending with, “I love you.” then, on September 11th, receiving a call from Joe who was on his way to the Trade Center, “…this is a big one…” he told his father. This conversation too ended with, “I love you.”…and that was the last time John Vigliano ever heard from his sons, both perished in the response to the World Trade Center attacks.
As I sat in my truck waiting for traffic to thin so I could turn on to the highway, I started to cry. Every memory I had of that terrible day came flooding back and I started to cry, eventually finding myself sobbing uncontrollably; I felt like my heart had been ripped out of my chest all over again. As sad as I was at that moment, I could only imagine the pain and heartache Mr. and Mrs. Vigliano are feeling every day, much less this day. I recovered and composed myself and thought, “Good…it is a good thing I feel this way. Every single American today should feel this way.” I know that sounds callous and unfeeling but today I hope you cry; I hope today you feel like your heart has been ripped out of your chest all over again. I hope you feel that way today because that means you didn’t forget. As you remember today, please, please, please, stop, take a moment and remember the 2,752 souls lost on that day. Then go out and thank every veteran you see for fighting for our freedom and remember the brave men and women in harm’s way in Iraq and Afghanistan fighting to protect us. They are the true heroes, not the professional athletes, musicians, actors or politicians. Remember that, ok? I will.
I was stationed at Special Boat Unit 22 then; that morning we had just finished our morning PT. I was just getting out of the shower, putting on my BDUs and getting ready for the rest of my day. I was thinking about the Smoky Mountain vacation my wife and I were taking in a few weeks and what to get her for our first wedding anniversary on the 22nd.
That’s when it happened to me. As I was getting dressed one of the guys ran into the locker room yelling about a jet hitting the World Trade Center. Shocked, I hurried and finished and ran to the compound thinking, “Oh my God what a terrible accident!” As I crossed the quarterdeck, I stopped to look at the TV behind the watch station just in time to see the second jet hit the other tower. Right at that instant I thought, “We are going to war.” We all listened and watched in disbelief as the towers burned, horrified when we watched them collapse and shuddered when we heard the continuing news reports; a jet hit the Pentagon and another crashed in Pennsylvania. And just like that, we were transported away from the cozy little world that was life in the United States of America.
Now we were in a new world; a world of fear and mistrust, suspicion and dread. Everything we knew was gone. Numb in disbelief we went through our day as we went to Threat Condition Delta, the worst of the four; condition Delta is when an attack has happened and we are on full alert, ready for another imminent attack. If you don’t understand that part, just ask a veteran, they will know all too well what that means to us.
Fast-forward to this morning; I was driving to work, listening to NPR when Steve Inskeep, the host of Morning Edition, announced that through the day we would hear stories from survivors of that terrible and tragic day. John Vigliano related his story over the radio; he told us about his two sons, Joe and John Jr., one a member of NYPD and the other FDNY. He told the story of how, on the afternoon of September 10th, he spoke with John Jr. on the phone, their conversation ending with, “I love you.” then, on September 11th, receiving a call from Joe who was on his way to the Trade Center, “…this is a big one…” he told his father. This conversation too ended with, “I love you.”…and that was the last time John Vigliano ever heard from his sons, both perished in the response to the World Trade Center attacks.
As I sat in my truck waiting for traffic to thin so I could turn on to the highway, I started to cry. Every memory I had of that terrible day came flooding back and I started to cry, eventually finding myself sobbing uncontrollably; I felt like my heart had been ripped out of my chest all over again. As sad as I was at that moment, I could only imagine the pain and heartache Mr. and Mrs. Vigliano are feeling every day, much less this day. I recovered and composed myself and thought, “Good…it is a good thing I feel this way. Every single American today should feel this way.” I know that sounds callous and unfeeling but today I hope you cry; I hope today you feel like your heart has been ripped out of your chest all over again. I hope you feel that way today because that means you didn’t forget. As you remember today, please, please, please, stop, take a moment and remember the 2,752 souls lost on that day. Then go out and thank every veteran you see for fighting for our freedom and remember the brave men and women in harm’s way in Iraq and Afghanistan fighting to protect us. They are the true heroes, not the professional athletes, musicians, actors or politicians. Remember that, ok? I will.
09 September 2009
You Can't Make Me Talk!!!
Well, I need to first apologize for taking so long to continue my educational series on The Bill of Rights. Now, let’s get down to business, shall we? “My client takes the fifth amendment…” I am sure you have heard that line uttered in several movies and television shows through the years; I mean who hasn’t. Yes, it is true the Fifth Amendment means one can refuse to answer questions when the answer could provide self-incriminating evidence of illegal conduct. That’s all it’s about, right? Wrong!
The full reading of the Fifth Amendment goes like this, “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
That’s a mouthful! There is simply too much information on the Fifth Amendment to put it all here so I will briefly cover the different aspects of this amendment. First, let’s talk about grand juries; what exactly is a grand jury? Well this is a jury of citizens that are presented evidence in a closed proceeding (meaning no media) by the prosecution. These people review that evidence using rules given them by a judge and they then determine if the evidence warrants a trial, in which case an indictment is issued to the defendant. This also means the defending attorney cannot be there when the evidence is presented and evidence that may have been acquired in violation of the Fourth, Fifth or Sixth Amendments can be presented as well. Here is the other kicker, individual states have the power to abolish grand juries if they want and can institute preliminary hearings.
The next part of this amendment covers something called “Double Jeopardy”…no it’s not the game show Jeopardy’s second half where the dollar amounts double. What double jeopardy means is if a suspect is found innocent by a jury of his peers, that suspect is acquitted and cannot be tried for that particular crime again. But hold on to your hats, this part does NOT apply to situations when a jury “deadlocks” or cannot make a unanimous decision one way or the other. In that situation, a judge can declare a mistrial and the court can try the suspect again.
Now we get to the self-incrimination part, kids! In a nutshell, this little clause means a witness does not have to testify in court if that testimony would incriminate the witness. So that’s it, right? Wrong again, bucko! The self-incrimination clause also applies to questioning by police AND evidence gathered. Ever hear of the Miranda Rights, or “the right to remain silent”? That part of the clause was also put there to ensure a suspect is not forced to confess to a crime they may or may not have committed.
Another part of this amendment is “due process”. So what is due process? Due process is the principle that the government must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person according to the law of the land. Basically it means if you are suspected of a crime and are arrested and tried, the government must make sure that your protections and rights were upheld during the entire process.
Now we come to my favorite part of the Fifth Amendment…Eminent Domain! What is Eminent Domain? Well it is the government’s power to take private property for "public use". The Fifth Amendment limits this power by requiring the government pay “just compensation” if private land is to be taken for public use. Unfortunately through the years, the definition of just compensation has been changed to “fair market value” of the property…which basically means the government can decide how much your property is worth. Originally, this clause tried to prevent the government from taking privately owned property for private developers. That was forever changed in 2005 when Supreme Court Justice Stevens wrote an opinion stating a government can take private property for developers if the development plan had a public purpose, saying that "the city has carefully formulated a development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including, but not limited to, new jobs and increased tax revenue." (Kelo v. City of New London) Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote a dissenting opinion arguing the decision would allow the rich to benefit at the expense of the poor. All is not lost, dear readers, for many of the individual states have passed laws making it difficult for local governments to seize private property.
I hope I didn’t bore you with this very long narrative, folks. This little piece of mine only just touches on the highlights of the Fifth Amendment. As I have said before, don’t take my word for it, look it up for yourself and learn! Tata for now, folks…up next the Sixth Amendment…and I’ll be “speedy” next time!
The full reading of the Fifth Amendment goes like this, “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
That’s a mouthful! There is simply too much information on the Fifth Amendment to put it all here so I will briefly cover the different aspects of this amendment. First, let’s talk about grand juries; what exactly is a grand jury? Well this is a jury of citizens that are presented evidence in a closed proceeding (meaning no media) by the prosecution. These people review that evidence using rules given them by a judge and they then determine if the evidence warrants a trial, in which case an indictment is issued to the defendant. This also means the defending attorney cannot be there when the evidence is presented and evidence that may have been acquired in violation of the Fourth, Fifth or Sixth Amendments can be presented as well. Here is the other kicker, individual states have the power to abolish grand juries if they want and can institute preliminary hearings.
The next part of this amendment covers something called “Double Jeopardy”…no it’s not the game show Jeopardy’s second half where the dollar amounts double. What double jeopardy means is if a suspect is found innocent by a jury of his peers, that suspect is acquitted and cannot be tried for that particular crime again. But hold on to your hats, this part does NOT apply to situations when a jury “deadlocks” or cannot make a unanimous decision one way or the other. In that situation, a judge can declare a mistrial and the court can try the suspect again.
Now we get to the self-incrimination part, kids! In a nutshell, this little clause means a witness does not have to testify in court if that testimony would incriminate the witness. So that’s it, right? Wrong again, bucko! The self-incrimination clause also applies to questioning by police AND evidence gathered. Ever hear of the Miranda Rights, or “the right to remain silent”? That part of the clause was also put there to ensure a suspect is not forced to confess to a crime they may or may not have committed.
Another part of this amendment is “due process”. So what is due process? Due process is the principle that the government must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person according to the law of the land. Basically it means if you are suspected of a crime and are arrested and tried, the government must make sure that your protections and rights were upheld during the entire process.
Now we come to my favorite part of the Fifth Amendment…Eminent Domain! What is Eminent Domain? Well it is the government’s power to take private property for "public use". The Fifth Amendment limits this power by requiring the government pay “just compensation” if private land is to be taken for public use. Unfortunately through the years, the definition of just compensation has been changed to “fair market value” of the property…which basically means the government can decide how much your property is worth. Originally, this clause tried to prevent the government from taking privately owned property for private developers. That was forever changed in 2005 when Supreme Court Justice Stevens wrote an opinion stating a government can take private property for developers if the development plan had a public purpose, saying that "the city has carefully formulated a development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including, but not limited to, new jobs and increased tax revenue." (Kelo v. City of New London) Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote a dissenting opinion arguing the decision would allow the rich to benefit at the expense of the poor. All is not lost, dear readers, for many of the individual states have passed laws making it difficult for local governments to seize private property.
I hope I didn’t bore you with this very long narrative, folks. This little piece of mine only just touches on the highlights of the Fifth Amendment. As I have said before, don’t take my word for it, look it up for yourself and learn! Tata for now, folks…up next the Sixth Amendment…and I’ll be “speedy” next time!
03 September 2009
The Bill of Rights Part III and IV
When I announced I was going to write about the Bill of Rights, I intended to write 10 individual pieces, one for each amendment. Well, if you are an American citizen with even the slightest inkling of our Constitution and first 10 Amendments, aka The Bill of Rights, then you know there's not much to say about the Third Amendment. So, I am going to write about both the Third and Fourth Amendments today.
The Third Amendment has lost some of its relevance over the years since the Civil War; if you just don't understand what I mean, here it is verbatim for you, "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law." This amendment was included in the bill specifically to prevent the government from forcing homeowners to house soldiers in their homes without their consent; if you are even a mediocre student of American History, you would know this was a common practice by the British government in our pre-Revolutionary War days.
In fact, I can only remember one incident where the Third Amendment was invoked; in 1979, in the state of New York, prison officials organized a strike and were promptly evicted from their residences that were on prison grounds. National Guard members were put in those residences since they were now running the prisons. The lawsuit the prison officials filed claimed their Third Amendment rights had been violated; this was rejected by the court and was appealed. The Circuit Court of Appeals eventually ruled the prison officials had a "reasonable expectation" of privacy regardless whether they owned their residences, since they legally lived there it was "their personal property" and therefore, under the Fourth Amendment, the appeal was granted and the officials got their homes back. This is just a bare reference to the incident, if you would like details you can look it up using this information: Engblom v. Carey, 677 F.2d 957 (2d. Cir. 1982).
Which now brings me to the Fourth Amendment, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." This amendment should be self-explanatory, but it, as well as all of the other amendments, is misunderstood by a great majority of people. Its intent was to ban warrant less searches of private property by officials, a reaction to the British Government's penchant for using general warrants to conduct raids in search of materials that were thought to be attacking both government policies and the King, George II and later George III.
So basically, this amendment tells us the police cannot just come into your house and search for anything that could get you into trouble. Rather, the police must first apply for a warrant to search and then the warrant must detail what they are searching for. However, folks, this doesn't mean if you are driving erratically the police can't pull you over and search you or your car. Nope, your behavior can give an officer of the law a little thing called probable cause. In other words, if you give the officer a reason to suspect you are driving drunk, the officer can legally search you and your vehicle so...for all you malcontents out there who think a field sobriety test is a violation of your Fourth Amendment rights, think again (I say this because, as a former cop, I ran across this several times).
What it does mean is you have a reasonable expectation of privacy in your home and in your car. The government cannot just walk right into your home without cause and search for anything illegal. Nor can the government pull you over on the road "just because", nope kids, if you see the blue flashies in your rear-view mirror chances are you either did something or your car has something wrong with it like a burned-out light.
What else can happen, you ask? Well, let's say the neighbors have been calling the police about the smell emanating from your home, they think you're cooking meth in you garage. The police can come and investigate but cannot enter your property without a warrant so they apply for a search warrant that allows them into your home...they search your entire house but you're smart, you cleaned up the other day so they don't find anything...until they see something you forgot to throw away on your garage workbench...it's not specifically mentioned in the warrant but there it is, plain as day. They can't touch it because it's not in the warrant, right? WRONG. There is a little exception in the rulebook that talks about plain sight!
Basically, it means if they are legally searching for something but find something else that was out in the open, they can take it as evidence. Same thing in your car, if you are pulled over for, let's say speeding, and as the officer is writing the ticket he notices the dime bag of weed on the floorboard that you forgot to stash, he can arrest you for possession without having to apply for a warrant. Yep, you guessed it, I saw that one too when I was a cop.
So kids, I hope we learned something today. There is a ton of information out there on the Third and Fourth Amendments; much much more than I can cover here, so I hope you will do what it is I do whenever I read a column like this. Research the information yourself, don't just take the writer's word for it. We've got enough ignorant idiots like that here; I call them reporters.
Coming next - the Fifth Amendment, I promise I won't take the Fifth!
The Third Amendment has lost some of its relevance over the years since the Civil War; if you just don't understand what I mean, here it is verbatim for you, "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law." This amendment was included in the bill specifically to prevent the government from forcing homeowners to house soldiers in their homes without their consent; if you are even a mediocre student of American History, you would know this was a common practice by the British government in our pre-Revolutionary War days.
In fact, I can only remember one incident where the Third Amendment was invoked; in 1979, in the state of New York, prison officials organized a strike and were promptly evicted from their residences that were on prison grounds. National Guard members were put in those residences since they were now running the prisons. The lawsuit the prison officials filed claimed their Third Amendment rights had been violated; this was rejected by the court and was appealed. The Circuit Court of Appeals eventually ruled the prison officials had a "reasonable expectation" of privacy regardless whether they owned their residences, since they legally lived there it was "their personal property" and therefore, under the Fourth Amendment, the appeal was granted and the officials got their homes back. This is just a bare reference to the incident, if you would like details you can look it up using this information: Engblom v. Carey, 677 F.2d 957 (2d. Cir. 1982).
Which now brings me to the Fourth Amendment, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." This amendment should be self-explanatory, but it, as well as all of the other amendments, is misunderstood by a great majority of people. Its intent was to ban warrant less searches of private property by officials, a reaction to the British Government's penchant for using general warrants to conduct raids in search of materials that were thought to be attacking both government policies and the King, George II and later George III.
So basically, this amendment tells us the police cannot just come into your house and search for anything that could get you into trouble. Rather, the police must first apply for a warrant to search and then the warrant must detail what they are searching for. However, folks, this doesn't mean if you are driving erratically the police can't pull you over and search you or your car. Nope, your behavior can give an officer of the law a little thing called probable cause. In other words, if you give the officer a reason to suspect you are driving drunk, the officer can legally search you and your vehicle so...for all you malcontents out there who think a field sobriety test is a violation of your Fourth Amendment rights, think again (I say this because, as a former cop, I ran across this several times).
What it does mean is you have a reasonable expectation of privacy in your home and in your car. The government cannot just walk right into your home without cause and search for anything illegal. Nor can the government pull you over on the road "just because", nope kids, if you see the blue flashies in your rear-view mirror chances are you either did something or your car has something wrong with it like a burned-out light.
What else can happen, you ask? Well, let's say the neighbors have been calling the police about the smell emanating from your home, they think you're cooking meth in you garage. The police can come and investigate but cannot enter your property without a warrant so they apply for a search warrant that allows them into your home...they search your entire house but you're smart, you cleaned up the other day so they don't find anything...until they see something you forgot to throw away on your garage workbench...it's not specifically mentioned in the warrant but there it is, plain as day. They can't touch it because it's not in the warrant, right? WRONG. There is a little exception in the rulebook that talks about plain sight!
Basically, it means if they are legally searching for something but find something else that was out in the open, they can take it as evidence. Same thing in your car, if you are pulled over for, let's say speeding, and as the officer is writing the ticket he notices the dime bag of weed on the floorboard that you forgot to stash, he can arrest you for possession without having to apply for a warrant. Yep, you guessed it, I saw that one too when I was a cop.
So kids, I hope we learned something today. There is a ton of information out there on the Third and Fourth Amendments; much much more than I can cover here, so I hope you will do what it is I do whenever I read a column like this. Research the information yourself, don't just take the writer's word for it. We've got enough ignorant idiots like that here; I call them reporters.
Coming next - the Fifth Amendment, I promise I won't take the Fifth!
31 August 2009
The Bill of Rights - Part II
Okay folks, I promised you in a few days I would write about the Second Amendment. I should have done this earlier but "life" got in the way. It never ceases to amaze me how easily distracted I can get with other mundane events in the boring saga that is my life. Alright, enough of that, let us move on to the Second Amendment, shall we?
The Second Amendment is arguably the most contentious of the original 10 amendments that make up the Bill of Rights. Never have I seen one sentence cause so much discord. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." To me, this one sentence is perfectly clear; the Founding Fathers realized that without an armed populace, the British Government would easily take us over and revert us back to a bunch of colonies. Hence the popular adage, "A democracy is two lions and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch, a republic is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote"
The Left, specifically The Brady Campaign Against Gun Violence, consistently argue that the first part of the Second Amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." means the only people who should have guns are the military and law enforcement agents and therefore is the only part we should abide by. (It may be worthwhile at this point to bring up the fact the the Posse Comitatus would be violated and nullified if this belief were to be fulfilled, if you don't understand this, Google Posse Comitatus). The Right argues consistently that the latter half of the Second Amendment, "...the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." means that all law-abiding citizens have the right to own weapons. Notice I did not say "GUNS", specifically, we will get to that.
The ongoing discussion of the intent of the Second Amendment shows historically that neither the Left nor the Right is 100% accurate. I can say this because if you look at each side, you will see each side conveniently leaves out the part that may contradict their intent. The Left does not want to admit that the People (i.e. - you & me) have the basic right to own weapons. The Right does not want to let the first half of the amendment confuse the people during this ongoing debate. The distressing part, to me, is neither side wants to give any ground or even sit down to discuss the possibility of reaching an agreement.
So, who is the Left? Are they covert agents sent by foreign governments to aid in the takeover and destruction of the United States? (Some may argue this is a definite possibility and to them I have to say put on your foil hats and crawl back under your rocks) Let's examine the Brady Campaign, the biggest voice of the anti-gun crowd, shall we? If you don't remember the early '80s, you may not know who James Brady is. James Brady was an assistant to the White House Press Secretary and President of the United States Ronald Reagan. In 1981, John Hinckley Jr. attempted to assassinate President Reagan; Brady was nearly killed and permanently disabled by bullets from Hinckley's gun. Brady and his wife then founded The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, a group whose only mission was to take ALL guns away from all citizens of the United States.
This is where the logic gets a little fuzzy. The Brady group has argued time and time again that their Act passed by Congress has contributed significantly to a reduction in violent crime. That, my friends, is a fallacy. You can click the link I provided to read for yourself the true results of the Brady Bill. The National Rifle Association has consistently fought the Brady Bill and consistently argues it is every law abiding citizen's right to own guns...and, to a point, they are right. I say "to a point" because some NRA supporters think this means a right to own any type of gun without having to accept any responsibility at all for prudent ownership.
So what is "prudent ownership"? Simply put, it is MY OWN definition that means law-abiding gun owners with small children should do everything within their means to protect their kids; education on guns and what they can do is a good start, keeping guns somewhere where the kids can't get them is another. The government shouldn't have to regulate how to handle this issue, it should be and most likely is a common-sense issue for the majority of gun owners in the US.
With that said, we are ignoring the elephant in the room. Why are we only talking about GUNS when the Second Amendments says ARMS? Arms means weapons which means ANY weapons, including swords, crossbows, knives and just about anything else that can be used as a weapon. Why are we focusing solely on guns? Why are guns the only hot button topic in this debate? The answer is very simple, my friends; guns are the weapon of choice for most violent criminals. Guns provide them with an opportunity other weapons don't; think about it, you are walking down a street when a gun is shoved in your face and you hear, "Give me your wallet." Much more intimidating than a guy with a pocket-knife saying the same thing, isn't it? This is the issue the Left has seized upon and wants to drive home. Guns invoke fear and fear is bad, hence their argument guns only belong to military and law enforcement.
The Left is WRONG, plain and simple. Sure, the Brady Bill brought us the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) which has done much to prevent criminals from legally purchasing firearms. Yes, I will concede that point. The problem is, it only prevents LEGAL purchases. Folks, when is the last time you heard of a criminal doing anything legally? Does any reasonable person believe criminals are going to actually ABIDE BY the law? THAT is the fundamental flaw in the Brady Campaign's argument! Gun control measures only inhibit us, the law-abiding citizens!
Another point I want to make is this, the "gun-show loophole" you hear about does not exist! I can prove that point! My wife and I attended a gun show here in Jackson, MS a while back because my wife was interested in purchasing a lightweight pistol she could easily handle. We found exactly what she wanted so we proceeded to purchase the gun. So, did you think the vendor just took our money and gave us the gun? If you believe there is a loop-hole in the gun laws, you would say yes...and you would be dead wrong. What happened was my wife filled out an application form and the vendor then called in her social security number and full name for the Instant Background Check and she came back clean so we were allowed to purchase the gun. See, the instant background check worked! Now, how many crooks do you think would have jumped through that hoop?
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It is our RIGHT to keep and bear arms to insure our security and freedom. It is our RIGHT to protect our lives and property from criminals who would deprive us of either or both. To me, it's pretty straightforward. I hope it now is for you, too.
The Second Amendment is arguably the most contentious of the original 10 amendments that make up the Bill of Rights. Never have I seen one sentence cause so much discord. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." To me, this one sentence is perfectly clear; the Founding Fathers realized that without an armed populace, the British Government would easily take us over and revert us back to a bunch of colonies. Hence the popular adage, "A democracy is two lions and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch, a republic is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote"
The Left, specifically The Brady Campaign Against Gun Violence, consistently argue that the first part of the Second Amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." means the only people who should have guns are the military and law enforcement agents and therefore is the only part we should abide by. (It may be worthwhile at this point to bring up the fact the the Posse Comitatus would be violated and nullified if this belief were to be fulfilled, if you don't understand this, Google Posse Comitatus). The Right argues consistently that the latter half of the Second Amendment, "...the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." means that all law-abiding citizens have the right to own weapons. Notice I did not say "GUNS", specifically, we will get to that.
The ongoing discussion of the intent of the Second Amendment shows historically that neither the Left nor the Right is 100% accurate. I can say this because if you look at each side, you will see each side conveniently leaves out the part that may contradict their intent. The Left does not want to admit that the People (i.e. - you & me) have the basic right to own weapons. The Right does not want to let the first half of the amendment confuse the people during this ongoing debate. The distressing part, to me, is neither side wants to give any ground or even sit down to discuss the possibility of reaching an agreement.
So, who is the Left? Are they covert agents sent by foreign governments to aid in the takeover and destruction of the United States? (Some may argue this is a definite possibility and to them I have to say put on your foil hats and crawl back under your rocks) Let's examine the Brady Campaign, the biggest voice of the anti-gun crowd, shall we? If you don't remember the early '80s, you may not know who James Brady is. James Brady was an assistant to the White House Press Secretary and President of the United States Ronald Reagan. In 1981, John Hinckley Jr. attempted to assassinate President Reagan; Brady was nearly killed and permanently disabled by bullets from Hinckley's gun. Brady and his wife then founded The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, a group whose only mission was to take ALL guns away from all citizens of the United States.
This is where the logic gets a little fuzzy. The Brady group has argued time and time again that their Act passed by Congress has contributed significantly to a reduction in violent crime. That, my friends, is a fallacy. You can click the link I provided to read for yourself the true results of the Brady Bill. The National Rifle Association has consistently fought the Brady Bill and consistently argues it is every law abiding citizen's right to own guns...and, to a point, they are right. I say "to a point" because some NRA supporters think this means a right to own any type of gun without having to accept any responsibility at all for prudent ownership.
So what is "prudent ownership"? Simply put, it is MY OWN definition that means law-abiding gun owners with small children should do everything within their means to protect their kids; education on guns and what they can do is a good start, keeping guns somewhere where the kids can't get them is another. The government shouldn't have to regulate how to handle this issue, it should be and most likely is a common-sense issue for the majority of gun owners in the US.
With that said, we are ignoring the elephant in the room. Why are we only talking about GUNS when the Second Amendments says ARMS? Arms means weapons which means ANY weapons, including swords, crossbows, knives and just about anything else that can be used as a weapon. Why are we focusing solely on guns? Why are guns the only hot button topic in this debate? The answer is very simple, my friends; guns are the weapon of choice for most violent criminals. Guns provide them with an opportunity other weapons don't; think about it, you are walking down a street when a gun is shoved in your face and you hear, "Give me your wallet." Much more intimidating than a guy with a pocket-knife saying the same thing, isn't it? This is the issue the Left has seized upon and wants to drive home. Guns invoke fear and fear is bad, hence their argument guns only belong to military and law enforcement.
The Left is WRONG, plain and simple. Sure, the Brady Bill brought us the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) which has done much to prevent criminals from legally purchasing firearms. Yes, I will concede that point. The problem is, it only prevents LEGAL purchases. Folks, when is the last time you heard of a criminal doing anything legally? Does any reasonable person believe criminals are going to actually ABIDE BY the law? THAT is the fundamental flaw in the Brady Campaign's argument! Gun control measures only inhibit us, the law-abiding citizens!
Another point I want to make is this, the "gun-show loophole" you hear about does not exist! I can prove that point! My wife and I attended a gun show here in Jackson, MS a while back because my wife was interested in purchasing a lightweight pistol she could easily handle. We found exactly what she wanted so we proceeded to purchase the gun. So, did you think the vendor just took our money and gave us the gun? If you believe there is a loop-hole in the gun laws, you would say yes...and you would be dead wrong. What happened was my wife filled out an application form and the vendor then called in her social security number and full name for the Instant Background Check and she came back clean so we were allowed to purchase the gun. See, the instant background check worked! Now, how many crooks do you think would have jumped through that hoop?
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It is our RIGHT to keep and bear arms to insure our security and freedom. It is our RIGHT to protect our lives and property from criminals who would deprive us of either or both. To me, it's pretty straightforward. I hope it now is for you, too.
27 August 2009
Ladies and Gentlemen...The Bill of Rights!!!
Lately I have been having conversations about the difference between rights and privileges and what, exactly, do they mean. One conversation I had recently turned into an accusation that I wanted to take away the rights of Christians. Not only is this not true, it flies in the face of everything I stand for which is, by the way, outlined in the Bill of Rights! So, dear readers, today I am going to cover the First Amendment and I will follow-up with a discussion on the other nine amendments in the coming days.
So, what do you think the First Amendment says? Does it specifically outline a separation of church and state? The left will say yes and the right will say no but the true answer is no...a literal understanding of the First Amendment does not mention anything about separating church and state. It does, however, IMPLY a separation of church and state. Now before my Conservative Christian readers get their panties in a twist let me ask another question. What, exactly, does the First Amendment say?
In an exact quote of the First Amendment we read, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The very first line, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." says it all. Congress cannot pass legislation that specifically favors one religion nor can they prohibit individuals from practicing the religion of their choice. To some, like me, that implies a separation of church and state simply because it prohibits the state from declaring one religion as the religion of the state. To break it down further; the government is not allowed to tell you how to worship your higher power and they cannot prevent you from worshipping your higher power. To me, this also means an individual should be able to not practice any religion at all, if that is what they wish. In other words freedom OF religion for the individual also means freedom FROM religion for the other individual.
Just because I consistently rant about the so-called Christians in this country does not mean I want them to not have the right to worship. Nope, not one bit. I will defend their right to go to church and worship their Higher Power any time they want. What I won't put up with is these same people knocking on my door at all hours to "spread the word of God" or to "save me" or anything else of that manner. What turns my stomach is when I see these same Christians behaving like animals all the while looking down their noses at anyone different from them. Just like my favorite bumper sticker says, "I've got nothing against God...it's His fan club I can't stand" If you love Jesus, fine, just leave me out of it...leave me alone! So, how can that be confused with wanting to take away Christians' rights? It just doesn't wash.
Okay, now let's go to the second line, "...or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..." Again, this is pretty self-explanatory to me. Simply put, the government is not allowed to control what you can or cannot say and the government is not allowed to censor the press. Freedom of speech means just that; you can say anything you want about any subject you want any time you want. Everybody is entitled to voice their opinion on any subject they choose! Lately though, I have been seeing and hearing a lot of talk about censoring certain people or certain shows because they are deemed "inflammatory" or "harmful to children"...and there is only one thing I say to those that espouse this censorship, "BULLCRAP!!!" Just because YOU disagree with my opinion does not give you the right to shout me down or shut me up...and vice versa...I may not like your opinion but I'll be damned before I let anybody else prevent you from voicing your opinion!
That said, you must understand that if I disagree with your opinion, I am going to let you know just that. If I think your opinion is unfounded, baseless or just plain silly, I am going to tell you just that. Exactly as I would expect you to do to me if you disagree with my opinion. What you WON'T do, however, is shut me up simply because I disagree with you just as I won't shut you up. There is a clear-cut difference there, and it puzzles me as to why so many people can't seem to understand that most basic concept.
Now, on to the third and final part of this wonderful Amendment, "...or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." So what do you think this means? If you think it means people are allowed to protest PEACEFULLY, then you would be right. If you think it means being able to write your Representatives and Senators to air your grievances without fear of repercussion, you would be right. If, however, you said it allows people to protest as long as they don't burn the flag or chant "End the War" or anything else of the sort, you would be dead wrong.
For example, I do not like anti-war protesters, I think they're nuts. I despise the good Reverend Phelps in Kansas whose flock protests the funerals of our fallen military men and women...BUT...as long as they do not physically harm anyone, they are perfectly within their rights to protest. What I WILL DO is be there with the Patriot Guard forming a protective circle around the grieving family to shield them from the insensitive, self-involved, and totally completely nuckin futs Kansas Bible Thumpers. So, how hard is it to see this basic concept? It's pretty damned hard, I can tell you, because those protesters make my blood boil and there would be nothing I would like more than to punch Fred Phelps right in his smarmy mouth.
So you see, folks, this First Amendment, along with the other nine amendments, guarantees certain rights to everybody regardless if everyone agrees or not. Personally, I think flag burners deserve to get their butts handed to them because they are a bunch of ungrateful bastards...but it doesn't matter what I think; they are allowed the right to do that and it does not matter whether or not I like it. So if you want to proclaim your Christianity and look down your nose at me, fine, that is your right...but you DON'T have the right to cry foul and accuse me of trying to take away your rights whenever I publicly bitch about you...understand? I certainly hope so.
So, what do you think the First Amendment says? Does it specifically outline a separation of church and state? The left will say yes and the right will say no but the true answer is no...a literal understanding of the First Amendment does not mention anything about separating church and state. It does, however, IMPLY a separation of church and state. Now before my Conservative Christian readers get their panties in a twist let me ask another question. What, exactly, does the First Amendment say?
In an exact quote of the First Amendment we read, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The very first line, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." says it all. Congress cannot pass legislation that specifically favors one religion nor can they prohibit individuals from practicing the religion of their choice. To some, like me, that implies a separation of church and state simply because it prohibits the state from declaring one religion as the religion of the state. To break it down further; the government is not allowed to tell you how to worship your higher power and they cannot prevent you from worshipping your higher power. To me, this also means an individual should be able to not practice any religion at all, if that is what they wish. In other words freedom OF religion for the individual also means freedom FROM religion for the other individual.
Just because I consistently rant about the so-called Christians in this country does not mean I want them to not have the right to worship. Nope, not one bit. I will defend their right to go to church and worship their Higher Power any time they want. What I won't put up with is these same people knocking on my door at all hours to "spread the word of God" or to "save me" or anything else of that manner. What turns my stomach is when I see these same Christians behaving like animals all the while looking down their noses at anyone different from them. Just like my favorite bumper sticker says, "I've got nothing against God...it's His fan club I can't stand" If you love Jesus, fine, just leave me out of it...leave me alone! So, how can that be confused with wanting to take away Christians' rights? It just doesn't wash.
Okay, now let's go to the second line, "...or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..." Again, this is pretty self-explanatory to me. Simply put, the government is not allowed to control what you can or cannot say and the government is not allowed to censor the press. Freedom of speech means just that; you can say anything you want about any subject you want any time you want. Everybody is entitled to voice their opinion on any subject they choose! Lately though, I have been seeing and hearing a lot of talk about censoring certain people or certain shows because they are deemed "inflammatory" or "harmful to children"...and there is only one thing I say to those that espouse this censorship, "BULLCRAP!!!" Just because YOU disagree with my opinion does not give you the right to shout me down or shut me up...and vice versa...I may not like your opinion but I'll be damned before I let anybody else prevent you from voicing your opinion!
That said, you must understand that if I disagree with your opinion, I am going to let you know just that. If I think your opinion is unfounded, baseless or just plain silly, I am going to tell you just that. Exactly as I would expect you to do to me if you disagree with my opinion. What you WON'T do, however, is shut me up simply because I disagree with you just as I won't shut you up. There is a clear-cut difference there, and it puzzles me as to why so many people can't seem to understand that most basic concept.
Now, on to the third and final part of this wonderful Amendment, "...or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." So what do you think this means? If you think it means people are allowed to protest PEACEFULLY, then you would be right. If you think it means being able to write your Representatives and Senators to air your grievances without fear of repercussion, you would be right. If, however, you said it allows people to protest as long as they don't burn the flag or chant "End the War" or anything else of the sort, you would be dead wrong.
For example, I do not like anti-war protesters, I think they're nuts. I despise the good Reverend Phelps in Kansas whose flock protests the funerals of our fallen military men and women...BUT...as long as they do not physically harm anyone, they are perfectly within their rights to protest. What I WILL DO is be there with the Patriot Guard forming a protective circle around the grieving family to shield them from the insensitive, self-involved, and totally completely nuckin futs Kansas Bible Thumpers. So, how hard is it to see this basic concept? It's pretty damned hard, I can tell you, because those protesters make my blood boil and there would be nothing I would like more than to punch Fred Phelps right in his smarmy mouth.
So you see, folks, this First Amendment, along with the other nine amendments, guarantees certain rights to everybody regardless if everyone agrees or not. Personally, I think flag burners deserve to get their butts handed to them because they are a bunch of ungrateful bastards...but it doesn't matter what I think; they are allowed the right to do that and it does not matter whether or not I like it. So if you want to proclaim your Christianity and look down your nose at me, fine, that is your right...but you DON'T have the right to cry foul and accuse me of trying to take away your rights whenever I publicly bitch about you...understand? I certainly hope so.
19 August 2009
Okay, Now We're Getting Ridiculous
This can't be right. I read today from the AP that Texas Judge Sharon Keller is now undergoing a misconduct trial; the reason this judge is being scrutinized is because she would not keep her court open to hear the last-minute appeal from a convicted murderer. Wait a minute, that can't be right, can it?
According to AP writer Paul Weber, this is true. According to the story, Texas Criminal Appeals Court Judge Sharon Keller received a phone call at 4:45pm...got that...PM! The court normally closes at 5pm. So the lawyers for convicted murderer Michael Wayne Richard called at 4:45pm asking her to keep the court open past 5pm. Keller said no. So what was the result of this action? Michael Wayne Richard was put to death by lethal injection at 8:23pm that same day.
So why is the judge in trouble, you may ask? Well, let's look at the facts of the case, shall we? Michael Wayne Richard was convicted for the 1986 RAPE AND MURDER of a Houston area nurse and MOTHER OF SEVEN. Not only was he convicted, he was re-tried and convicted AGAIN! Are you keeping up with me boys and girls? This scumbag RAPED AND MURDERED a nurse and mother of seven! This woman's kids will never have their mother again. They will NEVER EVER be able to see their mother ever again! The fact he was convisted twice speaks volumes! That says to me, "Okay, so maybe they found more evidence that could overturn the conviction because he may be innocent..." but no, the court tried him a second time and he was convicted AGAIN!
So to me it is no wonder the judge refused to keep her court open past 5pm. Richard's sleazeball, scumbag defense attorneys didn't file the appeal in the morning; no, they waited until 4:45pm to ask the judge to keep the court open! Keep the court open for a worthless piece of crap waste of space who didn't deserve to live among humans!! So he was executed...GOOD!!!
This piece of garbage had already had several appeals turned down and was now trying to appeal on the grounds that lethal injection is cruel and unusual. WHAT?!? Let me get this straight, this dirtbag RAPES and MURDERS a nurse and mother...RAPES AND MURDERS...and then wants to claim that lethal injection is cruel?!? Hogwash!!!
So, it all comes down to this, he RAPES AND MURDERS, is CONVICTED TWICE, all his APPEALS ARE REJECTED, and his sleazy attorneys wait until 15 minutes before the court is supposed to close to request the court, judge, clerk, guards and EVERYBODY else stay past 5pm for a CONVICTED RAPIST AND MURDERER...and the JUDGE is wrong?
Not in my book. In my book the judge was right on.
According to AP writer Paul Weber, this is true. According to the story, Texas Criminal Appeals Court Judge Sharon Keller received a phone call at 4:45pm...got that...PM! The court normally closes at 5pm. So the lawyers for convicted murderer Michael Wayne Richard called at 4:45pm asking her to keep the court open past 5pm. Keller said no. So what was the result of this action? Michael Wayne Richard was put to death by lethal injection at 8:23pm that same day.
So why is the judge in trouble, you may ask? Well, let's look at the facts of the case, shall we? Michael Wayne Richard was convicted for the 1986 RAPE AND MURDER of a Houston area nurse and MOTHER OF SEVEN. Not only was he convicted, he was re-tried and convicted AGAIN! Are you keeping up with me boys and girls? This scumbag RAPED AND MURDERED a nurse and mother of seven! This woman's kids will never have their mother again. They will NEVER EVER be able to see their mother ever again! The fact he was convisted twice speaks volumes! That says to me, "Okay, so maybe they found more evidence that could overturn the conviction because he may be innocent..." but no, the court tried him a second time and he was convicted AGAIN!
So to me it is no wonder the judge refused to keep her court open past 5pm. Richard's sleazeball, scumbag defense attorneys didn't file the appeal in the morning; no, they waited until 4:45pm to ask the judge to keep the court open! Keep the court open for a worthless piece of crap waste of space who didn't deserve to live among humans!! So he was executed...GOOD!!!
This piece of garbage had already had several appeals turned down and was now trying to appeal on the grounds that lethal injection is cruel and unusual. WHAT?!? Let me get this straight, this dirtbag RAPES and MURDERS a nurse and mother...RAPES AND MURDERS...and then wants to claim that lethal injection is cruel?!? Hogwash!!!
So, it all comes down to this, he RAPES AND MURDERS, is CONVICTED TWICE, all his APPEALS ARE REJECTED, and his sleazy attorneys wait until 15 minutes before the court is supposed to close to request the court, judge, clerk, guards and EVERYBODY else stay past 5pm for a CONVICTED RAPIST AND MURDERER...and the JUDGE is wrong?
Not in my book. In my book the judge was right on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
