Gun Misuse

The other day on the news I was completely shocked. I was listening to how two men were getting into a road rage. They were talking back to each back and forth, and driving crazy. It was getting out of control that the man shot the truck behind. The sad part of this news was that inside the truck, the man had his two kids. A boy who was seven and a girl who was just three. The car who shot the windshield, the bullet went through that ended killing the innocent three year old girl. It makes me really mad that because two immature men were having a road rage that ended killing a little girl, shooting her through her head killing her instantly. It wasn't the little girl's fault that her dad was not looking after his two kids. It’s scary to think that road rages go too far that people's lives are being taken away just because people take cases too serious and personal.I found it unfair that a little girl was killed for something stupid her father decided to do. As a parent, a parent should be thinking about their kid(s) safety.

Guns in the hand of the trustworthy

Ah, guns. This term is heard everywhere and often on national television because it is connected to rights and violence.
There are two sides on the rights issue. Should guns be banned?
Right now we are very far away from banning them from every american but is there a way to keep them out of the hands of those who are dangerous? Then you can feel safer knowing only the healthy minded possesses one. If you look at the Sandy Hook shooting, the Northern Arizona shooting, Columbine and many othela it is devastating. According to gun owners I have talked to, it's very easy to obtain a fire arm. I think there should be a test on the functions of a gun which also reviews gun laws. Then the gun shop must require test results from a psychologist regarding your mental health and behavior. Also a background check on your family. For example if you haves child who is frequently violent, that may raised a few red flags. There should be a national database that has all the guns and owner with an ID numbers registered. The requirements to obtain a fire arm should be more rigorous. The fact the someone can pass downs gun to anyone is a separate problem which will be much harder to solve.

Gun Violence

Why is it that the average civilian has access to automatic machine guns?

I understand that the second amendment allows us to own firearms, but shouldn’t there be restrictions on what type of firearms can be purchased by the average person? I know that this is a very controversial topic, probably because the constitution was written in the 1700s, which leaves most of the amendments open to different interpretations. We keep wondering why people who commit rampage killings do what they do, whether it is based on their upbringing or their mental health, but what I think is more important is how these people are accessing these heavy firearms. These firearms were originally made for the military, meant for people to massacre lots of people in a short amount of time, yet society is seems surprised every time when they hear that these weapons of destructions are used to kill innocent children in schools. What I think is the saddest thing about all of this, is that there is no way to possibly get all of these guns back and out of people's homes now. Which is why I think that this topic is hard to talk about because even though it seems easy to say to not allow people to have access to these guns, there are too many people who already do.

Mental Illness and Gun Control: My Take on how we could regulate the issue of mass shootings

From my personal aspect, I believe that a solution that could be conceived in order to address and prevent future massacres, based on the information displayed in class, could perhaps be the use of implementing rules or regulations that would open doors towards having control over any weapons. Obviously, it’s not an easy method: not everybody who suffers from mental illness should have to additionally carry the weight of society stereotyping them as “criminals” or “crazy” any more than they already are by some. In order to prevent this, I feel as if perhaps all individuals who look towards investing in weapons, should prove their authority towards being held accountable for owning a gun. Perhaps by conducting an exam that would help conclusion as to whether or not one is physically and mentally stable enough to be held responsible for such a powerful tool. Sure, there may be individuals who would most likely oppose to this new regulation, however I feel that it would provide easement between the topic of guns and those who have authority over them in our society and who do not. Surely, people would find any type of contradiction in any type of settlement but I feel that it would be an even more cruel approach if we were to only settle this exam based on how one looked, acted, or their previous, and present medical diagnosis. Despite whether or not you have had any type of association with mental illness, it is critical to recognize the position in which we place those who have or do suffer. It is vital to keep in mind that mental illness can NOT be simply determined by physical factors such as the way one dresses or looks, neither should their actions or behavior. Sure, in some cases, illnesses can tend to be transparent but this is not usually the case for the majority of those who suffer. We must not forget to place ourselves in the shoes of those who struggle with their inner demons every day and honor those who continue to make effort in pushing through their illnesses. Just because, as a society, we are taught that since symptoms of mental illness are not always transparent or talked about often, we should still treat these disorders just as we would with physical illnesses/injuries as well. By doing this, we increase the likelihood of raising future generations to recognize the importance of mental health just as we would with our physical health, as well. Perhaps this could lead to even greater advances in our society within the sticky subject of gun control/use and help decrease the rate of these mass shootings that cultivate the issue of gun laws in our nation today.

Guns and Their Relevance In American Society

Guns, as a whole, are sown within the fabric of American society. We, as a nation, traditionally, have had the idea, and practice of gun ownership, embedded within the confines of our own societal views. It is extremely easy for one to dictate legislation, in order to rid guns from our society. But perhaps, must we ask ourselves, why have guns become so prevalent in our society, and how can we go beyond the walls of City Hall in order to make sure that everyone is safe, including responsible gun owners. Must we ponder, for a moment, that guns themselves, cannot be removed from American society? As far ago as the Wild West, gun ownership was a proud staple of our civilization, and predates that of the American Revolution; as guns were a sign of independence from a tyrannical government. Maybe however, it is not just the realization that guns play a role in our society, that can be used to inform others of their dangers, but also the fact that we misuse their placement in our society. Many gun owners have the idea that we have guns to "protect ourselves from a tyrannical government". When in fact, the government, and its powers brought to the people, are one of the only things keeping it together. One can surmise, that even modern grade assault weapons are no match for the limitless arsenal, that any government has at its disposal. We may have military grade assault weapons, but the government harbors tanks, bombers, and atomic grade machinery and weaponry. Blame, therefore, must not be shifted towards the government, which allows citizens in the first place to own guns. But rather, towards the corporations that want more and more, unstable citizens to own guns. Many gun corporations profit off the idea of murder. Now, corporation in this sense, should be stressed. In my opinion, we must not penalize a small business, that sells a gun to an individual, if that individual uses the gun incorrectly. That would be similar to, if we sold a car to an individual and they ran over a group of people; and we charged the automotive dealer with a criminal charge. I'm saying, that corporations and organizations like the NRA, profit off of the idea of making guns less safe, and more readily available. Gone are the times of the Peace and Freedom Party, that merely wanted guns to stay in circulation, to protect individuals against the police, instead of the idea of keeping military grade assault weapons, to wage a war against the same government, that provides your Social Security benefits, Medicare, Medicaid, and disability checks...

Is it really just a game?

The other day during second period when we were watching how aggressive sport game fans really get, I went home and asked my boyfriend about how he feels about that subject. When I saw him the next day, I said to him, "I think football games are nothing to really stress about! Its just a GAME!." I purposely said that to him, to see what or how exactly he would react since I know he is a HUGE niners fan. He raised his voice a little and said back, "Its not just a game, its not just entertainment. Its more than that, its a way life style. All my family has been a niners fan since they were little. Its like it runs in our blood. People kill themselves to be on the NFL." This made me wonder whether sports is more of a way of living, a tradition in the family. Its the same way I feel about my favorite music artist or band. They are a big deal to many, something that they identify as.

Bad Mom

From all the case studies we have done, the one that most caught my attention was the one of Andrea Yates. I was strongly disturbed, but I tried not to focus so much on the incident. I tried to figure out her motive and how it all escalated. After watching that case in class, I went home and talked to her about it. Surprisingly, she told me how she was also a victim of postpartum psychosis depression, the depression women go through after birth. She told me how she felt, she mentioned that while she was in bed trying to recover from her C-section, she said the world as a sad place with a dark sky. That she looked at my sisters and I, and she kept telling herself she wasn't good enough as a person or mother. Those thoughts kept replaying over and over. She also added how one of her friend had gone through the same depression. Her friend had really bad depression that she wanted/had a desire to kill her new and first baby. When I heard in the documentary that 10-15% of women had that mental illness after their child birth, I believed it wasn't that common. Although, I began to have second thoughts when my mom shared her own experience. It opened my eyes and made me realized that postpartum psychosis depression is more common than it seems, perhaps it's because it had increased through the years. It's hard for someone to completely understand and say, "I totally feel you" because not everyone knows what it's like.

The Crazies

The other day I was watching the movie The Crazies directed by Breck Eisner and it made me start to think. What would happen if there was actually a deadly virus or toxin that makes everybody crazy or if theirs a outbreak on a deadly contagious disease? Would the government just try to contain the virus and administer a vaccine or would they take more drastic matters and just eradicate anything that was infected? Im  pretty sure that theirs a plan or a procedure the government would take for something like this and was wondering if anybody knew a little more information on this. I would love to read some comments if anybody knows a little more or has any thoughts

Prison Experiment

I thought the prison experiment was interesting when comparing the Iraq Abu Ghraib to the experiment done at Stanford. At first, I thought that the Stanford experiment was unrealistic because I thought it would be difficult for these volunteers to get in the mind set of a prisoner and guard during the scenario acted out. I was impressed and also shocked and disturbed to see the behavioral transformation of how each person reacted to the position they were set in. The extent that the guards went to was realistic but also really interesting and shocking what the human is capable of when being put in charge and feeling disguised behind a label of a "guard". While it was also very shocking how the prisoners really did have real break downs during the experiment and could not control their emotions. It proved a lot about human behavior and how we behave when put into certain situations under stress. Even though the people in the experiment knew that this was fake, under pressure they had the same reactions one would have if it was reality. They were not in control on themselves physiologically in this environment with the guards.

Fan on Fan Violence

I have witnessed many forms of violence, verbally and physically at games, but the question is why does this occur? Throughout our lives, we have learned to watch our home teams that represent our cities and take pride in the teams we love. From a young age we are influenced by our parents and the teams they love, but sometimes we follow their actions as well. This can be good in some cases and also harmful depending on the way they act around us. We often tend to follow our parent's actions and this may influence our behavior in the real world. As 99 percent of the people act properly in the stadium, you have the 1 percent of people that are ready to cause trouble. The next question we ask is how can we stop the 1 percent? The sad truth is we can't because people are going to act the way they do no matter what, it's just real life. This seems to happen in everyday life as well, people tend to act justified but you always have an extreme case.

Abu Ghraib and Human Behavior

With the usage of "enhanced" interrogation techniques, Abu Ghraib could be seen by many around the world, as a staggering, and otherwise horrifying peek into the realm of the "group" effect on human behavior. From this, we can surmise that, those soldiers that participated in the torture and humiliation of Iraqi denizens, were most likely, ordinary, run of the mill people. This, creates the idea that, anyone can be susceptible to the manipulation of authority, mainly due to the power that is exerted in a hierarchical system. A parallel can be drawn from, the semantics and facets of group behavior, to that of anarchist thought and its rationalization. Anarchism was created as a decentralized, and otherwise vastly human look into political thought. This stressed the idea that man must not pose authority over man. This, is in direct discordance with the "group effect", used on individuals within society. Looking into the psychological effect of large groups and hierarchical standards, shows me, just how powerful and brooding groups can be when their actions are reflected into society. What can be gained from this? A fear or otherwise acknowledgement on how group behavior affects society; how must we really know what groups can do to us, if we have been living in a society, that stresses the idea of groups and "order", for its own self-benefit?

Being negligent vs. human psychology

This documentary was extremely thought provocative in the context that it was able to explain and hinder behind the psychological and scientifical background of human behavior, interaction, and reaction to complex situations that influence the way we think and take action. Everyone has different reactions and a good majority of the students in my classroom found it incredibly hard to grasp anyone being what seems to be “negligent” in situations where we are obviously exposed to gruesome and inhuman acts. To be anywhere near morally correct, we are believed to take action when we see ourselves and others around us, in danger. This is particularly sticky because we are not all the same in moral and ethical matters, we all react and psychologically process things rather differently than one another. In the Shock Experiment, conducted by Stanley Milgram, for example, some of the objectives used to conduct whether or not human obedience was influenced by higher authorative figures, many of the individuals had different reactions despite their similar outcomes. While sending extreme shock waves to what appeared to be other humans in the next room, these objectives were to obey to what they were being told. Some giggled in nervousness while others found no emotional attachment to hearing the painful cries and screams after pressing the shock button. Others found themselves confused or incredibly distraught to what they heard afterwards as the shock wave levels of torture continued to increase. This experiment made it clearly evident that despite manipulative or provocative factors that seem to influence our actions, we all react differently. As many of my classmates, watched in horrid fear of the college student who had voluntarily decided to reject watching his best friend sexually harass and violate a young child, myself being among one of them, I still thought it was crucial to understand the position in which this man was placed. No, I am not speaking on moral or ethical terms, however in the matter of biological and psychological human reaction. I am not defending the witness and the criminal himself, nor am I turning my head away from the victim: an innocent child who most likely had her childhood stolen away from her in a matter of minutes, however, I would like to propose the importance of really pursuing in in-depth and critical thinking. Sure, morally, it was the wrong thing to do yet do we still have the chance to set asids our morals and values, and put ourselves in perspective? Something so quick and sudden, does the human mind have the capacity of processing such situations in such a quick amount of time? If it has been scientifically proven that we all carry different reactions to certain situations, should we take time to think about the complexity behind our biological mind processment or simply make it as simple and vile as pointing out whether this young man’s reaction was “good” or “bad?”

Andrea Yates Case Study

Wow, how tragic. This case was incredibly hard to watch, but it made me wonder about a few things. First off, if the doctors knew she had the worst case of Postpartum Psychosis Depression, how come when Andrea discharged herself, even though she was not ready, the nurses and doctors did not object? What if a patient had a contagious deadly disease and discharged him or herself, and the doctors did not object? It just does not happen. You would think that they would not want to risk the safety of that patient or others around them. Also, why would Andrea's new doctor refuse to give her the medication her previous doctor gave her? It may have been possible that she was not getting the correct medication, or medication that did not work as well as her old medication. This may have played a huge role in Andrea's actions! I know someone with Postpartum Depression (not psychosis.. just depression), and it is so important that she takes her medication. At the end of the documentary, it was made clear that people not only blamed Andrea, but people also blamed Rusty. Although Rusty should have listened to the doctor when he was told that another child could bring on worse conditions, I do not think Rusty is to blame. Andrea was his wife, mentally ill or not. I do not think he could have ever guessed she would do such a horrible thing. After all, they had been married for quite some time, and according to the documentary, "she loved her children very much." I do think another adult should have been there, just because Andrea was still unstable. But I understand how Rusty could not have seen this coming.

Also, just a question regarding her life sentence..
How come Andrea was allowed parole if she was sentenced to life in prison? Does everyone get parole? How is it determined?

Edmodo post 4 & 5

After reading both folders, the one post that really stood out to me was the scene at IHOP where the white lady yells at the hispanic lady for speaking Spanish. This stood out to me because it kind of relates to me every day. My best friend's mom speaks fluent English and Spanish. Out in public I notice sometimes she gets odd looks from white people when she's yelling in Spanish and it quickly changes to English. They just assume because of how she looks and how good her Spanish is that that's all she speaks, but little do they know that she works as a receptionist and speaks just as good of English.

I found the Stanley Milgram experiment the most interesting out of all the Human Behavior Experiments. I think it's crazy how easily the man in the coat was able to convince the shocker to continue. All it took was him to tell to the shocker, "you have to continue you can't stop, just keep going." It's crazy to think what can happen when people with authority abuse their power for the worse of someone else. Watching this experiment I kept thinking how in the world has the shocker not stopped, or quit the game. Then they told us that 65% of the shockers went all the way to the end on the shock board. This shows how many people will listen and do whatever it is the authority tell them to do. One main thing I think in which influenced people to continue was the man in the coat exclaiming that he is responsible for what happens to the man being shocked. This gives relief to the shocker knowing that he isn't going to get punished. That is another scary thing within humans, if you know you wont get in trouble then the actions in which you partake in will be more extreme.

Stanford Experiment

A few days ago when our 4th period class was watching the Stanford Experiment, an experiment based on people pretending to be prison guards and others to be the prisoners. What really caught my attention was to how in a few days of being in the experiment the prisoners started to act as if it was real life. It was surprising how people take advantage of the situation to be someone they cant be on the "outside world" the pshychology behind this is really about how cruel and evil people can be. Kinda makes me wonder if we were ever in that situation would we become evil up to certain extant?

Stewart has a good point.

He really does.

When not given exact specific instructions, some people will not know what course of action to take.

I am one of those people. I have so much information to potentially blog about, but I have no idea which topic to talk about and what facets of said topic I should talk about. Therefore I will just write about an amalgamation of stuff that we have watched.

Human behavior experiments-

These all remind me of the political philosopher from the enlightenment era, Thomas Hobbes.

He had a theory that was partially proved with these experiments and incidents. The idea that people are fundamentally evil and capable of ruthlessness and naturally respond to strong authority well. The experiments did involve response to authority, but in this case it was the authority controlling them to release the evil instead of containing it as Hobbes wrote. While the incidents have a lot of attachments to them, such as fear of personal harm, the idea of commitment, and the presence of peers that help to facilitate the evil acts- I think that it really is just natural and it really is just brought out into the open by strong authority. 

Decisions Decisions

After watching the Human Behavior experiment video it made me start to think what exactly makes people act in a drastic or unthinkable ways? Does it depend on the person? Or the environment? Or this idea of authority? 

I personally think that it's this idea of group think. In this documentary we see that if you had the ability to help someone you would be less likely to help than you would if you were with a group of people. However the environment and the person you put in a situation also play a factor to how they react to situations. One example that supports my idea is that when people are taking a survey in class and you are asked to raise your hand, most students would look around the class room before they respond. I think the process students have in there head is if there the only one that raises their hand than they would be judged or looked at differently.

Another example is going back into history and how people reacted to the Pearl Harbor bombing. We see that despite the warnings of a potential invasion many senior officers shrugged the warning because they thought that Japanese wouldn't dare attack  because they would recognize the futility of war with the US. Putting this idea of no threat into peoples heads. And even in the after math the US puts this group think stereotype that anybody that was Japanese or Japanese decent was now a enemy or threat.

So we see that this psychological phenomenon of group think leads people to make irrational or dysfunctional decisions.

SF Dog Mauling

The case of the Dog Mauling was an interesting case. I certainly did not now that some dogs were banned in some countries. Marjorie and he husband have a vicious breed of dogs that are banned in many countries in Europe due to their danger to the public. But America still has these dogs legal. The case of Diane Whipple's mauling was tragic and it clearly portrayed the power of certain domestic animals. But we all wonder, who is responsible? Quite frankly, the training of the dog depends on the owner, the ability to restrain the dog depends on the owner, so this means that the owner is fully responsible. Dogs work  certain way, smell for example can set them off, but the owner is responsible for keeping the dog from harming its surroundings. In my opinion, it was right to put Marjorie and he husband on trial. This couple throughout the trial made many mistakes. They never apologized, they got their dogs from an inmate illegally selling them. They kept on blaming Diane Whipple. All that was brought against them. The couple finally got convicted for involuntary manslaughter. But then Marjorie was charged for 2nd degree murder. This surprised me. There was no proof that she had the intention to use her dogs as a weapon. I still do not understand what convinced the judges to decide this. I understand that Diane's friends and family wanted the couple convicted, but 2nd degree murder is a bit exaggerated.

Authority and Conformity

As I was watching the Human Behavior Experiments, I noticed two commonalities that were consistent. The first was that humans are willing to follow authority, even in questionable situations. This was demonstrated in the Milgram Experiment, where Milgram sought to understand Hitler's extermination of the Jews. The experiment required individuals to read questions to a person behind a wall. If the person on the other side got the question incorrect, then the first person would shock the other. Each time the person got a question wrong, the shock level would increase. Shockingly, 65% of the questioners went all the way through the most lethal shock. Some shockers did stop to question the administrator, but continued after they were assured that the administrator would take full responsibility if something bad happened to the person on the other side of the wall. The McDonalds case was similar in it that the managers of the fast food restaurants were quick to act and follow the so called authority figure on the other end of the line. The McDonalds case was one of hundreds of cases that were called by a man, introducing himself as a cop, telling the manager to strip-search his or her employees. Many managers followed through with his orders, one case leading to sexual acts. This is troubling because not one of those one-hundred managers realized they were being controlled by a force other than the police. One victim claimed they followed through because they were afraid of getting in trouble. So we can conclude that one will follow authority's orders to get out of trouble, rather than step out of line and question whether what the authority figure is asking you to do is right or wrong. The second was that individuals often conform to society and are "sheep" in times of crisis. In the stabbing incident, a woman was stabbed 12 times before someone called the police. About thirty-eight neighbors watched this incident unfold and did nothing about it. When trying to understand this case, you must try to understand the bystanders. They may have thought another bystander called 911, or they were so stunned by the situation they froze and did not know what to do. In the phone experiment, humans were more likely to take action when they were alone in an emergency situation. But when they were with two others, each person waited to see how the other would act. Some did not take action in an emergency situation. This makes me wonder, what will it take for humans to take initiative, even when they are scared or unsure?

Group Dynamics

In the past few days, we been looking at different case studies mostly revolving around human behavior and how it applies to criminal cases. We learn that individuals can be good and normal, but under certain situations they will change.

I tend to notice this a lot in social groups, especially in the adolescent age. When I go help out at elementary and middle school, I often time listen in to the conversation. I find it fascinating how some people can be so nice, but when you put them into a group or with a certain someone, they suddenly become someone different. They might gang up on another person or they might talk smack about them.

When they're alone they would say "I hate it when people talk behind your back. It's wrong, and I would never treat someone in the way I don't want to be treated" However, I think in most cases, when they're with certain person, everything just spills. It reminds me of Mean Girls. Cathy was a good girl, but being put into the circle and not given much rules, she turned into this nasty-character.

I think when we're in a group, we often time conform to the standards of the group and forget to think about what is right and what is wrong because everyone "does" it.

Dog Mauling

I dont believe it was fair for Marjorie Knoller to get convicted of 2nd degree murder because it was not her fault that the dogs attacked Dianne. It was not intentional. I believe that manslaughter was more fair because she has had past interactions with others and noticed her dogs being somewhat viscous even though she denies it. I feel that the way she spoke to the media and tried to blame Dianne Whipple for her own death didnt have a postive impact on her trial because it was not Diannes fault.

The Human Behavior Experiment Reflection

I believe the experiments that were preformed on these people were not fair and shows what people will do just because another individual tells them its okay. For example, in the experiment where the McDonald's manager got a call from the ¨police department¨ that one of the employees was stealing money, she was asked to preform a strip search and she didn't really question it which to me was weird, because if I was to get this call I would of told the police to come and do this themselves because that is their job.

Bystander

Why do people find it so hard to stand up for other people when they know that something bad is happening? One scenario that really bugs me is the woman who was murdered in the street and forty people had the choice to help her or not, and all forty decided not to. I had heard of this scenario previous to watching the documentary, but it continues to bewilder me that not just one person, but forty, could hear a woman outside of their homes be stabbed to death, and not a single person even called 911. There was that one man, who in between attacks yelled out his window to ask what was going on, but that proved to not be very helpful. What causes people to not help others? Is it just the fact that they don't want to involve themselves, or that they don't feel a personal responsibility to help out, or is it that people are waiting for others to do it for them? If I was in that scenario, I would hope that at least one out of forty people would call 911 for me..

For the past few days in class Mr. Stewart has repeatedly said "if you believe that you would never do anything bad, then you are more susceptible to doing bad things". There have been a lot of examples in the documentaries that justify what he said, but I also believe that if people have the mindset that they are part of the majority who will just blindly obey, then they are also more likely to do bad things. By allowing ourselves to believe that we are part of the majority, then there is this excuse that "well everyone is doing it", and if more and more people start to believe this, then it almost makes it seem like the capability to do bad things is a norm, like oh it happens, I'm human, it's natural. Those two concepts can go both ways depending on the person and the situation they are put it.

Pet Owner's Responsibility?

In the case study about the dog mauling in San Francisco, much of the question regarding charges and how to deal with the death of the victim was who should take responsibility? When a pet is aggressive and attacks someone, is it the owner's fault if that victim gets severely (or even fatally) wounded? In this case the owners of the dogs, Marjorie Knoller and Robert Noel, were found accountable for what their dogs did to Dianne Whipple, the victim of the tragic mauling. Knoller and Noel were not initially going to be charged with anything, but with public outrage growing due to the backfiring of the couple's callous public statements, Knoller was eventually charged with the second degree murder of Whipple; both she and Noel were charged with manslaughter and the knowing possession of a mischievous and dangerous animal.  In the first trial, the couple were found guilty on all counts, but the second degree murder charge for Knoller was overturned by a judge. However this overruling was appealed by the state of California which resulted in the reinstatement of this charge. The public, not only locally but worldwide, was very vocal in their opinions on the case. This heavy public voice could be one reason all of the responsibility for the attack was placed on the owners. What do you think? Was the ruling reasonable, or should less responsibility be placed on Knoller and Noel for what their dogs did to Whipple?

Dog Mauling Case Opinion

After watching the case study on the San Francisco dog mauling, I was actually pretty shocked with the outcome. It seemed like the whole class thought that the judge was right to appeal the charge of 2nd degree murder. If I were the judge I wouldn't have overturned the appeal. I think that Marjorie was guilty of 2nd degree murder. The fact that she was helping breed and raise guard and attack dogs proves to me that she had the intention of having her dogs hurt someone. As a dog owner myself, I feel that it is the owner's responsibility to keep their dog away from people that he/she could harm. Also, I think that this accident could have been easily avoided if the dogs had been muzzled.

Dog Mauling Case study response

I believe that the case of the dog mauling in San Francisco was a tragedy. However the severity of the sentencing especially for the woman was a bit much I believe. I think it was much more because of public pressure and the dumb letter that they sent out that they had such a harsh sentence. I believe that if it wasn't for the letter that pretty much blamed the victim the public would not be so outraged and they might've had a better sentence. The charge for 2nd degree murder was too much. We can also see that what you say on media, no matter how well intentioned, can be turned on against you. That is why a lot of them say no comment so the words can't be twisted and used against you. However it also opens your eyes to how courts work and how sometimes you need to have a strategy to not screw up and get more sentence time.

Von Bulow: Comeback of the Century

It looked that Von Bulow was going to face the rest of his life in prison due to him being declared guilty for murdering his wife.  But Von Bulow believed there wasn't enough evidence and that the trial was not conducted properly.  He hired a new attorney to help him appeal the case.  They won the appeal and he was able to be on trial again.  I never rally knew too much about appeals so it shocked me when Von Bulow was able to basically have a redo of the trial.  The judge then decided that Von Bulow was not guilty.  Von Bulow is the man when it comes to the legal system.  He lost the first battle, but he ended up winning the war against the court.  Von Bulow made history with winning his appeal and then becoming not guilty.

My take on the Bon Vulow Case

When it comes to questioning the US Justice System in the Bon Vulow Case, I firmly believe that, in my opinion, this case was very sticky and had a vast amount of elements that required secondary sources in order for it to be considered a properly well functioned case manufactured by our system.This specific case was very solidified in the beginning as it was evident that there was enough proof to determine the finalization of the conviction. The entire case was solely based on the story behind Sunny Bon Vulow's husband, Klaus Von Buler’s attempt at potential murder in return for inhereting his wife’s million dollars worth of wealth and riches. Sunny’s children used tactics that consisted of using professional medical doctors and lawyers in order to find enough evidence of this conviction and put their stepfather behind bars. When Klaus was found guilty, he found the potentiality of truly showing his innocence, despite all of the crystal clear evidence that was gathered as the case developed. In the end, Klaus used the power of his wealth to interfere with the interaction of how the court case was played. I believe that because Klaus had already had such a great deal of money, he was able to get away from his original conviction and deeply found a way to make his “innocence” confirmed. In addition, might I not forget to add the fact that after Klaus found unreputable methods to prove himself innocent, this case no longer only focused on whether or not Klaus was guilty or not, however it was an argument between whether or not the justice system was accurate or not. In my heart, MORALLY, I refuse to believe that Klaus was not guilty. Sure, we may tend to believe the children’s side of it because, yes, when we think of young children we tend to associate them with innocence, which i'm not going to lie, most likely has some potential contribution to the case, however, I would like to use some prior knowledge from other classes, such as AP Psychology which has allowed for me to learn a bit more on the power of memory and whether or younger individuals are reliable sources. Using the material that we have revised in the class as a primary source to justify my opinion, it has actually been proven that younger individuals/children are less likely to seek dishonesty when it comes to being questioned by higher authorative figures when it comes to affirmative law based situations. I believe that Klaus’ stepchildren did not have any intent of setting him up nor do I think that they have to go through deep and profound matters when it came to pressing charges against their step-father for what, they believe, was attempted murder. There was so much solid and confided evidence that thoroughly dictated Klaus’ conviction in the first place. MOST importantly, I believe that if Klaus were to have been of less wealth, he definitely would have been put behind bars. There would not have been any extra help of high class lawyers and representatives to justify his “innocence” if he did not have the money to hire them in the first place. Now, do I believe that our Justice System failed to function properly? Yes. I certainly do. However, not in the context that you would think it would be under, rather, in the aspect of them agreeing to hold Klaus accountable of not being guilty. In any different context, I actually think they did fine and are not to be given judgement for since, again, the fact that Klaus found his superior way in any way, shape, or form to prove himself the opposite.

Is Chivas USA a Racist Soccer Team?

Chivas USA is a soccer team in the major leagues that is exclusively made of all Mexicans. They want to go back to their roots as the coach says and support their LA based community that are primarily Mexican. A debate has popped up now that the Chivas USA team is a racist team and discriminate towards whites. Many complain and this is similar to when we watched the documentary on White privilege. Just like the team whites thought that scholarships were being unjust and not giving them an advantage unlike the others. However statistically we see a much different image. White scholarship applicants actually have 40% more likelihood to receive a scholarship than the other races. I believe this is the way we also have to treat the issue with this team. Even though they are exclusively all of Mexican descent more than half the soccer community is white. We have to dig deeper before claiming that something is being racist or discriminatory.

Rachel Dolezal

I'm still confused about the incident concerning Rachel Dolezal.  Rachel Dolezal is a white woman who tried to act and look Black by changing her hair and attempting to make her skin darker.  Why does she want to be Black?  Because of racism and stereotypes, there is differences in each race.  But what makes Rachel Dolezal wish to be Black instead of white?  I understand the idea of wanting to be the opposite sex because of the defined physical differences, but why does she want to be black?  What are the true differences between being black and white?

Who are the bad guys?

There has been that controversy that ALL police officers are pigs and/or A-holes. From my own experience, Ive never had a personal issue with any police officers. But that doesn't mean that I believe that police officers are good. Throughout the years, Ive seen many news reports and on social media how police officers abuse the power of people. I believe that not all police officers are bad, but not all of them are good. I assume that some police officers do their job not on their given rules, but rather by their own morals and beliefs. From my family, Ive been told many stories that they have encounter both good and bad police enforcement. Some of them reacted in a fairly way, but others approach people in racist and cruel way. To help society, Police enforcement should receive the proper training to become part of the team. Its not a game to have a job like this. It should be a job that should be taken with full responsibility because we have came to the point where we now believe that the police does not protect us. Its true that some Police officers hide behind their batches. How many cases have been found that Police officers have been disproved to have pornography, or any worst crimes that they have committed that intentionally ended their job careers.

The Circle of Inequality

In the Ferguson documentary we are watching, an interesting point was brought up. In these certain cities in Missouri, they are so low on income that in order to stay up as a community, they make all their revenue giving tickets for no reason. A lot of the times, they also racial profile and mainly end up giving tickets to the minorities. The real question is how do you get out of this corrupt circle? These black people get tickets and while going to pay for their ticket, get another ticket and then get sent to jail for not paying for that ticket??? When is this system going to get fixed because there have been 3 people that have hung themselves because they have no way out in jail. As that's not enough, these cops continue to make their revenue on ticketing some of the same people over and over. It just seems as if there really is no way out of their situation, and this needs to be resolved. Overtime, people are just going to end up moving out and there is going to be a vacant city.