Official pedal cyclist road deaths in 2016 ex DOT/NHTSA/FARS(Fatality Analysis Reporting System)

On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 1:43:47 AM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/19/2018 7:26 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
jbeattie writes:

On Wednesday, September 19, 2018 at 10:02:04 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Wednesday, September 19, 2018 at 4:40:32 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:

I don't even get why the lunatic right would hate on Janet Reno.
If she was a tyrant who tortured prisoners, she should be the
poster-girl of the hell-fire and brimstone set.

-- Jay Beattie.

You should ask a member of the lunatic right to explain that to
you. Don't forget to report here so we can all have a giggle.

If you doubt that Reno tortured prisoners, I've already given you a
vivid, uncontested example in this thread. If you think you know
better, disprove it. Where one finds one example of such brutality,
there are usually many more examples to be discovered by any
competent investigator. It's not my problem if your media has
betrayed its obligation to truth, and to you.

Well, your media is betraying you, too:
http://blogs.brown.edu/pols-1821t-20...Walk_Myths.pdf

And why are we debating the past -- and particularly a past that was
well-known when Janet Reno was unanimously confirmed by the Senate?
Was the FBI not doing its job? The Senate Judiciary Committee not
doing its job? The Office of Government Ethics? The staff of every
senator of both parties? Even the IRS is part of the vetting
process. She was vetted more thoroughly than El Presidente Trump. Why
does every internet ****** think they know more than two branches of
the federal government?

The demonic preschool moral panic of the 80s and 90s was not one of our
brighter episodes, with all of the craziness of the Salem witch trials
and much less excuse. I'm not sure whose job it was to prevent the use
of public money to prosecute nursery school operators for sodomizing
kiddies with butcher knives on the moon, absent any physical evidence
whatsoever, but a voice of reason from somewhere in government would
have been nice.

What actually happened is that a number of those fine, upstanding, law
school graduates siezed on it as an opportunity for advancement. When I
first moved to Massachusetts I was amazed to discover that Scott
Harshbarger, the DA who prosecuted the ridiculous Fells Acres case, was
running for governor. Fortunately he was defeated, but narrowly.

More recently Martha Coakley tried to parlay her experience in witch
hunting into a run for governor. She cut her legal teeth on the Fells
Acres case and continued to work, as AG, to keep Gerald Amirault, a man
convicted in it, behind bars long after it should have become obvious
what lunacy it was. Happily, she lost as well.


Dorothy Rabinowitz blew the crazy prosecution cult wide
open. But not for her it would have never ended.

http://www.famous-trials.com/mcmartin/940-daycareabuse

Justice was never served; innocents were abused down to
death and until today as the wrongs resisted righting.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

There's a National Registry of Exonerations at the U of Michigan Law School that makes frightening reading. You can get a sampling by clicking anywhere on this interactive guide:
https://www.law.umich.edu/special/ex...tates-Map.aspx
and find your way from there to deeper discussions.

Andre Jute
Not a lawyer, thank the Lord -- it's bad enough when demographers screw up, as they did in the last presidential election, but at least they aren't malicious (Krugman always excepted, but he's just plain nuts)

On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 2:18:28 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 1:43:47 AM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/19/2018 7:26 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
jbeattie writes:

On Wednesday, September 19, 2018 at 10:02:04 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Wednesday, September 19, 2018 at 4:40:32 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:

I don't even get why the lunatic right would hate on Janet Reno.
If she was a tyrant who tortured prisoners, she should be the
poster-girl of the hell-fire and brimstone set.

-- Jay Beattie.

You should ask a member of the lunatic right to explain that to
you. Don't forget to report here so we can all have a giggle.

If you doubt that Reno tortured prisoners, I've already given you a
vivid, uncontested example in this thread. If you think you know
better, disprove it. Where one finds one example of such brutality,
there are usually many more examples to be discovered by any
competent investigator. It's not my problem if your media has
betrayed its obligation to truth, and to you.

Well, your media is betraying you, too:
http://blogs.brown.edu/pols-1821t-20...Walk_Myths.pdf

And why are we debating the past -- and particularly a past that was
well-known when Janet Reno was unanimously confirmed by the Senate?
Was the FBI not doing its job? The Senate Judiciary Committee not
doing its job? The Office of Government Ethics? The staff of every
senator of both parties? Even the IRS is part of the vetting
process. She was vetted more thoroughly than El Presidente Trump. Why
does every internet ****** think they know more than two branches of
the federal government?

The demonic preschool moral panic of the 80s and 90s was not one of our
brighter episodes, with all of the craziness of the Salem witch trials
and much less excuse. I'm not sure whose job it was to prevent the use
of public money to prosecute nursery school operators for sodomizing
kiddies with butcher knives on the moon, absent any physical evidence
whatsoever, but a voice of reason from somewhere in government would
have been nice.

What actually happened is that a number of those fine, upstanding, law
school graduates siezed on it as an opportunity for advancement. When I
first moved to Massachusetts I was amazed to discover that Scott
Harshbarger, the DA who prosecuted the ridiculous Fells Acres case, was
running for governor. Fortunately he was defeated, but narrowly.

More recently Martha Coakley tried to parlay her experience in witch
hunting into a run for governor. She cut her legal teeth on the Fells
Acres case and continued to work, as AG, to keep Gerald Amirault, a man
convicted in it, behind bars long after it should have become obvious
what lunacy it was. Happily, she lost as well.


Dorothy Rabinowitz blew the crazy prosecution cult wide
open. But not for her it would have never ended.

http://www.famous-trials.com/mcmartin/940-daycareabuse

Justice was never served; innocents were abused down to
death and until today as the wrongs resisted righting.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

There's a National Registry of Exonerations at the U of Michigan Law School that makes frightening reading. You can get a sampling by clicking anywhere on this interactive guide:
https://www.law.umich.edu/special/ex...tates-Map.aspx
and find your way from there to deeper discussions.

Every human endeavor has an error rate, and errors are usually determined in hindsight and often after the science has settled. That was the situation in some of the child abuse cases. The prosecutors believed what their experts were telling them, what parents and children were telling them and what the public was demanding. It's not hard to believe that abuse occurs -- the Catholic Church proves the point, and a prosecutor could in good faith purse an abuse case later determined to be a hoax.

You have to differentiate between prosecutions that were mistaken and those that were pursued with knowledge that the defendant was innocent or without regard to guilt or innocence. I think the latter are very, very rare. I've seen plenty of the former in the civil context -- entire waves of lawsuits based on bad science regarding breast implants, EMF, Bendectin, etc.

-- Jay Beattie.

jbeattie writes:

On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 2:18:28 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 1:43:47 AM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/19/2018 7:26 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
jbeattie writes:

On Wednesday, September 19, 2018 at 10:02:04 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Wednesday, September 19, 2018 at 4:40:32 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:

I don't even get why the lunatic right would hate on Janet Reno.
If she was a tyrant who tortured prisoners, she should be the
poster-girl of the hell-fire and brimstone set.

-- Jay Beattie.

You should ask a member of the lunatic right to explain that to
you. Don't forget to report here so we can all have a giggle.

If you doubt that Reno tortured prisoners, I've already given you a
vivid, uncontested example in this thread. If you think you know
better, disprove it. Where one finds one example of such brutality,
there are usually many more examples to be discovered by any
competent investigator. It's not my problem if your media has
betrayed its obligation to truth, and to you.

Well, your media is betraying you, too:
http://blogs.brown.edu/pols-1821t-20...Walk_Myths.pdf

And why are we debating the past -- and particularly a past that was
well-known when Janet Reno was unanimously confirmed by the Senate?
Was the FBI not doing its job? The Senate Judiciary Committee not
doing its job? The Office of Government Ethics? The staff of every
senator of both parties? Even the IRS is part of the vetting
process. She was vetted more thoroughly than El Presidente Trump. Why
does every internet ****** think they know more than two branches of
the federal government?

The demonic preschool moral panic of the 80s and 90s was not one of our
brighter episodes, with all of the craziness of the Salem witch trials
and much less excuse. I'm not sure whose job it was to prevent the use
of public money to prosecute nursery school operators for sodomizing
kiddies with butcher knives on the moon, absent any physical evidence
whatsoever, but a voice of reason from somewhere in government would
have been nice.

What actually happened is that a number of those fine, upstanding, law
school graduates siezed on it as an opportunity for advancement. When I
first moved to Massachusetts I was amazed to discover that Scott
Harshbarger, the DA who prosecuted the ridiculous Fells Acres case, was
running for governor. Fortunately he was defeated, but narrowly.

More recently Martha Coakley tried to parlay her experience in witch
hunting into a run for governor. She cut her legal teeth on the Fells
Acres case and continued to work, as AG, to keep Gerald Amirault, a man
convicted in it, behind bars long after it should have become obvious
what lunacy it was. Happily, she lost as well.


Dorothy Rabinowitz blew the crazy prosecution cult wide
open. But not for her it would have never ended.

http://www.famous-trials.com/mcmartin/940-daycareabuse

Justice was never served; innocents were abused down to
death and until today as the wrongs resisted righting.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

There's a National Registry of Exonerations at the U of Michigan Law
School that makes frightening reading. You can get a sampling by
clicking anywhere on this interactive guide:
https://www.law.umich.edu/special/ex...tates-Map.aspx
and find your way from there to deeper discussions.

Every human endeavor has an error rate, and errors are usually
determined in hindsight and often after the science has settled. That
was the situation in some of the child abuse cases. The prosecutors
believed what their experts were telling them, what parents and
children were telling them and what the public was demanding. It's not
hard to believe that abuse occurs -- the Catholic Church proves the
point, and a prosecutor could in good faith purse an abuse case later
determined to be a hoax.

You have to differentiate between prosecutions that were mistaken and
those that were pursued with knowledge that the defendant was innocent
or without regard to guilt or innocence. I think the latter are very,
very rare. I've seen plenty of the former in the civil context --
entire waves of lawsuits based on bad science regarding breast
implants, EMF, Bendectin, etc.

Granted that expecting perfection in any human endeavor leads always to
disappointment, some fields, like bridge design and construction, or
building and operating large passenger aircraft, have developed a
culture that rewards acknowledging and learning from mistakes. Legal
prosecution is not one of those fields. The best course for a
prosecutor seems to be to never relent, never rethink, to always double
down on mistakes, regardless of how obvious they may be in hindsight.

The voting public, who continue to yearn for heads on pikes, do share in
the blame.

--

On 9/20/2018 10:52 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
jbeattie writes:

On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 2:18:28 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 1:43:47 AM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/19/2018 7:26 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
jbeattie writes:

On Wednesday, September 19, 2018 at 10:02:04 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Wednesday, September 19, 2018 at 4:40:32 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:

I don't even get why the lunatic right would hate on Janet Reno.
If she was a tyrant who tortured prisoners, she should be the
poster-girl of the hell-fire and brimstone set.

-- Jay Beattie.

You should ask a member of the lunatic right to explain that to
you. Don't forget to report here so we can all have a giggle.

If you doubt that Reno tortured prisoners, I've already given you a
vivid, uncontested example in this thread. If you think you know
better, disprove it. Where one finds one example of such brutality,
there are usually many more examples to be discovered by any
competent investigator. It's not my problem if your media has
betrayed its obligation to truth, and to you.

Well, your media is betraying you, too:
http://blogs.brown.edu/pols-1821t-20...Walk_Myths.pdf

And why are we debating the past -- and particularly a past that was
well-known when Janet Reno was unanimously confirmed by the Senate?
Was the FBI not doing its job? The Senate Judiciary Committee not
doing its job? The Office of Government Ethics? The staff of every
senator of both parties? Even the IRS is part of the vetting
process. She was vetted more thoroughly than El Presidente Trump. Why
does every internet ****** think they know more than two branches of
the federal government?

The demonic preschool moral panic of the 80s and 90s was not one of our
brighter episodes, with all of the craziness of the Salem witch trials
and much less excuse. I'm not sure whose job it was to prevent the use
of public money to prosecute nursery school operators for sodomizing
kiddies with butcher knives on the moon, absent any physical evidence
whatsoever, but a voice of reason from somewhere in government would
have been nice.

What actually happened is that a number of those fine, upstanding, law
school graduates siezed on it as an opportunity for advancement. When I
first moved to Massachusetts I was amazed to discover that Scott
Harshbarger, the DA who prosecuted the ridiculous Fells Acres case, was
running for governor. Fortunately he was defeated, but narrowly.

More recently Martha Coakley tried to parlay her experience in witch
hunting into a run for governor. She cut her legal teeth on the Fells
Acres case and continued to work, as AG, to keep Gerald Amirault, a man
convicted in it, behind bars long after it should have become obvious
what lunacy it was. Happily, she lost as well.


Dorothy Rabinowitz blew the crazy prosecution cult wide
open. But not for her it would have never ended.

http://www.famous-trials.com/mcmartin/940-daycareabuse

Justice was never served; innocents were abused down to
death and until today as the wrongs resisted righting.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

There's a National Registry of Exonerations at the U of Michigan Law
School that makes frightening reading. You can get a sampling by
clicking anywhere on this interactive guide:
https://www.law.umich.edu/special/ex...tates-Map.aspx
and find your way from there to deeper discussions.

Every human endeavor has an error rate, and errors are usually
determined in hindsight and often after the science has settled. That
was the situation in some of the child abuse cases. The prosecutors
believed what their experts were telling them, what parents and
children were telling them and what the public was demanding. It's not
hard to believe that abuse occurs -- the Catholic Church proves the
point, and a prosecutor could in good faith purse an abuse case later
determined to be a hoax.

You have to differentiate between prosecutions that were mistaken and
those that were pursued with knowledge that the defendant was innocent
or without regard to guilt or innocence. I think the latter are very,
very rare. I've seen plenty of the former in the civil context --
entire waves of lawsuits based on bad science regarding breast
implants, EMF, Bendectin, etc.

Granted that expecting perfection in any human endeavor leads always to
disappointment, some fields, like bridge design and construction, or
building and operating large passenger aircraft, have developed a
culture that rewards acknowledging and learning from mistakes. Legal
prosecution is not one of those fields. The best course for a
prosecutor seems to be to never relent, never rethink, to always double
down on mistakes, regardless of how obvious they may be in hindsight.

The voting public, who continue to yearn for heads on pikes, do share in
the blame.


And then there's John Burge who (finally) died the other day.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...story,amp.html

Not only his heinous acts themselves, not only destruction
of citizen's faith in everything, not only sending false
confessions to prosecutors and judges, but forever
besmirching the half of police who try to be honest.

Oh, and all that while the actual perps are still out
preying on the taxpayers.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 3:14:18 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 2:18:28 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 1:43:47 AM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/19/2018 7:26 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
jbeattie writes:

On Wednesday, September 19, 2018 at 10:02:04 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Wednesday, September 19, 2018 at 4:40:32 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:

I don't even get why the lunatic right would hate on Janet Reno.
If she was a tyrant who tortured prisoners, she should be the
poster-girl of the hell-fire and brimstone set.

-- Jay Beattie.

You should ask a member of the lunatic right to explain that to
you. Don't forget to report here so we can all have a giggle.

If you doubt that Reno tortured prisoners, I've already given you a
vivid, uncontested example in this thread. If you think you know
better, disprove it. Where one finds one example of such brutality,
there are usually many more examples to be discovered by any
competent investigator. It's not my problem if your media has
betrayed its obligation to truth, and to you.

Well, your media is betraying you, too:
http://blogs.brown.edu/pols-1821t-20...Walk_Myths.pdf

And why are we debating the past -- and particularly a past that was
well-known when Janet Reno was unanimously confirmed by the Senate?
Was the FBI not doing its job? The Senate Judiciary Committee not
doing its job? The Office of Government Ethics? The staff of every
senator of both parties? Even the IRS is part of the vetting
process. She was vetted more thoroughly than El Presidente Trump. Why
does every internet ****** think they know more than two branches of
the federal government?

The demonic preschool moral panic of the 80s and 90s was not one of our
brighter episodes, with all of the craziness of the Salem witch trials
and much less excuse. I'm not sure whose job it was to prevent the use
of public money to prosecute nursery school operators for sodomizing
kiddies with butcher knives on the moon, absent any physical evidence
whatsoever, but a voice of reason from somewhere in government would
have been nice.

What actually happened is that a number of those fine, upstanding, law
school graduates siezed on it as an opportunity for advancement. When I
first moved to Massachusetts I was amazed to discover that Scott
Harshbarger, the DA who prosecuted the ridiculous Fells Acres case, was
running for governor. Fortunately he was defeated, but narrowly.

More recently Martha Coakley tried to parlay her experience in witch
hunting into a run for governor. She cut her legal teeth on the Fells
Acres case and continued to work, as AG, to keep Gerald Amirault, a man
convicted in it, behind bars long after it should have become obvious
what lunacy it was. Happily, she lost as well.


Dorothy Rabinowitz blew the crazy prosecution cult wide
open. But not for her it would have never ended.

http://www.famous-trials.com/mcmartin/940-daycareabuse

Justice was never served; innocents were abused down to
death and until today as the wrongs resisted righting.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

There's a National Registry of Exonerations at the U of Michigan Law School that makes frightening reading. You can get a sampling by clicking anywhere on this interactive guide:
https://www.law.umich.edu/special/ex...tates-Map.aspx
and find your way from there to deeper discussions.

Every human endeavor has an error rate, and errors are usually determined in hindsight and often after the science has settled. That was the situation in some of the child abuse cases. The prosecutors believed what their experts were telling them, what parents and children were telling them and what the public was demanding. It's not hard to believe that abuse occurs -- the Catholic Church proves the point, and a prosecutor could in good faith purse an abuse case later determined to be a hoax.

You have to differentiate between prosecutions that were mistaken and those that were pursued with knowledge that the defendant was innocent or without regard to guilt or innocence. I think the latter are very, very rare. I've seen plenty of the former in the civil context -- entire waves of lawsuits based on bad science regarding breast implants, EMF, Bendectin, etc.

-- Jay Beattie.

I came across another stunning statistic, that in about one in twelve cases, of 11,000 examined, that is around 8%, a judge punished the prosecutor involved -- in one case, adding insult to injury, with 12 days in jail for falsely incarcerating a man for 25 years... -- and in quite a few cases the relevant Bar disbarred the prosecutor. But I'm not in the business of condemning whole classes of people, not even lawyers (some of my best friends, etc, and, there but for the grace of God -- I chose my original college course by letting the prospectus fall open and sticking a pin it because I had enough points for anything, and it could easily have been law...); class condemnations are too stalinist for my taste. I was merely making a point about systemic corruption in Federal prosecutions (97% conviction rate! -- it's patently abusive) and wouldn't even have provided personalized examples if the response had been more responsible. So I am not going to look up the source and provide chapter and verse unless some clown is dumb enough to doubt my word.

In fact, I think we've gone as far as we should with politics and should drop it now, or at least as soon as everyone has had another turn so it doesn't look like I'm trying to claim the last word.

Andre Jute
Sense and sensibility

On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 8:52:58 AM UTC-7, Radey Shouman wrote:
jbeattie writes:

On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 2:18:28 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 1:43:47 AM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/19/2018 7:26 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
jbeattie writes:

On Wednesday, September 19, 2018 at 10:02:04 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Wednesday, September 19, 2018 at 4:40:32 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:

I don't even get why the lunatic right would hate on Janet Reno..
If she was a tyrant who tortured prisoners, she should be the
poster-girl of the hell-fire and brimstone set.

-- Jay Beattie.

You should ask a member of the lunatic right to explain that to
you. Don't forget to report here so we can all have a giggle.

If you doubt that Reno tortured prisoners, I've already given you a
vivid, uncontested example in this thread. If you think you know
better, disprove it. Where one finds one example of such brutality,
there are usually many more examples to be discovered by any
competent investigator. It's not my problem if your media has
betrayed its obligation to truth, and to you.

Well, your media is betraying you, too:
http://blogs.brown.edu/pols-1821t-20...Walk_Myths.pdf

And why are we debating the past -- and particularly a past that was
well-known when Janet Reno was unanimously confirmed by the Senate?
Was the FBI not doing its job? The Senate Judiciary Committee not
doing its job? The Office of Government Ethics? The staff of every
senator of both parties? Even the IRS is part of the vetting
process. She was vetted more thoroughly than El Presidente Trump. Why
does every internet ****** think they know more than two branches of
the federal government?

The demonic preschool moral panic of the 80s and 90s was not one of our
brighter episodes, with all of the craziness of the Salem witch trials
and much less excuse. I'm not sure whose job it was to prevent the use
of public money to prosecute nursery school operators for sodomizing
kiddies with butcher knives on the moon, absent any physical evidence
whatsoever, but a voice of reason from somewhere in government would
have been nice.

What actually happened is that a number of those fine, upstanding, law
school graduates siezed on it as an opportunity for advancement. When I
first moved to Massachusetts I was amazed to discover that Scott
Harshbarger, the DA who prosecuted the ridiculous Fells Acres case, was
running for governor. Fortunately he was defeated, but narrowly.

More recently Martha Coakley tried to parlay her experience in witch
hunting into a run for governor. She cut her legal teeth on the Fells
Acres case and continued to work, as AG, to keep Gerald Amirault, a man
convicted in it, behind bars long after it should have become obvious
what lunacy it was. Happily, she lost as well.


Dorothy Rabinowitz blew the crazy prosecution cult wide
open. But not for her it would have never ended.

http://www.famous-trials.com/mcmartin/940-daycareabuse

Justice was never served; innocents were abused down to
death and until today as the wrongs resisted righting.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

There's a National Registry of Exonerations at the U of Michigan Law
School that makes frightening reading. You can get a sampling by
clicking anywhere on this interactive guide:
https://www.law.umich.edu/special/ex...tates-Map.aspx
and find your way from there to deeper discussions.

Every human endeavor has an error rate, and errors are usually
determined in hindsight and often after the science has settled. That
was the situation in some of the child abuse cases. The prosecutors
believed what their experts were telling them, what parents and
children were telling them and what the public was demanding. It's not
hard to believe that abuse occurs -- the Catholic Church proves the
point, and a prosecutor could in good faith purse an abuse case later
determined to be a hoax.

You have to differentiate between prosecutions that were mistaken and
those that were pursued with knowledge that the defendant was innocent
or without regard to guilt or innocence. I think the latter are very,
very rare. I've seen plenty of the former in the civil context --
entire waves of lawsuits based on bad science regarding breast
implants, EMF, Bendectin, etc.

Granted that expecting perfection in any human endeavor leads always to
disappointment, some fields, like bridge design and construction, or
building and operating large passenger aircraft, have developed a
culture that rewards acknowledging and learning from mistakes. Legal
prosecution is not one of those fields. The best course for a
prosecutor seems to be to never relent, never rethink, to always double
down on mistakes, regardless of how obvious they may be in hindsight.

The voting public, who continue to yearn for heads on pikes, do share in
the blame.

It all depends on the prosecutor: https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/...ssigns_ve.html

There is a macho streak that runs through these offices and an us-against-them mentality. You're never going to get rid of that because these people see so much sh** day in and day out. They've heard so many protestations of innocence that it would make your head spin.

For a large part of my early career, I had to sit through criminal call waiting for civil trial assignments. I'd see the same jumpsuit-clad dopes in shackles, over and over on different crimes. During civil trials and motions, the judges will take short criminal matters, and I will listen in on the latest parole violation or plea. I have learned from that experience the term "criminal genius" is an oxymoron.

I also feel sorry for DHS -- they get sued if they remove a child, and they get sued if they don't. For some reason, I always end up on argument dockets at the court of appeals with parental rights termination cases. The last time I sat through one of those arguments, the issue on appeal was the accuracy of a toddler's testimony about his parents smoking meth. The parent(s) argued that they were smoking a marijuana pipe and not a meth pipe, and that the kid tended to conflate the two. I felt like standing up and saying "are you kidding?" I kept my mouth shut, stared at the stained glass canopy and hoped for a better future for humanity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon...eriorStich.jpg

-- Jay Beattie.

On Wednesday, September 19, 2018 at 5:35:34 PM UTC-7, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 2:18:17 PM UTC-4, Andre Jute wrote:
Snipped

People coming to this newsgroup will be checking the group name to see if it isn't Politics rather than bicycling. VBEG LOL ;)

Cheers

Let's not pretend that this is somehow an open group. The same posters have been here since the beginning of time and so if we wish to make our positions known on any subject at least let us have it titled as such.

sltom992 wrote:

Let's not pretend that this is somehow an
open group. The same posters have been here
since the beginning of time and so if we wish
to make our positions known on any subject at
least let us have it titled as such.

If a newcomer comes and expects this to be
a bicycle group and sees only OT thread and/or
OT posts, I mean IF that happens, that might
turn him/her off.

But new people aren't coming to Usenet anyway
so it doesn't matter what anyone does.

--
underground experts united
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573

On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 7:14:18 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 2:18:28 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 1:43:47 AM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/19/2018 7:26 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
jbeattie writes:

On Wednesday, September 19, 2018 at 10:02:04 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Wednesday, September 19, 2018 at 4:40:32 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:

I don't even get why the lunatic right would hate on Janet Reno.
If she was a tyrant who tortured prisoners, she should be the
poster-girl of the hell-fire and brimstone set.

-- Jay Beattie.

You should ask a member of the lunatic right to explain that to
you. Don't forget to report here so we can all have a giggle.

If you doubt that Reno tortured prisoners, I've already given you a
vivid, uncontested example in this thread. If you think you know
better, disprove it. Where one finds one example of such brutality,
there are usually many more examples to be discovered by any
competent investigator. It's not my problem if your media has
betrayed its obligation to truth, and to you.

Well, your media is betraying you, too:
http://blogs.brown.edu/pols-1821t-20...Walk_Myths.pdf

And why are we debating the past -- and particularly a past that was
well-known when Janet Reno was unanimously confirmed by the Senate?
Was the FBI not doing its job? The Senate Judiciary Committee not
doing its job? The Office of Government Ethics? The staff of every
senator of both parties? Even the IRS is part of the vetting
process. She was vetted more thoroughly than El Presidente Trump. Why
does every internet ****** think they know more than two branches of
the federal government?

The demonic preschool moral panic of the 80s and 90s was not one of our
brighter episodes, with all of the craziness of the Salem witch trials
and much less excuse. I'm not sure whose job it was to prevent the use
of public money to prosecute nursery school operators for sodomizing
kiddies with butcher knives on the moon, absent any physical evidence
whatsoever, but a voice of reason from somewhere in government would
have been nice.

What actually happened is that a number of those fine, upstanding, law
school graduates siezed on it as an opportunity for advancement. When I
first moved to Massachusetts I was amazed to discover that Scott
Harshbarger, the DA who prosecuted the ridiculous Fells Acres case, was
running for governor. Fortunately he was defeated, but narrowly.

More recently Martha Coakley tried to parlay her experience in witch
hunting into a run for governor. She cut her legal teeth on the Fells
Acres case and continued to work, as AG, to keep Gerald Amirault, a man
convicted in it, behind bars long after it should have become obvious
what lunacy it was. Happily, she lost as well.


Dorothy Rabinowitz blew the crazy prosecution cult wide
open. But not for her it would have never ended.

http://www.famous-trials.com/mcmartin/940-daycareabuse

Justice was never served; innocents were abused down to
death and until today as the wrongs resisted righting.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

There's a National Registry of Exonerations at the U of Michigan Law School that makes frightening reading. You can get a sampling by clicking anywhere on this interactive guide:
https://www.law.umich.edu/special/ex...tates-Map.aspx
and find your way from there to deeper discussions.

Every human endeavor has an error rate, and errors are usually determined in hindsight and often after the science has settled. That was the situation in some of the child abuse cases. The prosecutors believed what their experts were telling them, what parents and children were telling them and what the public was demanding. It's not hard to believe that abuse occurs -- the Catholic Church proves the point, and a prosecutor could in good faith purse an abuse case later determined to be a hoax.

You have to differentiate between prosecutions that were mistaken and those that were pursued with knowledge that the defendant was innocent or without regard to guilt or innocence. I think the latter are very, very rare. I've seen plenty of the former in the civil context -- entire waves of lawsuits based on bad science regarding breast implants, EMF, Bendectin, etc.

-- Jay Beattie.

We can't argue with that. But don't you think that statement isn't a bit idealistic?

Right this minute we can plainly see the Democrats making every possible effort to take away the civil rights of Judge Kavanaugh. We see even Republicans saying that they won't vote for his confirmation unless he allows this.

On 9/21/2018 11:14 AM, wrote:
On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 7:14:18 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 2:18:28 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 1:43:47 AM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/19/2018 7:26 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
jbeattie writes:

On Wednesday, September 19, 2018 at 10:02:04 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Wednesday, September 19, 2018 at 4:40:32 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:

I don't even get why the lunatic right would hate on Janet Reno.
If she was a tyrant who tortured prisoners, she should be the
poster-girl of the hell-fire and brimstone set.

-- Jay Beattie.

You should ask a member of the lunatic right to explain that to
you. Don't forget to report here so we can all have a giggle.

If you doubt that Reno tortured prisoners, I've already given you a
vivid, uncontested example in this thread. If you think you know
better, disprove it. Where one finds one example of such brutality,
there are usually many more examples to be discovered by any
competent investigator. It's not my problem if your media has
betrayed its obligation to truth, and to you.

Well, your media is betraying you, too:
http://blogs.brown.edu/pols-1821t-20...Walk_Myths.pdf

And why are we debating the past -- and particularly a past that was
well-known when Janet Reno was unanimously confirmed by the Senate?
Was the FBI not doing its job? The Senate Judiciary Committee not
doing its job? The Office of Government Ethics? The staff of every
senator of both parties? Even the IRS is part of the vetting
process. She was vetted more thoroughly than El Presidente Trump. Why
does every internet ****** think they know more than two branches of
the federal government?

The demonic preschool moral panic of the 80s and 90s was not one of our
brighter episodes, with all of the craziness of the Salem witch trials
and much less excuse. I'm not sure whose job it was to prevent the use
of public money to prosecute nursery school operators for sodomizing
kiddies with butcher knives on the moon, absent any physical evidence
whatsoever, but a voice of reason from somewhere in government would
have been nice.

What actually happened is that a number of those fine, upstanding, law
school graduates siezed on it as an opportunity for advancement. When I
first moved to Massachusetts I was amazed to discover that Scott
Harshbarger, the DA who prosecuted the ridiculous Fells Acres case, was
running for governor. Fortunately he was defeated, but narrowly.

More recently Martha Coakley tried to parlay her experience in witch
hunting into a run for governor. She cut her legal teeth on the Fells
Acres case and continued to work, as AG, to keep Gerald Amirault, a man
convicted in it, behind bars long after it should have become obvious
what lunacy it was. Happily, she lost as well.


Dorothy Rabinowitz blew the crazy prosecution cult wide
open. But not for her it would have never ended.

http://www.famous-trials.com/mcmartin/940-daycareabuse

Justice was never served; innocents were abused down to
death and until today as the wrongs resisted righting.


There's a National Registry of Exonerations at the U of Michigan Law School that makes frightening reading. You can get a sampling by clicking anywhere on this interactive guide:
https://www.law.umich.edu/special/ex...tates-Map.aspx
and find your way from there to deeper discussions.

Every human endeavor has an error rate, and errors are usually determined in hindsight and often after the science has settled. That was the situation in some of the child abuse cases. The prosecutors believed what their experts were telling them, what parents and children were telling them and what the public was demanding. It's not hard to believe that abuse occurs -- the Catholic Church proves the point, and a prosecutor could in good faith purse an abuse case later determined to be a hoax.

You have to differentiate between prosecutions that were mistaken and those that were pursued with knowledge that the defendant was innocent or without regard to guilt or innocence. I think the latter are very, very rare. I've seen plenty of the former in the civil context -- entire waves of lawsuits based on bad science regarding breast implants, EMF, Bendectin, etc.

We can't argue with that. But don't you think that statement isn't a bit idealistic?

Right this minute we can plainly see the Democrats making every possible effort to take away the civil rights of Judge Kavanaugh. We see even Republicans saying that they won't vote for his confirmation unless he allows this.


It's gone through the looking glass. Now, she says she will
speak only some day(s) after he addresses her claim(!) and
only if he's not there.

Only a short step to 'execution first, trail later'

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971