UPDATE:
I feel naive looking at this story two days later. I wasn’t following the Rittenhouse story until watching the trial, but I shoulda known that, since last fall, reactionaries were not only falling in love with Kyle but putting a lot of effort into demonizing his victims. And after 14 months of repeating their shit to each other, it became all true.
It’s always ugly, demonizing dead victims, with things they may or may not have done in the past but had nothing to do with why they were killed. As it turns out, none of Kyle’s three victims had a PERFECT record. But on the night he killed him, they were heroes, who were only trying to disarm a dangerous armed child.
Vern here, and WOW. When I temporarily changed my Facebook picture to a pic of Anthony Huber, the skateboarder who tried to stop Kyle Rittenhouse’s rampage in Kenosha and was killed by Kyle for his pains, I wasn’t expecting the reaction – mostly from my old friends who are some kind of conservative, or libertarian, or Trumpies, all of which have sadly started to become indistinguishable.
These folks are all excited by the verdict, but also angrier than ever – does this mean it’s okay for them to go out and shoot any protesters they get a bad feeling about? I know many of these people have guns, some have an arsenal. Yeah, old friends of mine. It could be me or you they come out to shoot, next time there’s some outrage we need to protest. It won’t stop me, but it’ll probably stop a lot of people.
And it seems there’s a new accepted Q-like wisdumb, on the right, that all three victims of Rittenhouse were some kinds of horrible child rapists or something. It’s untrue of course, but it helps them justify Kyle’s killings and maiming. And it’s also just like all the kneejerk apologists of police killings – the ones where the cop doesn’t even know the guy he’s shooting, but the attempt is made to justify it after the fact because, maybe at some point four years ago that guy kicked someone’s dog. Just like that – it’s okay that Kyle killed all those protesters because they are child rapists, even though he had no way of knowing that, and it also happens to be mostly false.
[SNOPES, Sept. 2020, on the online campaign to smear Rittenhouse’s victims.]
Too much madness, and fueled by anonymous shit they pass around on social media. Well, here’s something *Greg* found on social media today, and I’m trying to find the original source of it, but at least it has the ring of truth and sanity. It’s prefaced “From a military legal worker” so lemme find a pic of a military legal worker, and then let’s hear from them:
I’m seeing a lot of ignorance and misinformation flying around about what happened in Kenosha, and I’m going to set the record straight from a professional legal position… as well as from a former military position. I’m going to explain some things from a more technical angle derived from my many years as a paralegal and from my experience working in federal criminal justice and prosecution.
Legally, if you are in the process of a commission of a crime, it negates your ability to claim self defense if you kill someone. As in, it can’t even be entered as your official defense in court. It is similar to getting rear-ended at a red light through zero fault of your own, but you were driving without a license or insurance. It automatically makes you at fault because you weren’t even legally allowed to be driving.
That 17 year old in Kenosha had committed two crimes and was not even legally allowed to open carry the rifle he used to shoot three people. This means that he legally cannot claim self defense.
Another key discussion is the Castle Doctrine. Some of you may be vaguely familiar with it, as it is what allows you to use deadly force when someone comes into your house unlawfully, etc. But there are some finer points most people don’t realize that you generally have to do some formal legal studies to know.
First, as soon as someone sets foot inside the threshold of your home uninvited that you believe intends to commit a crime, you can legally use deadly force and it is immediately considered self defense, even if they haven’t made any violent threats or actions towards harming you.
This is because in every instance outside your home, you are required to retreat and extricate yourself from a dangerous situation if possible. It is a legal mandate, not a suggestion. Your home is considered the final retreat point, and legally you should be safe in your “Castle.” There is nowhere else to retreat to, etc. This is why you are able to immediately use deadly force.
However, it is NOT to protect your property, it is for protecting your LIFE. And once the burglar, for instance, has left your home… the threat to your life is considered neutralized, and deadly force is no longer authorized. So if a burglar runs out the door and down the street with your TV, you are no longer allowed to shoot after them because they are not threatening your life. You call the police, you file a claim with your insurance, and you get a new TV. If you shoot a burglar in the back down the street, you can and should be charged with murder.
While you are out in PUBLIC, this means a lot of things obviously. It means that there is far more scrutiny and boxes that must be checked in order to claim self defense. You must be in IMMINENT danger of losing life and limb. Getting into an argument and feeling scared of being punched by an unarmed person? Not likely to be a situation where deadly force is authorized. You MUST retreat.
If someone shoots at you or pulls a knife on you in the street, that is deadly force and can be met with deadly force. But if the person is unarmed, you cannot shoot them because you’re afraid of a little scuffle. That is why Rittenhouse illegally shot the first protester, and it is one of the many reasons it cannot be considered self defense. The man threw a plastic bag with trash in it at him AND MISSED, and Rittenhouse shot him. He chased his victim and instigated a fight by brandishing and flagging people with his rifle, because he is an untrained idiot with a gun. The protester was not a threat, and even if he was, all he had to do was retreat back to the police line.
He rushed at protesters with a gun drawn to pick a fight, and people are acting as if he were just there to keep the peace.
He fired INTO A CROWD, and it’s a miracle he didn’t hit more people. More people that hadn’t thrown a plastic bag. More people that were just trying to protest police brutality, which is a real issue in this country.
And then when he did finally run away, some more protesters attempted to subdue him after he had already murdered someone, he tripped, and shot two people trying to stop him from shooting others.
The fact that the police didn’t arrest him and take him into custody right then and there, even if they suspected it could be self defense, is a grave issue with that police department.
I could further dissect this situation, but for now I’m going to end with people passing around misinformation about the victims being “criminals so they deserved it.”
First, there are no actual records of Jacob Blake or the people shot by Rittenhouse being in the official sex offender’s registry. None of them raped a 14 year old girl years ago, that is complete fabrication being purposely spread by right wing extremist sites in order to try and justify the shootings.
Jacob Blake was indeed awaiting trial for sexual assault and trespassing, and did have a warrant for his arrest. It was not assault on a child, because that is a different charge with a different title. On the charging document, it would literally say that it was against a child. From what is publicly known, he allegedly broke into an ex girlfriend’s house and allegedly assaulted HER, but he is innocent until proven guilty, and still deserves his day in court. He could truly be innocent.
Rittenhouse’s victims do not appear to have had any record, and even if they did, he couldn’t have known that at the time. You cannot insist a shoot was justified AFTER the fact because “that person was a criminal.” Criminals have rights too, whether you like it or not, and it is enshrined in the very documents that built our country. If you don’t like the constitution and bill of rights, I don’t know what to tell you.
This is also not MY OPINION, this is literally how the criminal justice system and our laws work. I hold a degree in paralegal studies and served 8 years as an Army paralegal. I’ve worked for the criminal division in the Chicago US Attorney’s Office, and currently work in federal law enforcement. This is what I do for a living, and I am not pulling this out of my ass, and my knowledge is a culmination of working in the field and being passionate about justice for 16 years. I’d be happy to send you sources and opines and case law and statutes if you need it. I did not get this from “mainstream media,” and I am not brainwashed by the left. I’m an independent progressive.
May he face justice for what he did, and may we find a way to get on common ground before more fuses to this powder keg are lit.
This has been my Ted Talk.
UPDATE: It looks like this is the source, Larry Knight on Facebook, Sept. 2, 2020, eight days after the shooting. He should probably update it a little. https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=3658634894169269&set=a.185881134778013
Vern again. This is your Weekend Open Thread, so talk about this, that, or whatever, but maybe it’s time to start watching your back. I just got a long threatening anonymous e-mail for my Brandon Lopez story yesterday, and some big jerkoff pulled up to my car two days earlier and yelled, “Fuck you liberal, go eat a dick!” So there’s that…
*OK, OK….undoubtedly dusting off the old USC Sweatshirts was the kiss of death for
our Sadsack Trojans. They couldn’t rush, they couldn’t block and they couldn’t tackle.
The coaches that called for a Onside kick with 6.45 left in the game need to be fired
before the BYU game. Jaxson Dart completed several passes that weren’t counted
because of the first six awful calls by the REF’s. Those guys were either paid off, had
an ax to grind or had Chip Kelley make sizable donation to a Political Candidate of their choice. The 40 yard completed under Full Blitz being taken back was arguably the
worst of it. “Lineman Down Field” on another 23 yard gain. Please! Chip Kelly needs
to be a Coach in New Orleans. Meanwhile, we need to go after Urban Meyer….even
though he says laughingly, “not a chance!” So, Jaxson, not to worry we still love you, but will not wear those dreaded USC Sweatshirts until the CAL game!
As a lawyer who followed the Rittenhouse case, I can tell you that almost everything in this post is factually and legally incorrect. Let’s take a look at just one paragraph
“Legally, if you are in the process of a commission of a crime, it negates your ability to claim self defense if you kill someone. ”
Legally this is not true as a blanket statement. You can lose your right to self-defense, if you are the initial aggressor. I can envision many situations where a person is engaged in a crime, but does not lose his right to self-defense. Do you think that if a person has engaged in :shoplifting” he cannot defend himself if someone tries to kill him?
“As in, it can’t even be entered as your official defense in court. ”
And yet the judge allowed the defendant to present his claim of self-defense.
“It is similar to getting rear-ended at a red light through zero fault of your own, but you were driving without a license or insurance. It automatically makes you at fault because you weren’t even legally allowed to be driving.”
This is not only a bad analogy, but this statement of law is simply not true. see e.g. (https://juliejohnsonlaw.com/blog/car-accident-unlicensed-driver-need-know/ )
“That 17 year old in Kenosha had committed two crimes and was not even legally allowed to open carry the rifle he used to shoot three people.:
The judges dismissed as a matter of law the prosecutor’s claim that the defendant was unlawfully carrying the rifle. If you are going to argue that the judge was wrong, you need to back up the claim with an argument.
“This means that he legally cannot claim self defense.”
Again, this is not a legally correct statement of the law. see e.g. (“https://www.ammoland.com/2014/03/can-use-of-illegally-carried-gun-harm-claim-of-self-defense/#axzz7Cwe7nUEl . (unlawfully carrying a concealed weapon does not negate the assertion of self-defense, but may undermine the defendant’s credibility before the jury.)
Taking it one by one:
(1) Yes, your rephrasing of the point that was being made is more accurate. In the context of the topic under discussion, this is what I took the author’s point to be, and I was not inclined to edit it. Rittenhouse was the initial aggressor here — based on his false representation of why and how he was present with what I’ll call a quasi-automatic rifle at a protest where it still has not been shown that protesters were even so much as damaging property. (Go ahead, mention “Umbrella Man.”)
(2) Frankly, I would take this judge’s actions as a guide to what should and should not be admissible in court. Again, in context, in a case where one was an aggressor, having clear evidence (leaving aside whether that was the case here) that the defendant had “hit first” in precipitating the conflict, “he hit me second” would be admissible to the extent that it pertained to something like the proportionality of the response to the aggression, but lacking proportionality would it even offer an excuse, let along justification? And of course in this case the disproportionality was on Rittenhouse’s part.
(3) Yeah, the “not having a license” analogy is scrambled as well. I don’t do car accident cases, but my sense is that it might affect presumptions in a trial as well as perhaps some ability for the unlicensed/uninsured driver to collect some categories of damages, depending on state laws. I don’t see this as important or essential to the overall argument re Rittenhouse, though.
(4) So far as I can tell from additional reading, the judge decided that Rittenhouse’s being legally able to wield the gun depended on whether it was a “long rifle” or a “short rifle,” with the judge deciding that it was a long rifle (fair enough!) and that therefore under Wisconsin law he could legally carry it in public. The rebuttal to this seems to be that those laws specifically apply to underage persons being able to use long rifles when hunting under parental supervision — hunting non-human animals, I suppose I need to clarify — which is ludicrously inapplicable to this situation. I have not had time to verify this myself — nor at this point the inclination because of my horror at the result — but you or the commenter below may want to suss that out.
Your citing a quote from “ammoland.com” undermines your credibility with this particular juror, but I note that saying that it does not “negate” the assertion of self-defense is compatible with the idea that it may chop the tree down to a toothpick — especially in the Rittenhouse context.
Thanks for your comment; I’d be happy to continue this conversation with you.
” Rittenhouse was the initial aggressor here — based on his false representation of why and how he was present…”
What do you mean?
Even supposing Rittenhouse was the initial aggressor, once he fled he regained the right to self defense:
“https://law.justia.com/codes/wisconsin/2020/chapter-939/section-939-48/
939.48 Self-defense and defense of others.
…
(2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:
(a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person’s assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.
(b) The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant.”
The presence of this infant (the legal tern for a minor) on the scene, with an automatic-“style” rifle (which I’m told can fire three-round bursts with each pull rather than firing completely continuously), was based on a lie: that he was a trained medic there to those who needed aid, when he had in fact come there to shoot “looters.” That’s unlawful. Loosely swinging around and brandishing an apparent automatic weapon at people trying to have a peaceful protest — again, the widely publicized smashing of store windows with an umbrella was done by a provocateur who was a member of a right-wing militia — is likely to provoke others. Why the hell do you think the first guy tried to take away his gun? Because he was a menace — the only people shot that day were shot by him with a rifle that should never have been there in his hands. Believing that someone is going to take away your gun does not reasonably mean that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm: it’s the thinking of a legal infant who should not have been there with a killing machine.
If you’re 17, and you gain access to an “AR-style” rifle that you’re not allowed to carry in public, let alone after a city curfew, and you falsely claim that you’re serving as a medic when you’re not even remotely qualified to do so, and you falsely assert that you (as a minor) were specifically enlisted to protect certain properties, and on those bases you bring said AR-style rifle into a peaceful protest over the unjustifiable shooting of a Black male, and you are seen handling (and running with) the rifle in an unsafe manner, enough to attract the attention of a protester who wants to talk to you about what you’re doing … then you are being intentionally provocative by threatening those assembled with the prospect of easily arranged death.
It’s worth reviewing the complaint against Rittenhouse — or viewing it, if you haven’t read it — about the initial homicide:
I hope that that clears things up.
He did not “regain his right to self-defense” once he had fled because he still had a gun that he was not using safely and was capable of killing more people, which he in fact did. He tripped while holding the gun, but still posed a threat, and others including Huber (and later GG) were acting in defense of others who were under imminent threat of severe bodily harm thanks to this amok child. I don’t even know what you’re talking about when you say that someone who shot someone who had done nothing more than throw a plastic bag at him has “regained his right to self-defense.” Others had the right to make a citizens arrest at that point, because he had obviously not surrendered. Did he “give adequate notice to his or her assailant”? Well, his assailant was dead, and he still posed a threat. At a very minimum, withdrawing from the fight he had provoked would have required putting down his gun before he shot someone else — which he respectively didn’t and did.
He went looking for trouble and found it.
2 people are dead and there should be punishment rather than talk show interviews.
The news shows carrying on this miscarriage of justice for monetary gain are now the criminals.
The many outright lies in this piece are refuted here:
https://monsterhunternation.com/2021/11/21/fisking-one-of-the-many-dumb-hot-takes-on-the-rittenhouse-case/
Got this far at this point:
None of that is “fisking.” It’s hooting and hollering, aka agonistic behavior.
“Monster Hunter Nation”? Really? Who or what are the “monsters” being hunted, Tony? He mentions cows, but I don’t think that that’s who he’s talking about.
“Monster Hunter Nation” refers to the fans of a series of books – Monster Hunter International. Literally people who hunt monsters (vampires and other undead, lycanthropes, Lovecraftian old-God servants, and other things that creep in the night) for a living.
Ah- “cosplay!” Like Dan Chemical Lewinsky, but MAGA.
So Tony Rome is hunting old-God servants? Confusing, but not implausible. Try the Chthulu Squid!
I agree that it was ok for the judge not to allow the decedents and maulee to be called “victims” in court. It was not ok to simultaneously allow them to be called “rioters” or “looters.” Do you care to defend that?
I agree that the judge’s lambasting the prosecutors for their 5th Amendment argument, out of the hearing of the jury, was fine, as was his going after them again when they later tried to get cute. So I guess I’m not one of “those” libs.
He says: “That was embarrassing levels of prosecutorial misconduct. They didn’t deserve to be yelled at, they deserve to be disbarred, and then sent to jail.” You agree with that? On what basis?
He says: “The weapons charge was dropped because the Wisconsin law did in fact allow KR to carry that gun, in that way, in that place.” See my above reply to Paul. So far as I can tell, KR was not allowed to carry that gun “in that place” — which is the first place that I think that the judge was screwy. As for “in that way,” can we agree that he was required to comply with police orders and public safety orders? If so, then some of the fault falls upon the police for not telling him not to set fire to tinder by walking into a protest that he thought was a violent riot with a quasi- (that is, “AR-15-styled”) automatic weapon.
The putative “Fisker” says that he doesn’t think that the discussion of “The Castle Doctrine” has any place in this discussion. Do you agree? Hint: when you were in elementary school, you were probably taught “compare and contrast,” right?
I’ll move on to a new comment.
1. Is this Tony Rome the owner of HB’s shameful Basilico’s, the joint famed for banning masks and advertising against vaccines? If so, do your interests span from proudly harming public health to encouraging vigilantism, and can you help us understand the connection?
2. I hadn’t heard the term “fisking” in many years, I guess it’s still popular among the right wing, meaning to (putatively) refute an essay sentence by sentence or paragraph by paragraph, and if there’s not something there to refute, then just say something smartass. But the term refers to Robert Fisk, a great British journalist (who died last year) and outspoken critic of US policies in the Middle East, whose essays smartasses of 15 years ago loved to try to “refute.”
It’s pretty much accepted now that Fisk’s critiques – that our invasion of Iraq was based on lies and an all-around bad idea – were correct. The brain-dead followers of GWB’s foreign policy back then are now the apologists for anything Trumpy and racist. The common thread – authoritarianism.
Oh, really? The “Imbecilico’s” guy? Let’s ask him if someone goes into his restaurant, orders a meal, and then puts on a mask. Are they hustled out without paying?
(And, to get back on topic: if people come after them once they mask up — can they start shooting anyone that they think may has a gun?)
OK, he next has a couple more ego-boosting insults to someone in no position to argue back, which is also not “fisking.” Pretty lame, actually.
He says that the initial discussion of the Castle Doctrine is “kinda right, but dumbed down.” Doesn’t seem “dumbed down” to me. Can you explain how and where it is, because his comment seems sort of dumb.
Maybe the author comes from a “Duty to Retreat” state. California isn’t one. Penal Code Sec. 198.5 states: “Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that force is used against another person, not a member of the family or household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred. As used in this section, great bodily injury means a significant or substantial physical injury.”
But, that’s only a presumption — which means that it can be challenged in a given case — and applies only to forced entry, etc. I think that what’s missing from the fisker’s analysis is the doctrine of “proportionality” in self-defense. Can one taze someone, give them some drug to incapacitate them, and then pluck our their eyes flay all of the skin from their body?
Yes. NO! I meant “NO”! Of course not. Because even though one can shoot them to death given a realistic fear of serious bodily injury, somewhere among the tazing, eye-plucking, and flaying the fear of serious bodily injury from the person abated, and the force was in any event disproportionate.I’m going to stop there for now because reading this idiot and trying to treat his insults like arguments is painful. You pick up the arguments of his — and note that I’m somewhere near only 5% through — that you want me to address and I’ll try to do it. But I’m not going to wade through a trough of offal just to find the merely awful.
The only comment possible, is that you are an Idiot!
I suggest you actually watch the trial, talk to a real lawyer (not a TV legal “analyst”) about the legal arguments.
You might learn something!
For open thread:
For a few days it was looking like Supervisor Foley was going to be districted out of the Board altogether, as Do and Wagner wanted Do’s central district to swallow up Foley’s Costa Mesa.
But yesterday Do and Wagner were outvoted by the other 3, and we got “Map 5A1,” a long coastal district stretching from San Clemente to Costa Mesa (a town that doesn’t actually touch the coast) whose northeastern border is the 405 and then the 5. This map looks pretty reasonable and fair.
https://voiceofoc.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Screen-Shot-2021-11-22-at-4.17.36-PM.png
Thanks to Bartlett, Chaffee and Foley for choosing a good map. But it SHOULDN’T be up to politicians!
THIS means the grand showdown in district 5 will now be HARKEY (R) versus KATRINA FOLEY (D, incumbent.) That’s an EASY call!
Oh yeah. Mr. Kerr will have to drop out, I assume?
Mr. Kerr lives in the 4th District. In Brea. In La Habra. Well WTF, somewhere!
He lives in Coto de Habra. *Very* exclusive.
P.S. Lookit all those split up cities. What a sham.
Funny. After days of theorizing in this comments thread, I suddenly thought, “Wait, what if Coto de Caza, Kerr’s actual home, is in inland District 3 after all? Coto IS pretty far inland.
But after some study I determined that that PURPLE PENIS SHAPE penetrating the brown of district 3 IS Kerr’s Coto. Looks like someone made an effort to five-ify that purple penis.
So, like I thought, he’s either gotta drop out or split the Democrat vote with Katrina. (Being part of that Purple Penis of District 5 and all.)
I feel naive looking at this story two days later. I wasn’t following the Rittenhouse story until watching the trial, but I shoulda known that, since last fall, reactionaries were not only falling in love with Kyle but putting a lot of effort into demonizing his victims. And after 14 months of repeating their shit to each other, it became all true.
It’s always ugly, demonizing dead victims, with things they may or may not have done in the past but had nothing to do with why they were killed. As it turns out, none of Kyle’s three victims had a PERFECT record. But on the night he killed him, they were heroes, who were only trying to disarm a dangerous armed child.
That little pustule is just a pussy. Crying like a little girl. The Big Hero of the Trumptards. That’s all they’ve got.
I haven’t seen these statements made elsewhere:
“That 17 year old in Kenosha had committed two crimes
He chased his victim and instigated a fight by brandishing and flagging people with his rifle …
He rushed at protesters with a gun drawn to pick a fight…”
Is there evidence for any of these?
Who cares. He went way out of his way looking for trouble and he found it. End of story. Another HS loser with a gun.
And in court. Crying like a seven year old girl. The Hero of the alt-right. Pathetic.
You’re right about the chasing and rushing. I was misremembering that he ran towards people rather than away.
I’m right about his committing crimes, instigating a fight, and being there trying to pick a fight. (Unless you really feel that someone throwing a trash bag at you in these circumstances is properly met by lethal force, in which event I think you need to look up “proportionality.”
“Flagging” looks like an autocorrect, but I don’t recall what word I intended to go there. He was recklessly allowing his gun to point at others, though, as you can see from the McGinnis testimony quoted above. He was way in over his head and after shooting Rosenbaum should have had guns down and hands up in the air. Had he actually surrendered, people at that sort of rally would have protected him while they brought over the police. Even if not, if you kill someone when you enter a protest with an AR-style rifle, you should expect to be physically subdued, and if you get punched a little, you earned it.
Cunningham, the klepto-signaler, lays this map at the feet of some “progressive activist coalition” – you know, that progressive coalition that controls the votes of Lisa Bartlett and Doug Chaffee!
He seems most upset that Tom Daly is drawn out of the new, central county, “District 2,” the first majority-Latino Supervisorial district. That means Tom was planning on running for Supervisor in 2024! Damn – Latinos are really missing out on the possibility of being “represented” by this guy for ANOTHER TEN YEARS!
He goes on to tout the possibilities, in Supe district 2, of Mayor Sarmiento, Councilman Avelino, and Avelino’s bestie and hitman Garden Grove councilwoman Kim Nguyen.
Sarmiento would actually be good, if that’s what he wants to do. And if Avelino got elected maybe Anaheim could get someone good in his place.
calling a woman a dog? Dude, you married one. so where are you and Mrs. oinker going for your free Thanksgiving dinner and free Xmas presents for the kids?
Note to readers:
That comment was in reference to me originally calling Kim Nguyen Avelino’s “attack dog.” I changed it to “hitman.” She immediately attacks anyone who criticizes him. Those two are somehow very close, whatever she does in Garden Grove he does in Anaheim.
I guess in these “woke” days you can call men “attack dogs” but not women. I assume you’re also not supposed to call tough aggressive attorneys or stubborn aggressive advocates “bulldogs” if they’re women, although I never got any complaints from Katrina Foley, Alisha Montoro, or Gloria Ma’ae.
Not worth the fight. Kim can be Avelino’s “hitman.”
Why did you even let this anonymous child rapist’s comment in here?
Donna thought it was funny. Stupid funny. And it shows our enemies’ character AND double standards!
Klepto-signaler. Yes. Every time. So damn stupid.
Just a reminder that a few years ago right-wingers were blaming a black kid for being ‘suspicious’ because he was wearing a hoodie and justified his murder on that basis, but a white kid carrying an AK-15, that gave him …. choir-boy status.
This is just more white American, racist BS … nothing new and ho hum.
We need a new thread on the Ahmaud Arbery verdict so that those of our readers who feel that fear of a slave revolt can justify any action to eliminate by a Black person can get their chance to gripe.
Sadly, I’m afraid that the state murder convictions and such will get commuted, and the federal hate crime convictions will get pardoned once Trump or some neo-Trump takes office.
Moorlach can run for Supervisor again! And again.
Against Harkey, Foley, and the ubiquitous Mr. Kerr.
Kerr can’t beat Foley for #2, As a Soup she has a big advantage. An who needs a paramedic union goon, anyhow?
Hero! He jumped in a pool and saved somebody. Just like Ricky did to “save” Lucy when they mistook a bowl of fruit for Hedda Hoppers hat.
You know who else jumped in a pool and saved somebody? Little teenaged Jesus Aguirre. Still they wanted to throw him in Pelican Bay and throw away the key, until we made enough noise.
I don’t think that a Democrat can win with a mostly South County electorate, even if Foley could manage her way into District 5. (Based on her statement. I presume that her house is in District 2 — the “supposed to have a Latino” district. Chaffee totally screwed her over: her punishment fir showing what an actual Democrat can do as a Supervisor. See, this is what you get when you declare carpetbagging as a mortal sin and then let interested people draw the lines to screw someone.
District 5 will be Kerr against whomever is going to beat him.
*Happy Thanksgiving! The short version: (1) Foley will be re-elected! (2) Rittenhaus will become the house and pool boy at Mar-a-Lago! Harley might out the Steel Curtain! (4) All the Re-Districting in the world will not stop the Dem’s from keeping the House and Senate in 2022! (5) All the January 6th Insurrectionists will be given 41 months in jail and have to serve at least three years…even with time presently served.
(6) Finally, 2022 may be the best year in American History!
Greg seems to think Foley lives in District 2. I saw it announced on Facebook that she’s planning to run in District 5 (against Harkey) and I *think* she confirmed it to me in a message (although that message was only a thumbs-up.)
If she says she’s running in 5, then I believe her, but this is like Mike Levin winning the OC portion of his district, which I don’t think has ever happened. This map is still a dirty trick by Chaffee, even if Foley had to vote for it as the least bad option.
Boy, it’s going to be fun updating the Harkey story, huh? I’m envisioning one interview per day with each one of her victims. We’ll need to staff up!
As I mentioned elsewhere, Diane’s Wikipedia page is sorely lacking.
Like Brandman’s was before we fixed it. By the way, the latter appears to have disappeared.
I copied it all and posted it here, so it can be revised and revived. I think that “quit under fire” makes him a public figure of interest. But if he’s as bad off as you suggested, maybe we won’t. See, that’s the difference between me and Chumley.
Well, yes and no. And maybe. Specifically, Maybe, No, Yes, No, No, and No, unless “best” was a typo for “last.”
Nonetheless Happy Thanksgiving to the Ships’ Household (and to out other writers and readers!