Last week a twenty-five-year old man allegedly entered the Clark County Detention Center and struck an officer with a baseball bat. The man was reportedly a victim of a robbery earlier in September, and he was angry at police for not sufficiently investigating his case. The man faces charges for battery with a deadly weapon, attempted murder, and the Nevada crime of burglary.
The Nevada crime of burglary occurs when someone enters a structure, plane, or vehicle with the intent to commit battery, assault, or a felony inside. It is *not* burglary if the person does not form the intent to commit the crime until after he/she enters the structure, plane or vehicle. Note that a person may be convicted of burglary without "breaking and entering."
Las Vegas Man Faces Attempted Murder Charge for Hitting Jail Guard with Baseball Bat
↧
↧
Two notably different sentencing requests from two killers
The two distinct headlines concerning two distinct requests in two California capital cases caught my eye this afternoon: "Arizona Woman Charged With Killing Autistic Son, Daughter Asks Court For Death Penalty" "Convicted serial killer Naso asks Marin jury to spare...
↧
Federal Judiciary to Seek Mandatory Minimum Sentence Reform
The Federal Judicial Conference issued a press release today supporting the Justice Safety Valve Act of 2013 which would give federal judges discretion not to impose a mandatory minimum sentence.
Acting on the recommendation of its Criminal Law...
[[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]
↧
FISA Judge Rules NSA Mass Telephony Data Collection is Constitutional
The FISA Court today released the August 29, 2013 opinion by FISA Court Judge Claire Eagen finding the NSA's mass telephony data program is constitutional and statutorily permissible.
The opinion is here.
[B]ecause there is no cognizable...
[[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]
↧
Qualsiasi Mezzo: Danziger Bridge
Move over, Emmet Sullivan and Carmac Carney. Add Kurt D. Engelhardt to the Honor Roll roster of federal district judges willing to speak truth to the U.S. Department of Justice. Willing to speak truth and to do something about it....
↧
↧
Felony Charges Dropped against Mesquite Mom who Faked Child's Cancer
A thirty-six-year old woman who allegedly lied that her seven-year-old son had cancer in order to collect donations will no longer face felony charges of Nevada crime of child abuse. However she still might be charged with misdemeanor crimes for holding a car wash, garage sale, and establishing a fund to obtain money she claimed would go to fight her son's cancer. Police investigated the boy's medical records, which showed he does not have cancer.
The Nevada crime of child abuse occurs when someone physically abuses, emotionally abuses, neglects, abandons, or exploits a child under eighteen. Typical defenses to this crime are that the incident was accidental, that the defendant acted in self-defense, or that the defendant was falsely accused. Mental harm may be difficult for a D.A. to prove because there may be no physical manifestations.
↧
YOUR TWO NEW FEDERAL JUDGES
The Federal JNC (Motto "the really really good JNC") has nominated four individuals for two open Federal Judge positions in the Southern District of Florida. And the surprising news is that all four nominees are State Court Judges. The nominees are:Beth BloomDarrin GaylesPeter LopezJohn ThorntonAll REGJB criminal court judges or alumni. Once nominated, the two judges can look forward to a complete FBI investigation, an appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee, and then becoming a political football, kicked back and forth between the Republicans and Democrats while their careers twist in political limbo. Some nominees become part of political deals and are approved, while other nominees become the line in the sand drawn by a senator out to prove a point. To Judges Thornton, Gayles, Bloom and Lopez:The Good News: You've been nominated to be a federal judge. The Bad News: You've been nominated to be a federal judge. Sincerely, your favourite blogger. See You In Court. Site Feed
↧
US Attorney defends fraud guidelines while others urge reform in USSC event
Today notable events in the federal sentencing reform arena were not confined only to today's U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on federal mandatory minimums (discussed here and here). Also starting today was a two-day event in NYC in which the...
↧
DUI Defense: No Actual Physical Control
The DUI law in Arizona used to read that any intoxicated person sitting in a car with the keys in the ignition is in “actual physical control” of their car. However, in 1995, David Michael Cantor took the case, State vs. Love, to the Arizona Supreme Court in order to change the law. He argued and won the case. Since...read more →The post DUI Defense: No Actual Physical Control appeared first on Arizona Criminal Law & Defense Blog.
↧
↧
Writ denied: But why?
The American Bar Association's Individual Rights and Responsibilities section has issued a book-length 500 page report (pdf) on the death penalty in Texas. Find an 18-page overview here (pdf). Looking through the summary, the topics raised appear mostly related to innocence issues with implications far beyond the death penalty, like eyewitness ID procedures, recording interrogations, and ensuring high-quality indigent defense. There's a ton of detail and Grits may soon come back to examine other aspects of the report, but for now I wanted to highlight an interesting observation about habeas corpus proceedings that I'd never considered before:Most capital habeas petitions are dismissed in a two - or three - page summary order issued by the Court of Criminal Appeals, whereas appellate courts in other death penalty states issue detailed opinions in capital post-conviction cases. Perhaps as a result of this practice, the Court of Criminal Appeals has failed to address claims that later led to relief in federal proceedings. This also creates a problem for death row petitioners and habeas lawyers attempting to research their cases, as there is little case law developed on capital habeas proceedings despite the frequency of death sentences imposed and executions carried out. Like most of the other issues discussed, that observation applies equally to non-capital habeas writs, which are typically dismissed with at most a bare-bones explanation and usually not even that. I'd never considered before how that failure to justify denials undermines the Great Writ, but it's an excellent point.
↧
The petitions alleged that the mother failed to provide her children with proper supervision
An institution filed an appeal against a mother alleging that her six children were suspected neglected. At that time, the youngest child was a new-born and the oldest child was 16 years old. The petitions alleged that the mother failed...
↧
Eighteen Month Delay in Custody Decision Illustrates Glaring Problem
Just yesterday I was speaking to a group of lawyers about family law arbitration. One of the points I made was that arbitration has several advantages over court proceedings because private family law arbitrators, be they retired judges or senior family law lawyers, can be available on short notice, and most will guarantee their written […]
↧
Cal. school district pays firm to monitor students' social media
According to a recent CNN article, a California school district is paying a private firm over $40,000 to monitor its students' social media accounts for one year.
The company uses keywords to conduct the searches and sends a daily report to school administration.
Thus far, the service has been used to provide counseling to students who make suicidal threats online. The reports also contain information on "possible violence, drug use, bullying, [and] truancy."
Read the full article here:http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/14/us/california-schools-monitor-social-media/index.html
↧
↧
Hendry County Criminal Defense Lawyer :: LaBelle Man Held with No Bond After 17 Pounds of Marijuana Found
A 24-year-old LaBelle man was arrested and held without bond last month after members of the Hendry County Narcotics Unit conducted a controlled delivery of a package suspected of containing marijuana at the man's North LaBelle home.
Posing as a parcel serviceman, an undercover narcotics investigator delivered the package to the man's home, which he apparently rents.
Narcotics Investigators claim that after a short period of time they witnessed the man driving a white Jeep and pull into the driveway of the home.
The man allegedly picked up the package and carried it inside the home. About 15 minutes later a guest apparently arrived at the home and the man stepped outside to speak with the person. Investigators then arrested the man inside the home.
Once inside the home, investigators searched the premises and allegedly found approximately 17 pounds of marijuana, with a street value of $17,000.00, inside a red duffle bag.
The man was taken into custody and charged with Possession of Marijuana with Intent to Sell and Possession of Marijuana over 20 Grams. He is currently being held in the Hendry County Jail without bond.
While some states have legalized the simple possession of marijuana, this remains a criminal offense in Florida. Any person accused of possession with the intent to sell or distribute will face felony charges in Florida that can include penalties as high 30 years in prison. Possession with intent to sell is a much more serious offense than just a simple possession charge as it involves a larger quantity of drugs.
When investigators believe that a person is in possession of drugs with the intent to sell or distribute, they do not have to actually prove that any drugs were sold. In fact, all they have to demonstrate is that the person intended to sell the drugs in his or her possession. There are certain factors that investigators will look at when determining whether or not to charge someone with possession with intent to sell, including:
• The amount of drugs in the person's possession
• The amount of cash a person has on them
• How the drugs are packed (Generally, law enforcement presumes a person intends to sell drugs if the drugs are individually packaged.)
↧
//blawgsearch75.rssing.com/chan-6519914/article3995-live.html
In this domestic violence prosecution, defendant stands indicted for, among other things, burglary, assault and criminal contempt involving alleged assaults on his girlfriend at her home in violation of an order of protection. The People now allege that the complainant...
↧
Burden of Proof in Utah
Theoretically, defendants are not required to prove themselves innocent–the burden of proof lies with the prosecution. We all know that in America, everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. But, it’s more complicated than it sounds. Burden of Proof When a person in Utah is charged with a crime, the burden [...]
↧
Petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to Article 78 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR)
A Kings Criminal Lawyer said that, petitioner was self-represented, but retained counsel for oral argument. Counsel, however, failed to enter a notice of appearance. Respondent was represented by the Counsel to the Corporation Counsel of the City of New York. Petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to Article 78 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR), challenging the decision of the New York Health and Hospitals Corporation Personnel Review Board (Respondent) in affirming the Health and Hospital Corporation's decision to disqualify petitioner from appointment to the position of "special officer" under Examination No. 6090. Petitioner asks the Court to reverse this decision, thereby deeming petitioner qualified for the position to which he applied. Petitioner was pro se until the date of his Oral Argument in this matter. He was represented by counsel for oral argument.
A Kings Marijuana Possession Lawyer said that, respondent cross-moves the Court to dismiss the petition on the ground that the Personnel Review Board's decision was rationally based, and was not arbitrary, capricious or unlawful.
On October 16, 2009, petitioner applied for the position of "special officer" with the respondent hospital. The "special officer" position is designated as a Peace Officer position pursuant to New York Criminal Procedure Law Section 2.10. To be found eligible for this position, candidates must meet the requirements for Peace Officer status in New York State, which includes proof of good character. As such, respondent requires all applicants to reveal all arrests, convictions and pending charges. Consistent with this requirement, petitioner duly noted his record with specificity on his application for employment with the respondent.
As part of the application process, petitioner was subject to a background investigation by the New York City Department of Citywide Administrative Services (DCAS). Upon DCAS's recommendation, petitioner's application was denied on the basis of (1) his arrest and conviction record, and (2) his failure to accurately disclose his prior employment history. His appeal of DCAS' decision to the Personnel Review Board of The New York City Health and Hospitals' Corporation was denied by a decision dated July 22, 2011. Petitioner timely commenced his Article 78 Application on September 15, 2011.
Among the exhibits provided to the Court by the parties is a document entitled "NOTICE OF EXAMINATION" "Special Officer (HHC)". This document contains detailed descriptions of "What the Job Involves", "salary" and "How to apply". The applicant is instructed to reveal "ALL arrests, convictions and pending charges that have occurred in your lifetime. This includes any materials sealed, expunged, or set aside under Federal or State law...”
The document also lists the factors which may be cause for disqualification: "(a) conviction of an offense, the nature of which indicates lack of good moral character or disposition toward violence or disorder, or which is punishable by one of more years of imprisonment; (b) two or more convictions of an offense, where such convictions indicate disrespect for the law; (c) discharge from employment, where such discharge indicates poor behavior or inability to adjust to discipline; (d) dishonorable discharge from the Armed Forces."
A Kings Criminal Lawyer said that, a copy of portions of petitioner's application were attached as "exhibits" both by petitioner and respondent, along with several other exhibits including a New York City Police Department "Criminal History Search Based Solely on NYPD Records within the Environs of New York City Only". Petitioner's fingerprints are found on this document and the document is dated August 29, 2008. After a search based upon petitioners fingerprints the following is noted on said document: "Criminal Record: no". At the top of this document is found this statement: "Good Conduct Certificate". Petitioner also attached a copy of a "Certificate of Merit" presented to him by "The Criminal Court of the State of New York" in recognition of outstanding and dedicated service to the People of the State of New York during the BLIZZARD of 1996". Several other letters and documents are also provided by petitioner and respondent and will be referred to when relevant.
The issue in this case is whether the Personnel Review Board's decision was irrationally based, and was arbitrary, capricious or unlawful.
According to New York Practice Law and Rules (CPLR), in an Article 78 proceeding, an administrative agency's decision may be disturbed by the courts if that decision was arbitrary, capricious or erroneous as a matter of law. CPLR § 7803(3). A reviewing court should look to the "whole record to determine whether there exists a rational basis to support the findings upon which the agency's determination is predicated". Whether a rational basis exists turns on whether the administrative determination is supported by substantial evidence, which is defined as such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact." In the instant matter, the Personnel Review Board for New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation based its decision upholding petitioner’s disqualification for the position of Special Officer on the following grounds: 1. "DCAS recommended the disqualification of the Appellant, largely due to his record of arrests and convictions for unlawful possession of marijuana'. 2. "His termination from prior similar employment." 3. "His omission of this prior termination when he applied for exam 6090".
A thorough review by the Court of all submissions in this matter and a search of the record indicates that all three of these grounds for disqualification are factually incorrect.
On petitioner’s employment application for the position of "special officer" he lists an arrest in 1977 for allegedly possessing a "gravity knife" in the glove compartment of his car. He pled guilty to disorderly conduct, and was "conditionally discharged" and his record sealed. Petitioner was 19 years old at the time of his arrest. Petitioner's next arrest which resulted in a conviction occurred on April 2, 2000, approximately 23 years after his first arrest in 1977. Petitioner was charged with possession of a controlled substance, to wit, marijuana possession, and pled guilty to disorderly conduct. Petitioner was conditionally discharged and the charge was later dismissed and the record sealed. These are petitioner's only convictions. Petitioner was also arrested on criminal possession of marijuana 11/10/98, 8/18/99, 2/17/01, 3/9/04 and 9/8/06. Each of these arrests was dismissed. The date of his employment application for the position of "special officer" was October 16, 2009 - more than three years after his last arrest (September 8, 2006) for unlawful possession of marijuana, a charge which was dismissed on October 5, 2006.
On August 29, 2008, the NYPD's Public Inquiry & Request Section issued a "Good Conduct Certificate" to the petitioner and found that he had no criminal record based upon his fingerprint submission for a Search of his Criminal History. Petitioner also pointed out in his petition, affidavit and exhibits that between his first arrest in 1977 and his conviction in 2000, he had no arrests during this twenty-three year period.
Thus, petitioner had one arrest for possession of marijuana which resulted in a plea and conviction for disorderly conduct. The conviction was later dismissed and the record sealed. All of petitioner's other arrests for marijuana possession resulted in dismissals.
As regarding character and background for the position of Special Officer, HHC, among the factors listed as reasons for being found unqualified as mentioned above, are convictions not arrests. The only convictions to be considered are those which indicate lack of good moral character, or a disposition toward violence or disorder. Petitioner's convictions which could indicate a lack of good moral character occurred in 1977 and 2000. These convictions are separated by 23 years, and the last in 2000 occurred 9 years before petitioner's application. Both of these convictions were conditionally discharged and the record sealed. Petitioner has never been sentenced to a period of incarceration.
Moreover, New York Correction Law §753: "Factors to be considered concerning a previous criminal conviction; presumption" states as follows at "2." "In making a determination pursuant to section seven hundred fifty-two of this chapter, the public agency or private employer shall also give consideration to a certification of relief from disabilities or a certificate of good conduct issued to the applicant, which certificate shall create a presumption of rehabilitation in regard to the offense or offenses specified therein." Petitioner presented his Certificate of Good Conduct at his appeal and hearing before the Personnel Review Board, and no evidence was offered by respondent to rebut this presumption. Furthermore, petitioner obtained a second "Good Conduct Certificate dated April 19, 2011 and was again found to have "no criminal record" by an NYPD search based upon petitioner's fingerprints in 2011."
Where a court finds that a respondent has disqualified a petitioner by failing to address the eight obligatory Correction Law factors and give proper consideration to evidence of petitioner's rehabilitation and good conduct including his Certificate of Relief from Disabilities, or Certificate of Good Conduct, the respondent's decision to disqualify has been found to be arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion.
In the instant matter, petitioner has two convictions for disorderly conduct one for possession of a "gravity knife" when petitioner was 19 years old, and a second for possession of marijuana over 23 years later. Both of these convictions resulted from petitioner pleading guilty to disorderly conduct. All of petitioner's other arrests were dismissed with the exception of these two convictions for which petitioner pled guilty to a lesser offense and was never sentenced to a term of incarceration Moreover, §752 and 753 address only convictions and not arrests. Although respondent maintains that petitioner had two convictions for marijuana possession, respondent is incorrect. Petitioner had two convictions for disorderly conduct, only one of which resulted from an arrest for unlawful possession of marijuana, and both of which were conditionally discharged.
New York Corrections Law Article 23A: Policy Considerations: "Article 23A of the Correction Law was enacted in 1976 in an attempt to eliminate the effect of bias against ex-offenders which prevented them from obtaining employment. Studies establish that the bias against employing or licensing ex-offenders was not only widespread but particularly unfair and counterproductive."
The Legislature has determined that, as a general rule, it is unlawful for a public or private employer to deny an application for a license or employment on the ground that the applicant was previously convicted of a crime. This general prohibition advances the rehabilitation and reintegration goals of the Penal Law. Furthermore, barring discrimination against those who have paid their debt to society and facilitating their efforts to obtain gainful employment benefits the community as a whole. The direct relationship' exception and the unreasonable risk' exception to this general rule may be resorted to only upon a consideration of each of the eight factors enumerated in Correction Law § 753.
The second two reasons respondents have given as reasons for petitioner's disqualification are both factually incorrect. Petitioner has never been terminated from a position, and he revealed his entire employment history in his application for employment including the fact that he had been "written up" for having left his security guard station without permission.
Finally, the State of New York and this court practice a policy in favor of rehabilitation and encourages the employment of persons with a prior conviction as set forth in New York Correction Law Article 23A.3
Accordingly, the Court finds that the determination of respondent is arbitrary, capricious, and erroneous as a matter of law. While basing its finding that petitioner was disqualified on grounds that were factually incorrect and in error, respondent also failed to specify the bearing, if any, that petitioner's convictions, which have had on his fitness or ability to perform such duties or responsibilities and the position at issue called for. The Court finds that since all the factors enumerated in Correction Law §753 were not properly addressed and considered, the determination that petitioner must be disqualified is arbitrary, capricious, and erroneous as a matter of law.
Accordingly, the court ordered that, the instant Article 78 petition is granted to the extent that the July 22, 2011 denial by respondent of petitioner's application for employment as a security guard is hereby annulled; and it is further ordered, that the instant matter is remanded to respondent for a new determination based upon the": eight factors enumerated in Correction Law §753(1); and, the statutory presumption of rehabilitation with respect to a Certificate of Good Conduct, pursuant to Correction Law §753(2).
↧
↧
The People argue that the defendant by running away from the Sergeant created probable cause to arrest for resisting arrest
This is a proceeding wherein the defendant is charged with two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and disorderly conduct. On 26 July 2007, a Mapp-Huntley was held before this court. At this hearing Sgt....
↧
AR: General motion to suppress and hearing didn't preserve issue raised on appeal
A general motion to suppress did not preserve the specific question of legality of a DUI roadblock that stopped the defendant. The pretext argument for the roadblock was not litigated in the trial court. Snow v. State, 2013 Ark. App. 494 (September 18, 2013):
[...] Read more!
↧
WASHINGTON SHOOTER MURDERS 12 PEOPLE IN “SECURE” LOCATION LEAVING HINDSIGHT CONSIDERATION ABOUT HIS MENTAL HEALTH
It may have happened in Washington, and this may be the Boston criminal lawyer blog, but we have seen such stories from all around the country…including Massachusetts.
I am referring to the former Navy reservist, 34-year-old Aaron Alexis (hereinafter, the “Shooter”). The Shooter is dead now, of course. Along with at least 12 other people after yesterday’s mass murder at what was supposed to be a secure military facility.
As is typical, chaos ensued during and just after the shootings. At first, there were thought to be co-conspirators. There was a rush to lock down part of the nation’s capital. Witness accounts had to be taken.
The chaos at the facility, the Washington Navy Yard, started just after 8 a.m. Civilian employees described a scene of confusion as shots erupted through the hallways of the Naval Sea Systems Command headquarters, on the banks of the Anacostia River a few miles from the White House and about a half-mile from the Capitol.
“I heard three gunshots, pow, pow, pow, straight in a row,” said Patricia Ward, a logistics management specialist from Woodbridge, Va., who was in the cafeteria on the first floor when the shooting started. “About three seconds later, there were four more gunshots, and all of the people in the cafeteria were panicking, trying to figure out which way we were going to run out.”
Police officers who swarmed the military facility exchanged fire with the Shooter. Finally, he was shot to death, law enforcement officials said, but not before a dozen people were killed and several others, including a city police officer, were wounded and taken to local hospitals.
Officials now opine that the Shooter drove a rental car to the base and entered using his access as a contractor and shot an officer and one other person outside Building 197, the Sea Systems Command headquarters. Inside, he is believed to have made his way to a floor overlooking an atrium to take aim at employees eating breakfast below.
And that is when the shooting began.
It would appear that the Shooter came looking to leave many victims. Three weapons were found on him: an AR-15 assault rifle, a shotgun and a semiautomatic pistol, a senior law enforcement officer said. It was unclear whether he had brought all the guns with him, another law enforcement official said, or if he had taken one or more of them from his victims.
Officials said they were still searching for a motive as they asked the public for help by posting pictures of the Shooter on the F.B.I. Web site.
Navy officials said late Monday that the Shooter had worked as a contractor in information technology. A spokesman for Hewlett-Packard said that he had been an employee of a company called The Experts, a subcontractor on an HP Enterprise Services contract.
Navy officials said the Shooter had been given a general discharge in 2011 after exhibiting a “pattern of misbehavior,” which officials declined to detail. The year before, he was arrested in Fort Worth for discharging a firearm after an upstairs neighbor said he had confronted her in the parking lot about making too much noise, according to a Fort Worth police report.
The police in Seattle, where the Shooter had once lived, said Monday that they had arrested him in 2004 for shooting the tires of another man’s vehicle in what he later described to detectives as an anger-fueled “blackout.”
Since then, more reports have been released indicating the Shooter’s emotional issues, including post traumatic stress disorder, sleeplessness and the hearing of voices in his head.
There is now a call for investigations as to how the Shooter could have accessed the opportunity to perpetrate the atrocity. Attention is being paid to the question of security.
It might be time to spend a couple of minutes on the question of how seriously we take issues pertaining to mental health.
Attorney Sam’s Take On Mental Health Time Bombs And Crime
Let’s face it.
One thing that history has shown us is that if there is someone who is absolutely determined to kill someone or someones, perhaps especially if they are disturbed individuals, unafraid to die they are likely to find a way. We can talk all about security as much as we like. Remember, the Shooter had access to the locations…he worked there.
This blog has decried the fact that our society seems to take the “law and order” approach to problems. Kids misbehaving? Drag them into court and maybe lock them away. Someone is emotionally disturbed, commits a crime and lives? Lock them up until a jury says that they are crazy. Someone is emotionally disturbed, commits a crime and dies? Let’s look at security and how we could’ve locked them up.
The problem is two-fold.
One problem is that the approach does not really prevent similar happenings. How many school shootings do we need to show us that?
The other problem is that it criminalizes mental illness. Why not, instead of an approach which attaches incarceration and criminal records to treatment, actually try to help the person, while not stigmatizing them for the rest of their lives?
In my practice, I have seen many people who simply appear “weird” and do questionable things or have “dangerous” thoughts. The moment they start to look for help, they run the risk of destroying what slim choices they still have in their future.
Why?
Again, two reasons that I have found to be most prevalent.
One is the omni-present need for institutions and law enforcement agencies to cover their backsides should something go wrong. Better to lock someone up than let them out and take a chance that things will not go well. Of course, the most dangerous part of this is that we, as a society, applaud those who take this approach and indicate that they should move up to higher political office.
The other reason is that it is simply easier. Human beings are complicated. They are messy (which, by the way, is one of the reasons the criminal justice system is messy). Now, when you add mental illness into the situation, it becomes even messier. Even more difficult.
The Boston Criminal Lawyer Blog has a few stories coming up which may surprise you in this regard. In the meantime, though, let me break down another danger of this approach for you.
Have you or a loved one ever acted odd? Ever done something that, in retrospect, was a result of what we often call a “brain fart”? Do you know anyone who has mental illness?
If so…do you suppose that this “safer” approach of criminalizing, establishing a criminal record for and locking away folks such as you or your loved one will help the situation?
Rest assured…as “safe” as you might think you are because you “know” you or the loved one will not hurt anybody…many of these other folks thought that too.
Further, the powers that be will not share your confidence that you or your loved one are either “different” or “safe”.
The “safe” approach has become policy.
A policy that is politically rewarded.
On Friday, let’s venture deeper into the darker side of mental health and deranged ideas.
To read the original story upon which this blog is based, please go to http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/17/us/shooting-reported-at-washington-navy-yard.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 and http://www.boston.com/news/nation/2013/09/18/mother-navy-yard-shooter-very-sorry/iozR5zThrrx3uiSsfYiUbI/story.html
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
