Monthly Archives: June 2009

Oklahoma State Trooper Will Not be Charged for Assaulting EMT

Dumbasses and Authoritarians, Multimedia, Police Watch

I dare say that any individual sans badge would be charged for putting his or her hands on the throat of an EMT. Click here to read the rest of the story.

UPDATE I:

Once I figure out how to insert a pdf without hotlinking, I’ll have the official statements from both the EMT and the Ambulance driver. Until then, here is the link to the pdfs where I found them. (See Update II)

I realize that this only represents one side of the story (I’ll see if I can find the OK Highway Patrol statements as well) but what I found there was quite revealing. The EMT explained to the trooper that they were committing a felony for assaulting a Paramedic in the line of duty. The EMT was resisting arrest because he was doing his damn job attending to his patient! (remember the patient?)

It seems to me that the police could have handled this better. If the EMT and driver were really out of line, they could have waited to make their arrests once the patient was safely transported to the ER and under the care of the ER physicians.

UPDATE II:

I found the original news article that contains the statements from the EMT and the driver. According to another article from the same website, DA Max Cook has requested the trooper’s dash board cam video be released to the public (even though he has officially closed the investigation and opted not to file charges). The dashboard cam video should answer the question of who hit who first as well as other questions; I’ll post the video either here or in a separate post if or when it becomes available.

UPDATE III

Oklahoma State Trooper vs. EMT Follow-up

Stephen Littau
http://fpffressminds.blogspot.com/

US still likes the Constitution…sort of

Constitution

Ramussen has a poll on the public’s perception of the Constitution:

Eighty-three percent (83%) of voters nationwide rate the U.S. Constitution as good or excellent, and there is little public support for changing the document.

However, the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 44% believe the Constitution doesn’t place enough restrictions on the government. Only 10% hold the opposite view and say the nation’s governing charter places too many restrictions on government. Thirty-eight percent (38%) say the balance is about right.
[…]
Despite the desire for more restrictions on government, 93% of Americans say they would vote for the Constitution if it was on the ballot today.

Sixty-six percent (66%) say that no changes are needed in the document while 27% see a need for minor changes. Four percent (4%) believe major changes are required, and one percent (1%) want to scrap the document and start over again.

Too bad the meaning of the Constitution is often changed, misinterpreted or ignored by the judicial branch, which sidesteps the Article V process for amending the document.

Do Americans like the Constitution and it is written and can be easily understood or do they like the Constitution as they’ve learned it in government schools? That’s a question I’d like answered. You can sort of get your answer to that by this part of the poll:

Thirty-nine percent (39%) now believe that the legal system is too worried about individual rights over national security. Just 24% hold the opposite concern.

I don’t need to remind you what Ben Franklin said about trading liberty for securing.

Jason Pye
http://jasonpye.com/

Senator Feingold wants your input on health care

Activism

Senator Feingold is half of the team which brought us McCain-Feingold. His “Citizen Brief on Health Care” wants your input. It asks:

  1. How does the state of our current system affect you and your family?
  2. What reforms do you think are necessary to fix our health care crisis?
  3. Do you support the creation of a public plan option?

and then for some contact information.

Here’s the link.

Stephen Gordon
http://stephengordon.com

Quote of the Day: Sotomayor’s “Pro-State Bias” Edition

Civil Liberties, Constitution, Crime and Punishment, Dumbasses and Authoritarians, General, Individual Rights, Legal, Privacy, Quote of the Day, Supreme Court, The Bill Of Rights, Theory and Ideas

This article in The Boston Globe about Sonia Sotomayor ought to delight “tough on crime” conservatives and cause great concern for civil libertarians of all stripes. Prosecutors and law enforcement organizations give her high marks for her “aggressiveness” both as a prosecutor and as a judge.

One quote from the article stood out and seems to support what I wrote about her in a post I wrote last week:

“[Sotomayor] certainly doesn’t seem to have a pro-criminal bias and, if anything, because of her history, may have a pro-state bias.” – Law Professor and Sentencing Expert Doug Berman

I take exception to the “pro-criminal” part of the quote because in our system (at least in theory), individuals are innocent until proven guilty. Beyond this, I am troubled that a nominee for the Supreme Court would show a detectable bias toward either toward the prosecution or the defense. The only bias a judge should have should be toward the Constitution (the Bill of Rights in-particular).

This is one bias Judge Sotomayor appears not to have.

Stephen Littau
http://fpffressminds.blogspot.com/

Open Thread — Chrysler Storm A-Brewin’

Economics, Open Thread, Supreme Court

This news just came through the tubes —

A U.S. Supreme Court justice on Monday granted a request to put on hold the sale of bankrupt automaker Chrysler LLC to a group led by Italian carmaker Fiat SpA.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in a one-sentence order, said the orders of the bankruptcy judge allowing the sale “are stayed pending further order of the undersigned or of the court.”

This, of course, was prompted by some of the senior creditors — Indiana state worker pension funds — complaining about the raw deal they were getting in favor of the UAW, the government, and Fiat. I spoke on that here.

I’m pretty busy today, so I’ll leave this one to the commenters… This is a pretty good time for an open thread too, as a “one-sentence order” doesn’t give a lot of evidence for serious analysis… What does this mean, and what will the fall-out be? Are we headed to a Supreme Court rebuke of the Administration?

Brad Warbiany
https://thelibertypapers.org/
1 … 7 8 9 10 11 … 14