Mr. Lott tried vacate his conviction in 2018 based on exonerating DNA results, but former District Attorney Paul Smith opposed the motion. Instead, on the eve of Mr. Lott’s evidentiary hearing, the DA offered only to modify Mr. Lott’s sentence, which would have released him from prison but kept the conviction on his record. Mr. Lott accepted the agreement on July 9, 2018. In doing so, Mr. Lott was freed after spending 35 years in prison for a crime that he didn’t commit- with 10 of those years being served AFTER the legal system knew that he didn’t commit the crime. That’s a legal system, not a justice system.
“Former District Attorney Smith’s opposition to the irrefutable evidence of Mr. Lott’s innocence was a blatant miscarriage of justice,” said Barry Scheck, Innocence Project’s co-founder and special counsel. “This unwillingness to acknowledge the truth in addition to the systemic factors at play in Mr. Lott’s wrongful conviction cost him 35 precious years — and have plagued other wrongful conviction cases in Ada for decades.”
It’s cases like this that force me to oppose the death penalty. The cops, the prosecutor, the judges, they all work for the same employer. It is virtually certain that some people have been executed for crimes that they didn’t commit. If we as a society execute one innocent person, we are all collectively guilty of murder. That is why I remain opposed to the death penalty- the system is flawed, designed to reward those employees of the government for convicting people of crimes, whether or not the convicted person actually committed them.
In this case, they took his life from him, or at least the part that counts, nearly as certainly as if they had killed him.
A little known fact outside of the nursing profession is that there is a lot of infighting and mudslinging in the nursing field. Nurses who work in different areas of the hospital have this “circle the wagons” mentality.
Each of the units in the hospital views themselves as being better than the rest: surgical, endoscopy, the ICU, all of them.
The medical floor is where many nurses get their start, and it is viewed as one of the areas of the hospital that require the lowest level of skill and proficiency. It’s for this reason that they struggle to be respected by other units.
Labor and delivery are seen by most of the hospital as simply wanting to play with babies. The ICU are seen as the neat freaks, the ones who have OCD and simply MUST have everything perfectly in place.
However, there is one almost universal truth- the Emergency department is seen as being the cowboys. They aren’t as methodical, often improvising, adapting, and overcoming obstacles with little regard for tradition or propriety in their quest to stabilize patients. That’s why this is funny:
To say that some nurses simply HATE nurses in the emergency department is an understatement. An even larger sin amongst those particular nurses is to have begun your career as a paramedic. The nurses who dislike the RNs in the ED reserve an all new level of hate for nurses who used to be paramedics. They (paramedics) are viewed by these nurses as being knuckle-dragging Neanderthals’ who have no business in a hospital.
The odd part is that many nurses (25% to 80%) in the ED originally started their careers as paramedics. It’s a natural progression for them, because the same skills that make them good paramedics also make them good nurses. These former medics are known as great critical thinkers, improvisers, and they usually excel at starting IV lines that other nurses can’t get. Beginning your career starting IVs in the back of a moving truck, it’s a skill that isn’t unlearned.
I had a nursing instructor tell me that REAL nurses start IV’s in the hand, and never in the crook of the elbow, because it’s uncomfortable for the patient, and movement of the elbow can cause issues with IV pumps. I pointed out to her that some drugs like IV contrast dye, and Adenocard must go into that location, so saying “never” is not correct. The unfortunate thing is that she was one of my nursing instructors, she’s a screaming liberal, and since I apparently have a biological inability to shut my mouth when I think I’m correct, it cost me some grief during RN school. The same issue is what chased me out of getting my masters degree a decade ago.
It didn’t help that we had to write a paper on this cartoon, microaggressions, and how vulnerable populations must feel in the face of white privilege. I hate it, but liberal professors are the gatekeepers. There were two things that made life hard for me. Being right, and not being able to back down when I know that I’m right. That’s why I am struggling to finish my BSN. I already have Seven college degrees, with two of them being Bachelor’s degrees. It’s the nitpicky BS that I struggle with.
Misplace a comma in ONE of the APA references in your bibliography, and you just handed them the excuse to take the paper you spend two weeks on down to an 88% ‘B’ grade. I just don’t have patience for that kind of ticky-tack BS. It doesn’t help that I am in classes where I am decades older than some of my instructors.
I will make it, because I learned my lesson ten years ago, but it still burns my ass that these professors make mouthing the commie line a required rite of passage to get a degree.
Law enforcement is advising Federal Firearms Licensees of expanding interest of criminal networks’ intention to utilize straw purchasers in acquiring large caliber firearms such as .50 caliber and/or belt fed rifles within the next 60 days. This activity is anticipated to occur throughout the entire State of Texas. Please contact your local ATF office if any suspicious, attempted or finalized purchases occur.
So what do you think will be the next rule change to come out of this?
LAPD has sent out a memo notifying officers that they can no longer carry any handgun magazines with a capacity of more than 18 rounds, on or off duty.
It seems to be an oddly specific number, until you remember that the LAPD has been armed with the FN 509 MRD-LE for over a year and a half now, a pistol which is being sold by FN for LEO use only. The FN 509 is considered by California to be safe for cops to own by the state, but not for the subjects that they rule over. The FN 509 can accept FN’s 24 round magazines, which is where I think that this memo came from.
The handgun is being restricted by FN to Law Enforcement only, but the only differences that I can see with this handgun and the FN 509 MRD are that the LE version has a flat trigger face, the LE handgun ships with 17 round magazines, while the “normal” version’s magazine capacity is only 15 rounds, 10 in CA.
I also want to note that LAPD uses the Speer G2 ammo as their duty ammo. I have blogged on that ammo before, it’s quality stuff. (They used to use Winchester SXT)
Two of Merrick Garland’s relatives were murdered in the Holocaust. Garland says his family’s history is the reason he devoted his life to upholding the rule of law. https://t.co/60gPelcNMCpic.twitter.com/rVzqB2zBK8
This post is about a video of a police interaction in Virginia, which is included below. Let me say that the cops really need to stop being total dumbasses, because I really don’t want this blog to become an anti-cop blog. It just seems like they can’t help themselves. They are just hiring tyrannical dumbasses to be cops.
Here is the basis of the video that follows:
Police received at least one call complaining about shots fired in a rural area. The vehicle involved was reported to be a red pickup truck.
A deputy sees a vehicle matching that description and initiates a traffic stop. By the deputy’s own admission, he is not aware if the shots were fired in the vicinity of houses or a road, meaning that he has no idea whether or not a crime has been committed. In other words, there is no reasonable suspicion to believe that the driver of the red truck has committed a crime, because you can’t even point to a crime that you would suspect him of, thus making the traffic stop illegal. Note that Virginia law is plain on this:
Any law enforcement officer may detain any person whom the officer encounters under circumstances creating a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime, and require the person to identify himself. Any person so detained shall identify himself by giving his full legal name, but may not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of any law enforcement officer.
Here is what happened next:
Note that the deputy claims “You can’t shoot within so many feet of a home,” but by his own admission, he has no idea how far away any homes are from the location where the shooting was talking place.
I believe the cop is wrong about what the law says. For starters, the law in Virginia says that you can’t discharge a firearm on public land, AT a building, across or from a road, from a vehicle, or in a reckless manner. None of which has been alleged here. Watch this second, longer video of the traffic stop, and the second cop says that merely operating a vehicle on the roadways of Virginia constitutes reasonable suspicion to initiate a traffic stop and demand to see the ID of the driver.
He says that “Evidence of a crime isn’t reasonable suspicion. You need to get a better lawyer.” The cop is clearly wrong. The law says:
A police officer may have reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed if based on all of the facts and circumstances of the situation, a reasonable police officer would have the same suspicion.
The cop is not being reasonable, which is the standard here. He can’t even articulate which law, if any, he believes is being broken. How can a police officer believe that this man is committing a crime, when he can’t even point to a crime that he reasonably believes is being committed? The statement that merely driving down the road constitutes reasonable suspicion is extremely incorrect.
He says that I don’t have to point to a crime to initiate a traffic stop. This fucking dumbass of a cop then proves beyond a doubt that he doesn’t know what he is talking about when he admits that this isn’t a Terry stop. A Terry stop gets its name from the Supreme Court case, Terry v. Ohio. In a Terry stop, if a police officer has a reasonable suspicion that an individual is armed, engaged, or about to be engaged, in criminal conduct, the officer may briefly stop and detain an individual for a pat-down search of outer clothing. Since, under this cop’s own admission, this isn’t a Terry stop, then he has no reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed.
So instead, the cops go to the man’s property and arrest the father on a trumped up charge to teach the property owner (the son in the red pickup) a lesson. The cops went to the man’s property and arrested the man’s father because, in the cop’s own words, “He ain’t gonna curse me out.” This is a clear violation of the First Amendment rights of the father.
NOTE: A look at Sussex county court records shows that the father, Robert Steven Huffman, has been charged with a violation of 18.2-416, abusive language to another, a 3rd degree misdemeanor. His next hearing is December 18.
The Supreme Court of Virginia has limited the sweep of § 18.2-416 to abusive language that has “a direct tendency to cause acts of violence by the person to whom, individually, [the language is] addressed.” Mercer v. Winston, 214 Va. 281, 199 S.E.2d 724, 726
So is the police officer alleging that the man saying “Leave, get the hell off of my property” is language that would tend to cause him to commit acts of violence? No, this officer is a tyrannical asshole.
Again, remember that no crime has been alleged to cause the police to even be on the property in the first place. It isn’t a crime to shoot guns on private property. The cop keeps saying “We have complaints in the area of shots fired, and this is an open investigation,” but as we have pointed out already, there is no investigation, because there has been no crime alleged. In my opinion, the cops made the arrest to lure the property owner (the son in the red pickup) to an ambush.
The man in the pickup arrives on his property, and the cop arrests him because he won’t provide ID to prove that he is the owner of the property. Refer back to the law, above. The man doesn’t have to show that he owns his own land, which would mean that he has to prove his innocence. That’s not how this works.
This is a bad cop. The second cop who stood there and told him to “just comply” is also a bad cop. Why? Because he saw this illegal behavior and did nothing. He is also a dumbass that doesn’t understand the laws that he is supposed to be enforcing.
I hope they get a good lawyer, and I hope that they sue the Sheriff’s department of Sussex County. I also would like to reiterate that qualified immunity needs to go away. In the meantime:
A PA sheriff’s office has lost 185 firearms. Of that total, 76 of them are lost police service weapons. The other 109 of them are weapons that were confiscated and not returned. I wonder what the odds are that they are sitting in some cop’s house. If an FFL holder lost 185 firearms, would they still have an FFL?
Every state has a law allowing individuals to be involuntarily committed in the event that they are in such a mental state that they are an imminent danger to themselves or others. In Florida, it’s called a Baker Act, and it allows a doctor or law enforcement officer to hold a person for up to 72 hours for the purposes of medical and psychological evaluation, if that professional reasonably believes that they are a threat to themselves or others.
My last day at work, I placed a woman under a Baker Act after she told me that she had ingested several handfuls of pills in an attempt to commit suicide. If you do this, your documentation had better be able to stand up in court. Because if you misuse this power, you will and should get your ass sued. It’s one of the reasons why I carry a million dollars worth of malpractice insurance, and why that policy includes coverage of my legal bills.
But what happens if you are a cop with qualified immunity? What if you decide to misuse this power by lying in order to place an ex-girlfriend on an involuntary hold, then use force to enforce it? That’s exactly what Pennsylvania State Trooper Ronald Davis did. One of her friends got it all on video:
As I was watching this, I was thinking to myself, “What if this was my sister, or a close friend? Would I stand by and allow this, while just filming? Or would I use force to protect her from this felony domestic battery?” If I *did* intervene, would I go to jail? Would other cops automatically take this cop’s side, and either arrest or ventilate me? I think we know the answer to both of those questions. If you are a cop and are reading this- This is what you should be asking yourself:
This cop is obviously a bad cop. Would I arrest someone for intervening in this situation? What if that person was holding the cop at gunpoint? Would I shoot them for pointing a gun at a cop? Even if it was being done to stop the officer’s felonious battery of an innocent woman? If so, can you still call yourself a good cop?
Something needs to be done. For starters, I think that qualified immunity should be eliminated. Let cops get personally sued into oblivion for stuff like this. They can go out and get malpractice insurance, just like medical professionals do.
Second, I think that cops should have *every* use of force judged by a panel of at least 7 people, and that panel should consist of: A judge, two current or retired police officers, and 4 citizens who are not convicted felons. That panel would have the power to fine police officers or refer them to the Grand Jury and suspend their LEO certification pending completion of the Grand Jury’s deliberations. The judge is there to advise the others on the meaning of the law, and only gets a vote in the event of a tie.
There are those who say that I “hate cops” because I disagree with their actions when they screw up. Well, here is a time when I think that the police were completely justified in their use of force:
A brawl broke out at the San Bernardino County high school on Friday night. Deputies arrived and fired pepper spray balls into the crowd. A girl, 16, decided to try and grab the deputy's pepper ball launcher, and when that happened another officer grabbed her and threw her to… pic.twitter.com/LPqwWXEuvZ
I don’t care that she is a girl. I don’t care that she is, at 16 years of age, still legally a child. She entered into a fight with a police officer and attacked him in an attempt to disarm him and acquire possession of his weapon. The police must presume that, should she gain control of this weapon, it will be used against them.
For that reason, the officer was entirely within the bounds of being reasonable when he threw her to the ground. This is a clear case of self defense.
