Trump mocks a disabled person..again..

Last week, at a rally in South Carolina, Donald Trump mocked a disabled reporter, Serge Kovaleski. Serge has arthrogryposis, which causes his limbs to curl, and in the video of Trump, he imitates Kovaleski's curled arms and speaks with an impediment. Trump later claimed that he couldn't recall ever meeting the reporter so he didn't know that Kovaleski was a disabled person. But if that was the case, what are the odds that Trump would happen to mock him in a manner that corresponds with the man's disability. I think that Trump, like in most situations, knows that what he's doing is controversial, and does it anyways in order to spark a reaction.

Planned Parenthood

 A planned parenthood was hit with gun violence over the weekend. 3 were killed. I don't understand why this man directed the violence at a planned parenthood. What did planned parenthood do to him? Promote safe sex? Free STD testing? Abortions? Cancer screening? Cheap health check ups? Oh no how terrible. Planned parenthood, as far as I know, did nothing wrong to him. I still just don't understand all this debate on whether or not planned parenthood should be defunded. It is a place where people can go to get free or cheaper health care with our without insurance. Who wouldn't want access to free or partially free health services? This whole argument is just dumb. Planned parenthood gave one of my friends free birth control when she couldn't get it elsewhere. If you disagree, I would love to hear why.

Gun Violence

 I've been trying to find words for the recent Planned Parenthood shooting, and for the most part, I'm at a total loss of what to say. If there's a point where we, the American people, have simply become numb to gun violence, have simply created a template of "praying for the victims of (insert most recent shooting)" to share every time a shooting like this occurs, have simply learned to turn the other way when we hear statistics like this- we are far beyond that point.

     The man in the Planned Parenthood shooting had a history of domestic violence, animal abuse, and stalking. The Umpqua Community College shooter owned 14 guns legally. The man who shot two reporters while they were reporting a story live owned a gun legally and used it to take two lives. The man who killed two and injured nine in a movie theatre in Louisiana recently was banned from legally purchasing a gun in his state- so he went to Alabama and purchased it legally there. The massacre of black churchgoers in South Carolina occurred when the shooter- who by state law should not have been allowed to purchase gun since he was convicted of selling drugs- did not have his background check completed thoroughly. The fifteen-year-old who used his father's gun to murder four students in his cafeteria should have never been able to gain access to a gun- because his father (the gun owner) slipped past his permanent domestic violence protection order and purchased a gun. I could go on- these were only a few shootings in the past year. Make of this what you will. I firmly believe that law-abiding U.S. citizens have the right to own and operate guns- emphasis on "law-abiding". And to those who have defended this Planned Parenthood shooting, calling the shooter a "hero" for saving lives of "babies": let me remind you that not only are you encouraging domestic terrorism- you are inherently NOT "pro-life" when you applaud the murder of women and Planned Parenthood workers.

Gun Control

Although, we talked about this matter earlier on in the semester I just saw this video that I thought was interesting on how different the views on guns are within four friends of the same age. I would think that that because our current generation is so advanced and progressive as far as our views I would think there would be more of a solid opinion on guns and their use. Instead gun control is still a very controversial subject not just between older and younger people but actually within each generation there is debate on the matter. I think individuals beliefs on guns and their uses really sprout from one's background and up bringing. This makes sense because today guns are used for many different ways. Whether guns are being used for, violence, protection, or just as a hobby everyone has a different opinion towards them based on their own personal experiences how guns have been used.

In the video it shows the debate between four your adult males. One of the opinions discussed was how they are anti gun and have been avoided and stood clear of them. Then there is the view how it is not guns they are worried about but the hands the gun is held in which is worrying and bothersome. The last opinion was pro guns as he was raised as an eagle scout where guns have made a huge impact in his life. It is argued that guns are shown as masculine and why that is while they compare it to James Bond. This video contrasts the difference beliefs individuals hold on the purpose of guns. Some believe their only purpose is to kill people when they are really being treated like"adult toys" and not taken seriously.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBtWosxIqJE

Ferguson Presentation: Vol 2 & 3

Thursday 11/19

Vol. 2: 

• September 3, 2014
• There are no alternate jurors, so all of them have to be there to precede
• Detective has a bachelor degree and has experiences in crime scene unit for 5 years
• He is not the first to report to the scene. When he gets there, there are 50 officers and 300-400 bystanders. The officers fill him in on what has happened or what they think has happened
• gunshots are fired, thus they could not examine the crime scene and body until later 
• video walk-through of the scene (6 people filming it) & 161 photos (taken by detective)
• photographs are sent to lab to be processed: none are edited or deleted even if the picture is blurry and "unusable"
• processed photos are sent to detective for analysis 
• all evidence is placed in a sealed envelope and labeled and signed off for every time the evidence was passed around
• no officers notice the detective do anything sketchy or follow the procedure wrong
• the detective is qualified; not bias or selective , very thorough documentation of the scene, evidence is not incriminating, and there are too many people there to tamper with evidence in the first place
• there are also lots of room for error during the break for safety (gunshots fired) along with unusual amount of officers, and Darren Wilson is labeled as a victim which could have influence officers

Vol. 3:

• 50 pictures of Darren Wilson
• they swab the guns and box it inside a box instead of an envelope
• fingerprints are not taken from the guns, DNA instead
• officers are there when the autopsy is being perform
• there was no report of brown
• 6 entrance wound, 2 graze wound, 3 exit wounds
• lots of the shots did not and could not kill him: can injure him mortality though
• lateral right chest wound came down at downward angle and the shot to the top of the head finally killed him. their height was the same, so that shows deliberation of killing someone. 

Ferguson case

 One of the most recent and well known cases, was the shooting of Michael Brown. Basicaly, Officer Darren Wilson from the Ferguson Police shot and killed an unarmed teen. This sparked uproar.  To better understand the case, I analyzed the second half of volume 11 containing witness testimonies.  

One of the witnesses lived in the Canfield apartment conplex located on the treet where the shooting happened. She was on her patio when she saw, Mike Brown running up the street away from the officer While he was running away she saw the officer shoot three times. Finaly, she sees Mike walking back towards the officer with his hands up. To her surprise, he shoots a fourth time. To me this seemed a bit of over reaction. If Mike was surrendering, why did officer Wilson shoot? That was the fatal shot that brought him down. According to other student presentation, it looked like according to the autopsy that some bullet wounds originated from a vertical shot. So at one point did officer Wilson stand over Mike?

So far for me, this should have raised a few red flags during the trial.

Andrea Yates

I found the Andrea Yates case extremely difficult to understand and to feel empathy towards. While it was very disturbing to watch I feel for Andrea and the state she must have been at. Although the court argued that she was aware what she was doing I think she did but their were other factors playing tint it that she could not control. It is a very complicated and complex matter when dealing with a mental illness. In some cases I blame Andrea but then I also blame her husband as well as the doctors for not keeping her on a tighter watch. She was clearly unstable and did not need to be put into an unstable environment with 5 little children. I felt like the birth of their last child was the biggest mistake and that is where I begin to blame the husband. With her condition and state how could he possibly think it was a good idea to put the stress on her again to have another child even if she wanted one. He knew that it would be a safety issue to Andrea and that doctors highly opposed it. Many mothers go though a similar type of depression but not to this extent, I think Andrea was unlucky with cards she was drawn that let her depression get this severe. While it was trying to be contained I believe there were a lot of areas prior to the killings that could have helped her avoid this.

OJ

I believe the Los Angeles Police Department weren't fair on their legal proceedings. I believe the fact that the evidence was being tampered with took over the actually meaning of the case. The case  became about the police being untrustworthy. I do personally believe OJ did it, I just dont think they got at the right things during the trial, the part that threw me off was when they said they had taken 8ML of the blood from OJ and the next day there was only about 6ML in the test tube, and then they tired to say that they meant to say 6ML from the beginning. I felt that the evidence was being tampered with because OJ was famous and so regardless he wouldnt be able to have a 100% fair trial due to poor legal proceedings and the jury all knowing who OJ is.

The Legal System and Healthcare, How Do They Go Together?

As we delve deeper into the legal system, we see countless examples of people being released back into society. Instances of this, include the Orenthal James Simpson case, as well as the Ethan Couch case. The common denominator in both of these cases? Wealth and power. Both have shown a sheer disregard for human life, and in response, have been able to side-step the legal system, due to their placement on the socio-economic ladder. What conclusions can be drawn from this? Money buys better legal teams, and these better legal teams can thus offer defenses that will sway the public, due to their known credibility. What must be done? Perhaps we should approach this situation in a similar way to how some see the healthcare crisis. Many proponents of universal healthcare, wish to adopt a form of single-payer healthcare, to allow healthcare of all individuals, and cut out the middleman (insurance companies), so no wealthy individuals can buy better healthcare than their poor neighbor. This seems as if it would be an excellent way to stop wealthy Americans from bypassing the legal system; standardization of legal teams and nationalization of legal firms. Essentially, legal teams would be provided for everyone, of the same grade and value, so everyone has the same representation in court. Perhaps this is the solution, or perhaps it is merely a suggestion, but if legal teams were as good in America as healthcare is in Cuba, we'd probably all be better off. Cuba has some of the most innovative medicine in the world, providing the Meningitis vaccine, as well as a system of healthcare for all Cuban citizens and non-citizens, wouldn't we want similar innovations in our criminal and civil institutions, in the form of provided legal teams for all citizens, on a standardized scale?

OJ Simpson- "Who will police the police?"

"Who will police the police? You will police the police!" - Johnny Cochran
I thought this quote from Johnny Cochran during the OJ case was somewhat brilliant and also a little unfair at the same time. It was a brilliant way to lure in the jury when it sparked a lot of feelings about the police. This wasn't necessarily referring specifically to the OJ case but more bringing up the past how the LAPD has continually gotten away with injustice. Cochran took this chance to persuade the jury to get even with the police and not let them get away with this incident and all of the past incidents they had caused. I felt like this phrase specifically referred to Rodney King since the police were all freed and they were acquitted. This was the people's chance to not serve justice to the legal system by not letting them have their way, even when majority of the evidence suggested that OJ was the killer. I felt it was unfair in a way to not persuade the jury just on the evidence supporting the case. They took advantage of the feelings people had once had in the past about the police and brought those same angry feelings back into this case to help feed to their side.

The O.J. Simpson case

I am extremely surprised, with the outcomes of the O.J. Simpson case. due to the details surrounding it. One facet of the case, was the feelings towards the police, due to the time period. This is the same time period, as the Watts Riots and the outburst of police brutality towards the minority communities. Many, felt as if the Los Angeles Police Department, were not up to snuff on their legal proceedings and decisions, and thus were much more likely to frame a black man, than run a fair trial and allow him to be set free. This completely overshadowed the case. The case then, became not about O.J. , but about the police being fraudulent and untrustworthy. Therefore, a man of great public stature, and a man that dedicated most of his life to entertainment, had simply become a figment of the public's appreciation, and then had been pushed aside, with the idea that the police were corrupt. As Johnny Cochran quoted; "Who is policing the police? YOU are policing the police".

Is Affluenza occurring in our neighborhood? In class we watched a video where this rich boy decided to throw a party, drink alcohol, and then get behind the wheel of a car. He ended up getting in a multi-car crash killing six people. This boy ended up surviving the crash but due to affluenza he thought he could get away with it with no penalty. He ended up receiving probation and had to go to a rehabilitation center of his choice. He ended up picking the nicest one available but got kicked out because they decided it wasn't enough of a punishment. If any other people did something like this they would be sentences to a way harsher punishment but since his family is so rich they were able to cut him a break. In our neighborhood there are also a lot of rich people in which may be able to pay their trouble away.

Money and Fame makes a Difference.

The OJ case is an interesting case due to how the legal system works. Besides the fact that the evidence presented in court was not accurate to believe, the fact that OJ Simpson is a famous NFL former player, his fame got in the way on how the trial ran. His money and fame were factors to why he wasn't found guilty. OJ had the money to hire good lawyers and investigators, while most people cant do to fully defend themselves in court. OJ was seen like an Angel and superstar who could not do any harm, it created range between the common people, white people, and the fans who believed the prosecutors were using the race card. If OJ was an ordinary man from a low income or minorities, he would have had a different experience due to lack of money to have the resources to prove innocence.

OJ Pimpson

This case has many thing amuses me sensing how many things went wrong and OJ was still found innocent. First off, I believe that Mark Fuhrman is a bigot, and had no place in this case. Right off the bat you could tell he was going after OJ simply based off of his race. Fuhrman had claimed that he saw blood in OJ's vehicle, at his estate, and all around the inside of his household. Simpson's defense team claimed that Fuhrman had planted the glove at Simpson's estate. Yes I believe OJ did it, but my question is why did Mark Fuhrman go to such extremes to try to prove OJ was guilty? In my opinion, if Fuhrman never got involved, I believe OJ would've been found guilty right off the bat because of all the other evidence.

OJIZZLE

one of the main things that stands out and makes me most confused is the fact that they have all this proof and he's still able to walk free. from the shoes to the DNA results that clearly show that OJ was at the scene the time of the killings and still not convicted. this just goes to show how if you have money you'll get out of things. it makes me think about how many crimes and victims go without justice in the justice system because some people have more money than others. anther thing is that even though he was found not guilty, a judge still granted him full custody of his kids. they still must have some thought in the back of their heads that he did in fact kill his wife and they still let him have his children.

Simpson Trial

After watching all these videos on the OJ Simpson Trial, I think it's incredible how a guilty man got away with murder. Who is at fault for this is hard to point the finger to, because the jury's lack of understanding and knowledge really hurt the prosecutions evidence. The prosecution I think is also at fault because it seemed like they never really prepared to present their evidence, and example of how unprepared they were is when they asked OJ to put the gloves on himself. Yet the DNA evidence presented I think made it clear that there was nobody else but OJ who could possibly have committed the murder. The fact that the jury couldn't understand this just gives me an understanding of how the jury was so unprepared. This trial could of been conducted better if the jury selection could of been different.

Race Card

A whole city outraged with the LAPD over racism and police brutality against African Americans after the Rodney King beating in 1991.  A sense of outrage lied with the whole African American community against the LAPD played a huge favor in OJ and the defense team.  A jury packed with 10 African Americans already shared a bias against the LAPD, and especially in the Los Angeles community where the trial was moved too, instead of Santa Monica.  Atomically advantage given to the defense with a bias against police and a community who has OJ's back even if evidence pointed toward him.  A rare case where being black may have helped OJ in this case and kept him "innocent".

OJ Simpson Trial

This case is very interesting because it was what pretty much started reality TV. The fact that Americans watched the case not because it was for justice or righteousness but more for entertainment is what bothers me. Reporters were embarrassed of covering the case every day or every week. This shows how our societies priorities are a bit off sometimes. Also the effect the media had and how much evidence wasn't used or was used improperly was baffling. I think so many things went wrong in this case and that OJ was definitely guilty. Just so many things went wrong, too many coincidences.

Still dont know how I feel about OJ with no pulp

I think that there are only two things in this whole case that made me believe that he was guilty. One was all the blood and DNA found on the scene and the fact that it was clearly OJ's, 1 in 6.7 billion. The other thing that made me believe OJ was guilty was how he was in a cop chase and was found with a gun, mask, money and blood in his white bronco. And the fact he said "I'm the one that deserves to get hurt" made him sound self incriminating. At the same time I don't want to believe that he was guilty because there was too much room for mistakes which did happen on the LAPD's half as well as how Fuhrman came off and how he presented himself. Also I found it suspicious that Vannatter drove off with the blood for a few hours with no supervision.

Thoughts on O.J.

With the evidence I feel that O.J. could have been convicted guilty. However, I believe that it is mostly because the persecution lacked the communication skills to persuade the jury. The case was really not new and because he was famous he had the advantage of the public. Other stars have had their stories and cases in courts too, but I believe this one was different because it was different. He was so determined to get certain lawyers and had that special lawyer group. He was not convincing whatsoever and he contradicted himself so much yet he'd smile and wave at the public. It is fascinating because he sucked so much and the money that he had could possibly be a reason why he wasn't convicted. It could also be because the people wanted something different and everything about the case was out in public. I feel like good for him if he can do that, it just shows how much farther we have to go in the court system. It also says a lot on us the people and what we like and how much attention we put to something so irreverent. It is amazing how he got away with it and it was very sloppy. At the end I feel like the consequences of what this trial didn't give will be given to society and will put guilty people to the test as well as change how the media receives celebrity's convictions.

No Way OJ

I think everything about the OJ Simpson case could have and should have been done differently. For one, if they knew that Mark Fuhrman was untrustworthy and racist, they should have just avoided using him in the case at all. This way the gloves would not have the chance to be used as evidence so OJ would not be able to try them on, and Fuhrman would not have the chance to make the LAPD's case look skewed and unreliable. Also, they should not have allowed so much media coverage so early on in the case because I believe this large media presence really helped set the jury's mind on a verdict. The location of the trial also should have been moved to a place farther from home in order to insure a more fair trial. This change in location may not have done anything if there was the same amount of media coverage, but if there was less media coverage and the trial was moved early on while everything was kept more under wraps, then I believe that both sides (more so the prosecution than the defense) would have a better chance at having equal chances in the trial.

O.J. Simpson Case Study

This case study was so interesting because of the way evidence was presented in each of the trials. The prosecution made so many mistakes in the first trial that could have been avoided to change the outcome. The first mistake they made was bringing Officer Fuhrman into the case. He had a history of racism and was known to be against interracial marriages. Fuhrman declared he had not called any black person a "nigger" in the past ten years. Tapes were brought forward that proved Fuhrman was a liar. Another mistake they made was going in depth about DNA. The depth they went into was not necessary and just confused the jury. The prosecution then brought forward the murder's glove and had O.J. try it on. Of course, he made it look like it did not fit. This was a huge mistake. The first trial also spent too much time focusing on the mistakes the police made, while they should have focused on the murder. In the Civil Trial, the judge did a better job at keeping things on task and allowing certain evidence that would help the trial move along.

I learned from this case that it is so important what evidence is brought forward and who you choose to testify.

OJ Simpson or Furhman case?

The OJ case clearly aroused speculation across the United States with the mass media coverage and the complexity of a somewhat simple case that clearly showed the defendant's evidence all over the crime scene and his house. However, I still question why Furhman worked with the case and discovered the glove, and when asked about using the word nigger or tampering with the case, he excersized his fifth amendment right on the stand and chose not to speak about it. I feel that Furhman caused the trial to swing in favor of the defendant because of his racist background and history with inter-racial couples. Furhman's evidence should have been dismissed by the prosecution to disclude Furhman from the witness stand. The case became more about Furhman and his mal-practices/racist comments and less focused on OJ and the solid evidence that was collected from the crime scene, which swayed the case in OJ's favor. The jury was also poorly selected, with larger minorities, which were more likely to hate the LAPD because of the history of violence especially in the inner city. The case was less focused on OJ and more on the prosecutions team and collection of evidence. The civil lawsuit was focused on OJ which left him negligable and guilty, which is how the criminal trial should have been tried. The judge made a huge mistake in allowing the defense to focus less on the case and more of the emotions and errors of people that were barely relevant to the defendant and the crime itself.

Media in the OJ Simpson Case

The thing that bugs me the most about the OJ Simpson case is the media's involvement. The prosecution lost a lot of evidence because the media had already heard about it before the trial happened. For example, Nicole Brown Simpson's family members tried to sell her journal to the media. By bringing the journal to the media's attention, it could no longer be used in the trial. The journal could have been extremely vital to the case because Nicole had written in it how she was convinced that OJ was going to kill her. It bugs me how selfish her family was that they chose money over the justice of the case.

OJ Trial

Throughout the case studies we have been watching, it has been made clear that important people or people with money tend to get out of the law and are harder to prove guilty. I think OJ's fame had a very large part in him not being convicted guilty because people did not want to believe someone they looked up to good do something this horrible. Also, when there is a celebrity in the court room, it is a lot harder to have a jury that doesn't have a bias with OJ, especially with the media surrounding him during the case. It bothers me that he is not found guilty because it is so obvious that he killed his wife and Mr Goldman. It's frustrating that it was so hard for the prosecution to find him guilty because his blood was everywhere and it should just be obvious that he is guilty.

OJ

This case actually seems the most reasonable and just to me. In the other cases, it seemed like people either received too much punishment or too little punishment. In this case, OJ wasn't incarcerated and only received heavy fines. It seems completely reasonable to not incarcerate OJ because he isn't  a menace to society. While it is likely that he killed his wife, I don't think that he'll repeat his actions. OJ took a life and it seems like he deserves to be treated how in the same manor that he treated his wife. It seems like heavy fines are a reasonable consequence because serving time in prison would not have made him a better person. OJ paid for the hurt that he caused and for the turmoil he created. In that area, I feel totally fine with the cause and it does not "irk" me. The trial itself seemed to have many faults. The case focused on the poor collection of evidence and while all of that was true, it didn't seem to be enough to completely invalidate the evidence. Also, the conspiracy theory that stated that the police were setting OJ up seemed completely outlandish because, while some of the officers were racist, the consequences for such actions could have been death. It seems like jury was persuaded away from facts and this lead to OJ's innocence. While the resolution wasn't perfect, it seems like the punishment he received from both the civil and criminal trials was reasonable and sufficient.

During the time of the OJ Simpson, my father lived in Los Angeles. Since most of the t.v. channels were passing the OJ Simpson trial, my dad knew the the jury was going to be presenting him as innocent, even though he knew he was guilty af. He told me years later that the jury although thinking that he was innocent, h\they were afraid of another riot happening in L.A.. Therefore, preventing another riot, they decided to verify him as an innocent man.