"And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God"
-- Micah 6:8

"The duty of the prosecutor is to seek justice, not merely to convict."
-- American Bar Association Standard 3-1.2(c)

"There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia."
--Pope Benedict XVI, June 2004

Thursday, February 07, 2013

Southern Poverty Law Center Incites Terrorism

Via Metro Weekly comes the story of the very first conviction under the post-9/11 D.C. Anti-Terrorism Act.  Was it a muslim terrorist?  Or perhaps an IRA bomber targeting the British embassy?

Well, no, it was a homosexual activist Chick-Fil-A hater.
Floyd Lee Corkins II, the suspect in the August shooting at the Family Research Council (FRC) headquarters in Washington, pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court this morning to three felony charges, including a charge of terrorism under the District of Columbia's Anti-Terrorism Act of 2002.
Corkins, who faced up to 10 different charges related to the FRC shooting, pleaded guilty to charges of committing an act of terrorism while armed, becoming the first defendant to be charged and convicted under the statute, introduced soon after the 9/11 attacks, which cover criminal actions committed with the intent to ''intimidate or coerce a significant population of the District of Columbia or the United States.''
Corkins also pleaded guilty to two other counts: one of assault with intent to kill while armed, and another of interstate transportation of a firearm and ammunition.
Corkins could serve up to a maximum of 30 years in prison for the terrorism offense and the assault charge, and up to 10 years for the weapons-related charge. He remains held without bond as he awaits sentencing, which has been scheduled for April 29.
Corkins had served as a volunteer front-desk receptionist for The DC Center, the District's LGBT community center, but few of the other volunteers for the organization remember interacting with him.
According to the statement of offense, Corkins, of Herndon, Va., purchased a semiautomatic pistol from a store in Virginia on Aug. 9, 2012, and picked up the weapon the following day with the intent of shooting and killing as many employees at FRC headquarters as possible, targeting FRC because of its anti-gay views. On Aug. 13, Corkins rehearsed his planned trip to FRC headquarters, and returned to the gun store the following day for shooting practice. According to the government's evidence, on the morning of Aug. 15, Corkins rode Metrorail into the District and went into FRC headquarters at 801 G St. NW. To gain access to the building, he told security guard Leonardo Reno ''Leo'' Johnson, 46, of Washington, that he was interviewing as a prospective intern. Corkins then approached an unarmed Johnson, pulled the pistol from his backpack and pointed it at him. Johnson charged Corkins and the two struggled as Corkins fired three shots, striking Johnson in the arm. Despite his wounds, Johnson managed to subdue Corkins until Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) officers arrived. For those actions, Mayor Vincent Gray (D) awarded Johnson, who was unable to work for months following emergency surgery and the insertion of metal plates into his arm, with the inaugural Mayor's Medal of Honor at an Oct. 22 ceremony.
After being subdued by Johnson, Corkins stated, ''It's not about you,'' but about FRC's policies, making remarks to the effect of, ''I don't like these people, and I don't like what they stand for.''
Police later discovered two fully loaded magazine clips in Corkins's pants pockets, as well as a Metro card and a handwritten list of organizations: FRC and three other groups promoting socially conservative agendas. Corkins also had a box of 50 rounds of 9-millimeter ammunition in his backpack, as well as 15 individually wrapped sandwiches purchased from Chick-fil-A the day prior to the shooting.
According to statements made to the FBI, Corkins claimed he was a political activist. He also stated he intended to kill as many people as possible and smear the Chick-fil-A sandwiches into their faces. ''Chick-fil-A came out against gay marriage so I was going to use that as a statement,'' Corkins allegedly told investigators.
Investigators also reported that Corkins detailed the steps he took in planning the attack, saying he had been thinking about committing a similarly violent act for years, but had never carried one out. Had he not been stopped at FRC headquarters, he said, he planned to go down his list to the next organization and commit a similar shooting there.

The case is summed up well by The Other McCain:
 Who told Floyd Corkins that the Family Research Council was a leading opponent of the gay-rights agenda? Who convinced Floyd Corkins that opponents of the gay-rights agenda were evil people who need to die? Whoever they are, they’ve got blood on their hands:
After years of thinking it over, Floyd Corkins finally had a plan....

Corkins told Judge Richard Roberts that he hoped to intimidate gay rights opponents. . . .
“They endorse Chick-Fil-A and also Chick-Fil-A came out against gay marriage, so I was going to use that as a statement,” prosecutors quoted Corkins as telling investigators.
Guess what? The Southern Poverty Law Center — which did much to demonize the Family Research Center by listing them as a “hate” group — is embraced as a valuable partner by Eric Holder’s Justice Department. So, in effect, the Obama administration has given its imprimatur of approval to this terrorism against conservatives.
So while the SPLC cannot trace any violence to the FRC, they themselves have terrorist blood on their hands by their demonization of their cultural opponents.

Wednesday, February 06, 2013

If

So, as the Boy Scouts delays until the May the decision whether to cave to militant homosexuality, these words, first uttered in 1965, come to mind.

Tuesday, February 05, 2013

Adios...

Not a good idea to give the finger to the judge at your initial appearance.

And Water is Really Wet, Too

Study concludes that watching lots of porn reduces opposition to immoral lifestyles.

Or as one of the researchers, Paul Wright, of Indiana University put it,
Pornography adopts an individualistic, nonjudgmental stance on all kinds of nontraditional sexual behaviors and same-sex marriage attitudes are strongly linked to attitudes about same-sex sex...If people think individuals should be able to decide for themselves whether to have same-sex sex, they will also think that individuals should be able to decide for themselves whether to get married to a partner of the same-sex. Since a portion of individuals’ sexual attitudes come from the media they consume, it makes sense that pornography viewers would have more positive attitudes towards same-sex marriage.

It's a peculiar conceit of some that porn has no effect on individuals who consume it, even while billions are spent on advertising which is predicated upon the very common-sense observation that people are generally susceptible to influence from visual media.

It's been shown before that porn tends to erode relationships.  No surprise then that repeated exposure to homosexual activity in porn reduces the moral opposition to it, and by extension, to its elevation as a behavior appropriate to recognize as equal to heterosexual marriage.

Do Cops Lie on the Stand?

Answer: Some do, sometimes, just like every other witness.

Which is why this NY Times op/ed is so yawn-worthy. The Times asks, "As a juror, whom are you likely to believe: the alleged criminal in an orange jumpsuit or two well-groomed police officers in uniforms who just swore to God they’re telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but?" and then goes on to the gratuitous assertion that officers have an incentive to lie because departments stand to receive lots of grant money based on arrest data.

 What the author does not show is any actual evidence linking such grants to upward pressure for arrests, much less whether such pressure actually filters down to the level of the average cop on the beat. She also does not tell us if the grants award arrests or convictions. If arrests, there is no incentive to lie in court, since conviction rates would not affect police receiving the grants. Then, after gratuitously mentioning these grants as reasons why police lie, she lists several instances in New York City of police being caught lying, but in cases clearly having nothing to do with grant funding.

 Her intellectual method seems to be to throw lots of mud and see what sticks.

 No, the reality is that the average cop has little to no awareness of "meta-issues" like grant funding for their departments. The average cop who will lie on the stand is lying to protect his arrest. These officers are typically the ones who are very zealous, somewhat narrow-minded, very difficult to train out of habits they're convinced are the only right way to do the job; and whose ego is evidently so wrapped up in their work that they perceive losing a case as a personal affront to their worth as a police officer. Prosecutors and defense counsel have seen this type of officer. Fortunately, they are not typical, and most officers are truthful: note--not robots who can flawlessly recount events which happened months ago. A clever defense attorney will typically ask about minor details of these events specifically to illustrate to a judge or jury that the officer does not possess a universally complete or infallible memory.

 The advent of video technology in the public domain, in patrol cars and in drug buy cases has tended to reinforce the instinct to truthfulness of this vast majority of officers.

 I don't know about New York State, but in Virginia juries are rightly instructed that witnesses are witnesses, and a police officer is not entitled to some presumptive "extra" credibility as a witness. The fact remains, however, that in a swearing match situation between a criminal defendant, often impeached the moment he takes the stand by a record of felonies and what we quaintly call in Virginia "crimes of moral turpitude" (i.e., lying, cheating, or stealing) and a police officer who has no inherent credibility problem, the officer will usually be the more believable witness. Yet even then, every trial attorney can relate a situation where a criminal defendant has won the swearing contest for whatever reason.

 So please, NY Times: there is no crisis of police lying, and every jury and judge in the country understands that some officers sometimes lie (or more commonly, omit some fact favorable to the defense). Until we repeal the doctrine of Original Sin, we will have an imperfect system that relies on witness testimony.

 Take a deep breath and get over it.