Archive for June, 2012
Tags: drama, short film, short film drama, The Last Farm
Tags: ARTHUR G DOZIER SCHOOL FOR BOYS, FLORIDA INDUSTRIAL SCHOOL FOR BOYS, HR 3027, JUVENILE INCARCERATION AND ABUSE, MARIETTA FLORIDA REFORM SCHOOL GRAVES, NORTH FLORIDA YOUTH DEVELOPMENT CENTER, ROGER DEAN KISER, WHITE HOUSE BOYS
The White House Boys were abused juvenile inmates at the now-closed North Florida Youth Development Center, that was run by the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice. The ‘school’ closed last year, after running for 111 years, and the surviving White House Boys are now calling for a stop to child abuse.
On the campus was a building called The White House because of its color, where boys were placed in leg irons, beaten, raped, abused and tortured. Guards administered beatings with a three-foot leather and metal strap, and the beatings were often so severe that the boys’ underwear would become embedded into the skin and surgery was required to remove it. Here is a re-enactment video produced by Roger Dean Kiser and others:
This video contains graphic content.
Child advocate and author of The White House Boys: An American Tragedy, Roger Dean Kiser, established an activism/memorial website called thewhitehouseboys.com. Some of the surviving White House Boys traveled to Washington on June 22, to speak and rally in support of a bill to end United States corporal punishment in schools.
The trip did not go well. The speeches got no media coverage. The men are disheartened, and Mr. Kiser states that he is “not sure where to go from here.”
Here are Roger Dean Kiser’s speeches, delivered in Washington on June 21 and 22, 2012, and reprinted with permission.
THERE WAS A TIME WHEN I DID NOT LIKE MY COUNTRY
by Roger Dean Kiser
Tags: Martin, ZIMMERMAN, Zimmerman Re-enactment
note- I did not create these videos. They were uploaded to YouTube by LLMPapa. I found the analysis interesting. If you see a “web page not available” error message or a blank or black screen on any of the videos, please refresh the page. If you wish to view or join an ongoing discussion about the forensics and legal aspects of the case, please go here.
Tags: AZO, AZO SHOWREEL 2011, THE COOLEST GUY IN THE WORLD
Tags: 17TH US SURGEON GENERAL RICHARD CARMONA, ARIZONA, IMMIGRATION, PIMA COUNTY SHERIFF, RICH CARMONA, RICH CARMONA MD ARIZONA SENATE CANDIDATE, RICHARD CARMONA, SB 1070
On Monday, Dr. Richard Carmona, the 17th Surgeon General of the United States, released the following statement on the Supreme Court’s ruling on SB 1070:
For decades, politicians in Washington have talked about this problem, but nothing ever gets done and Arizonans continue to shoulder the burden of a broken immigration system. SB 1070 is a product of the federal government’s failure to act. Today’s ruling does not help us secure the border, and it does not provide a solution for the 400,000 undocumented people living in Arizona.”
“As a deputy sheriff of a border county, I’ve witnessed first hand the human cost of not having a workable solution. I’ve seen the results of the violence and drugs, and I know the terrible toll that has taken on our community. But SB 1070 doesn’t help local law enforcement fix the problem. It’s a distraction that hinders our ability to build trust with the communities we serve.
SB 1070, also called Arizona SB 1070, requires anyone in the country (over age 14) for more than 30 days to register with the US government and carry papers at all times. Not having documents is a misdemeanor crime. More importantly, the new law “requires that state law enforcement officers attempt to determine an individual’s immigration status during a “lawful stop, detention or arrest”, or during a “lawful contact” not specific to any activity when there is reasonable suspicion that the individual is an illegal immigrant.” Dr. Carmona, who is critical of the new law, further states:
Our immigration problems are complex, but the solutions are simple: secure the border, develop a pathway to earn legal status and enact the DREAM Act. Leadership on this issue takes courage, but it also requires politicians to stop using immigration as a wedge issue to score political points.
It wasn’t long ago that two diametrically opposed leaders — President George W. Bush and the late Senator Ted Kennedy — came together to try to solve the problem. There was even a time when Senator John McCain and Congressman Jeff Flake favored a comprehensive approach that was practical and fair. It’s going to take a more honest debate and the political will to get it done – and that’s what’s been missing in Washington.
As a Hispanic who has served his border community for many years as both a doctor and as a Deputy Sheriff, Dr. Carmona offers both unique perspective and experience regarding Arizona’s immigration issues.
Dr. Carmona is a trauma surgeon, police officer, public health administrator, and politician. He is of Puerto Rican descent, and comes from humble beginnings; he was raised in Harlem, where he dropped out of high school at age 16 to join the US Army, where he earned his GED. He joined the US Army Combat Special Forces and began his medical career as a combat medic. After leaving the service as a decorated veteran, Carmona attended nursing school at a community college in The Bronx, and then college and medical school at UCSF in San Francisco. He further earned his Masters in Public Health in 1998 from the University of Arizona in Tucson. Dr. Carmona is a Tucson resident, where he was an attending physician and trauma director of a trauma program at Tucson Medical Center in the early 1990s, and where he enjoyed teaching the resident physicians.
Dr. Carmona left his position as the 17th Surgeon General under the Bush administration, and many applauded him for taking a stand by testifying and stating as follows:
Tags: GEORGE ZIMMERMAN, PRACTICUM, SELF-DEFENSE, TRAYVON MARTIN
by Frederick Leatherman
Cross posted from Frederick Leatherman Law Blog.
note: To join the discussion(s) about the Zimmerman case, please follow the link above to the law blog.
Good morning, everyone. Yesterday was my birthday, so I took a little time off from blogging and did not post a new article or do a very good job of responding to many of your excellent comments. Y’all have a great discussion going on.
Commenter JD has asked what effect will all of GZ’s inconsistent statements and lies have on a jury, assuming this case goes to trial?
Put another way, just because he’s a liar, does that also mean he’s a murderer?
In this article, I propose that the answer to the question is, it depends on what he lied about and why he lied he about it.
Okay, for the sake of argument, let us suppose that y’all are members of the jury that will decide this case.
Let’s keep it simple today and just focus on GZ’s self-defense claim.
First, let’s start with some standard jury instructions.
The defendant has admitted to killing TM so that is an established fact.
The defendant claims he killed TM in self-defense and you are to presume that he did unless you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not kill in self-defense.
The defendant has no burden to prove he acted in self-defense. Since you must presume that he acted in self-defense, he has no burden to produce any evidence.
A reasonable doubt is a doubt for which a reason exists and it may arise from the evidence or lack of evidence. It is such a doubt as would exist in the mind of a reasonable person after fully and carefully considering all of the evidence or lack of evidence.
Evidence may be direct or circumstantial. Direct evidence is evidence that is perceived through the senses. Circumstantial evidence is evidence of a chain of circumstances that, according to knowledge and common experience, lead to a conclusion. One is not necessarily better or more reliable than the other. As members of the jury, it is for you to decide how much weight to give to any evidence admitted in this case.
A person may use deadly force in self-defense, if he reasonably believes that
a. he is imminent danger of being killed or suffering grievous bodily injury and
b. the amount of force he uses to defend himself is reasonably necessary to prevent being killed or suffering grievous bodily injury.
An aggressor cannot claim self-defense.
Okay, now some evidence with which to work.
The prosecution will be able to introduce during it’s case in chief some, none or all of the statements GZ made. This means that before he ever takes the stand, assuming he chooses to testify on his own behalf, the prosecution will have introduced all of his statements to the police, including his conversation with the dispatcher.
Recall that the dispatcher told him not to follow TM and, as a student in his last semester of Criminology, he was taught that an aggressor cannot claim self-defense.
The prosecution also will have introduced evidence that he had been advised that a neighborhood watch person is limited to watching the neighborhood and calling the police to report crimes and suspicious activity. He was specifically instructed not to contact or attempt to detain a suspect because that is a job for the police to handle.
Assume the autopsy report has been admitted and the Assistant ME who performed it testified that the muzzle of the gun was 2 to 4 inches away from TM when GZ fired the fatal shot. The bullet entered TM’s chest 1″ to the left of the midline and 1/4 inch below the nipple and penetrated the chest cavity proceeding straight through from front to back destroying the right ventricle of the heart, the lower lobe of the right lung, and collapsed both lungs.
Assume the rest of the evidence that has been released and y’all have discussed has been admitted.
The prosecution will argue that, given the nature of what he knew at the time and the lies he told, there is no question that he lied to conceal that he followed TM with intent to find him after he lost sight of him and detain him, using force if necessary, until the police arrived.
“These assholes, they always get away,” likely will repeated over and over at every opportunity by the prosecution, particularly in closing argument.
The defense will argue that there is a reasonable doubt in this case, given the nature of GZ’s injuries that show TM was the aggressor, not GZ.
Now assume you are a juror. Are you going to have a reasonable doubt (i.e., a doubt for which a reason exists) that he killed in self-defense?
Come on in, the water is fine.
By the way, please suggest any topics on this case that you would like me to write about.