I saw this story on Reddit and it raises a lot of unanswered questions. The Examiner below reports that the video was taken by the wife of Gary Grana, 33, who was arrested for firing a crossbow in his yard at a target. Grana ends up under a pile of officers after a rather large number of officers respond to the call.
Here is how the video was originally described before it was removed by YouTube (it is back now):
“This is a video that I took of my husband being wrongfully accused and detained. They originally came because someone wrongfully accused my husband of firing a crossbow in our yard (crossbows are legal in our state). He told them he was not firing a crossbow and there was not a crossbow outside or any evidence of one being outside. The police asked him for ID and he refused on grounds that he wasn’t doing anything to facilitate them asking for ID. Next thing he knew the police jumped him, then the police tripped over our steps and crashed through a wooden fence which injured the officers hand. They slammed my husbands head against my front door, breaking my door (I can’t even shut it properly now and have to replace it) and sprayed him with mace and started beating the crap out of him. All of a sudden my husband is being charged with assault on an officer?! SOMETHING IS WRONG HERE!!!!!”
Despite the obvious tension, there are officers at the scene who are trying to calmly determine what occurred in this incident that left officers injured and a man arrested.
He was charged with discharging a weapon within city limits, even though he was not holding the crossbow when the police encountered him. The police added charges of third degree assault on an officer, refusing to comply, and resisting arrest.
75 thoughts on “Lincoln Nebraska Police Shown Arresting Man For Firing Crossbow at Target in Backyard”
u sound like a cop, in which you are, cuz all cops do is call other cops, if there was a cop dead for every mishap like this, (the violent officers) then this wouldnt happen very often, problem solved, i promise to try and change that wen im in charge, just to cut down on them thinking they are righteous, this kinda thing happens wen they’re thinking us citizens are diffrent from them, like we are’nt all human, or not the same, with the same strengths and weakness’s same succes’s and faults, same issues and short comings, same brains down to same muscles and same bones down to same access to weapons and same access to vehicles, pretty much the same everything its just we dont wear a badge and act tuff for absolutly no reasonwat so ever, despite wat powers authority convinces themselves to have, were all still human same people anything they can do with a weapon we can too, a computer the same there, look keep in mind we are all human, the same! if they can do it so can we!
At last the great Nebraska “cross-bow” non-incident case has come to an end with the Defendant getting credit for time served. http://journalstar.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/article_bc2fdd5d-3d0b-5263-825f-96d54c97b4bd.html
An update on the status of the Grana case. On the positive side, the Defendant has motions to suppress set for hearing on April 22, 2011. One motion relates to the police actions outside the residence where there is a struggle in the front yard. The second is a Franks motion, alleging that there are material omissions and misstatements in the affidavit for a search warrant. At least on the face of the motions, it looks like defense counsel may know what he is doing.
On the negative side, the case is assigned to a judge who is a former county attorney. Pigs will fly before she ever grants a MTS.
Some new factual information on the Gary Grana “cross-bow” case from the preliminary hearing. First, Grana was in his trailer and came out to meet the officers at the front gate of his fenced in yard. He spoke with the officer who told him it was against the law to shoot a bow & arrow in the city limits. Grana was asked his name by the second officer and Grana responded he was on private property. The officer then reached inside and opened the gate and told Grana to sit in the cruiser. The officer grabbed Grana’s arm and then Grana tried to run to his trailer.
It went down hill from there. http://journalstar.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/article_57b49594-4948-5d92-bbb1-06ed43c770f7.html
Grana did have a warrant for a probation violation on a 4th degree assault. Assault four can be either a misdemeanor or felony under Oregon law. Oregon has not filed for extradition (and probably won’t).
Please go back to your conspiracy theorist website wherever it is. Be sure to keep your tin-foil cap tightly on and watch out for those UN blue helmet soldiers riding in black helicopters around your home.
[i]ChanZ said, “Whenever a police ask you for your ID, you must provide one.”
That statement is wrong. If you are arguing on that point, you need a refresher on stop and identify laws. Police cannot come up to a person and simply ask for identication. The United States is not France. At most, police must detain an individual. SCOTUS has never ruled on whether a person must provide identification when detained or whether state statutes that require identication are legal. It may be reasonable to simply provide your name while detained since the law is murky in this area.[/i]
ishobo, when I said “whenever” it doesn’t when they felt like it. I will only do stop and identify only when needed. I am not interested in arguing with you whether if it is legal or not or if supreme court officially endorse it or not. That is lawyer’s job not mine. I’m just doing my job. If I see someone that fits the description of the perps that we’re after then I will do stop and ask for identity. If I am guarding a premise that requires everyone to be identified when entering/leaving then I will have to ask for their identity. If I am investigating a crime or doing a report, then I will have to ask everyone involved for their identity so I can do my damn paperwork then be on my way and let the damn investigator/prosecutors do their dirty job of interviewing them later on.
I do not need someone telling me that I need a damn refresher in that area. Are you a cop? Are you my Field Training Officer? No? Then shut up if you don’t know what you’re talking about.
You think that you only have to provide your name? Just your name when a cop ask you for your identification? “Oh, you say your name is John Smith? You don’t remember your birth date because of amnesia and you have no address because you’re homeless? Yeah riiiiiight, it’s no problem. Please stay in my car while I run your name through the system. Yeah many people have same name as yours and if one of them have a bench warrant or arrest warrant, I’ll have to take you in unless you can prove to me that you’re not THAT John Smith with warrants…”
The law is always on my side if I tell the court the reason why you are detained (fitting description of perp, suspected of committing a crime, undergoing an interview that is integral to my investigation of a crime) and that I will simply tell the court that red flags pop up everywhere if you refuse to give me your full information (say like your middle name, birth date, and current address) and the law will always be on my side if I tell the court that I felt that it is not safe to have you in general public if you *might* be a danger to our population if you have a reason to avoid being identified by local authorities. That’s how it always work.
And if your name, address, and birth date does not show up on our system, then that will also raise red flags as well.
Again, it does not matter what you think the law says or what right you think you have, it is always a good idea to cooperate fully with local authorities if they ask you for your identification. Cops do that to me all the time when I am off duty (because of gang activities near where I live and they set up stop and identify blockade around the city blocks) and when they see that I’m not who they are looking for, I am merrily on my way. I never tell them that I am one of them because I wanted to make sure that they are doing their job.
Sure, some of you think it’s an invasion of your privacy, that it’s probably unconstitutional, or whatever. You’re entitled to your opinions, but please remember that is how the real world work. Don’t fill your head with such fantasies or you will hit your head hard on the wall of realities.
I will never forget the moment that Jeffrey Dahmer’s victim was wandering around on street, naked and bleeding from his behind. High on drugs, the local cops found him and took him back to Jeffrey Dahmer’s house. Dahmer told them that he’s his lover and both had argument and all that, etc. So the cops decided not to investigate. Just think, what would have happened if those cops asked for the victim’s identification? They would have found out that he’s an underage then investigate Dahmer for possible statutory rape then discover other victims’ body parts in his house.
Damned if we do our job (because you think it’s not necessary) and if we don’t (if you think we could have done something to prevent a crime). Sheesh…
Welcome to the New World Order….our rights are being rapidly diminished. Police are way out of control. My question is did the “suspect ” have a prior record of hurting anyone? I would like to see published proof that there was child endangerment. Plus, no one was really hurt…damn cops are a fraternal order of thugs corrupt to the core and brain washed. Unfortunately, Revelation chap 13 is what we are now experiencing…government is rising up and beating down its citizens. Who ever said being poor was a crime?? Furnace didn’t work so they temporarily used space heaters so f–ing what…with unemployment at a realistic level of 18% there are going to be thousands without heat and adequate food. It’s about time for a major uprising in this country with it’s paramilitary jack-off police///etc…I urge all citizens that watch this video to help this family and others like then whose rights are being violated. F…GOVERNMENT …it’s time for an uprising before Obama brings in the Greatest Depression by means of hyperinflation….PERIOD, ENOUGH SAID. and to all that think that this was a just action by cops…Karma will catch up with you. If everyone would send $5.00 or more to help this family with legal fees etc…it would be a great humanitarian act. Shame on any kid that grows up to be a brain washed cop …use your minds to become layers to fight this sick injustice…as it’s only going to get worse as jobs are lost with increasing unemployment.
Within the next few years we all all in for a ride…production/manufacturing gone and automated….300+millon people will head toward the service economy which in turn will be sourced out, hollowed out, streamlined and monopolized as competition increases. All things point toward high unemployment
>40% We are just in the beginning stages of the economic and social meltdown of the US. Cops will become like Hitler’s 3rd Reich ——Please donate to this family—They are victims of what’s to come!
You need to work on your reading comprehension.
ChanZ said, “Whenever a police ask you for your ID, you must provide one.”
That statement is wrong. If you are arguing on that point, you need a refresher on stop and identify laws. Police cannot come up to a person and simply ask for identication. The United States is not France. At most, police must detain an individual. SCOTUS has never ruled on whether a person must provide identification when detained or whether state statutes that require identication are legal. It may be reasonable to simply provide your name while detained since the law is murky in this area.
J. Brian Harris is eiter a troll, mentally ill, or a dog. His ramblings could be construed as the work of any of the above or all three. Finally, any engineer that does not know that a bow is a spring is incompetent.
I agree with FFLeo, NebDefAtty did a good job. However I would like to bring up some issues that we do need to consider.
First of all, we don’t know who or why someone called police. So consider the possibilities of “Man with handgun” call if someone saw him holding a crossbow. They probably didn’t know that it was just a crossbow, and they do look like gun from afar.
Thus, it would explain why police did the tackle/arrest on him when he walked away. They don’t know that if he was trying to hide a gun on his person and was trying to avoid being detained for the police officers to determine if he does have a gun on him or not.
For clarification, I don’t think there are any law in any states that REQUIRES you to carry a form of identification. However, if you don’t have ID on you, then it will make whole situation harder on both parties: a person being detained by police longer than necessary while police have to run the person’s name/birth date/address through their system. I know it may sounds unnecessary but most police officers would rather be on safe side than let a potential murderer go around.
From the source of news, it seems to me that he walked off without police permission. When police “detain” you for questioning, it is always strongly suggested (not by me but by many lawyers that I know and I strongly encourage as well) that you ask officers these magic words: “Am I free to go, Officer?”
The suspect just said his name and told police where he lived then walked off. Now, try to put yourself in police officers’ shoes. What if he was carrying a gun? What if he was going inside the building to get his gun? How do you verify what he says is true about his name and where he lives? What if he was put on restraining order and he’s not supposed to be in that house and he might shoot his ex-wife?
To merely put it, he was being “detained” by police officers until they can determine his ID and that he does not carry any weapons (done by frisking). I’m sure that the suspect didn’t know he was being detained per common procedure done by police officers all over America and I wonder, did the police yell at him to stop? Yell at him not to walk away? Did he ignore them thinking that he has his god-given right to ignore police after he’s already informed them of his name and where he lives and only to be tackled then arrested by those police officers?
So, we have a case of a person who thinks that he has a right not to be detained by police (then proceeds to fight off police which led to assault on police and resisting police) and we also have a case of police who were just doing their job.
Sadly, we’ll never know the true extent of what really happened.
Now, I want to tell you that I was bit puzzled by the Lincoln Police Department who made announcement that the suspect was arrested because of discharging a crossbow in his backyard. It doesn’t make sense to me because when police arrived, they certainly did NOT see the suspect holding a crossbow and discharging it in his backyard. Therefore, they didn’t arrest him because of that.
Perhaps they didn’t want to tell media that they arrested him because he walked away while he was being detained per police procedure, so they probably felt that they had to add the charge of discharging the crossbow in backyard to justify their arrest. Perhaps I could be wrong.
Let’s not forget that they also slapped misdemeanor child abuse on him and his wife, which I already have said that is a bit over line. Perhaps they didn’t like his attitude toward them (remember I’ve profiled him as a tea-bagger, so that’s a possibility), so they also probably felt justified in adding silly charges just to pad up his paperwork for fun of it.
I guess we will have to wait until we actually see what plays out in the court. That is IF the prosecutors doesn’t drop the charge or he plea-bargained and plead guilty.
I think maybe LPD was embarrassed about the arrest being made (
Thank you for your excellent essay. It is a necessary read for anyone interested in this case.
Please keep us apprised about this case to the extent possible.
I happen to know people who live in Lincoln, Nebraska. Though I have only visited Nebraska on a few occasions, and had medical care in Omaha, my brother was born in Ogallala. I have multiple connections to Nebraska, including concerns for the safety of people in Lincoln who I know.
I am glad to find that NebDefAtty seems to have understood the relevant part of the Lincoln Municipal Code much as I did; I earlier mentioned my not having any evidence of the incident in question necessarily being of an infraction of said Code.
Oh, yes, I did glom a .pdf of Lincoln M.C. Chapter 936, and I found, cut, and here pasted:
9.36.090 Transporting Explosives; Port of Entry; Routes; Penalty.
It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation to convey, or transport through any
street, avenue, alley, or other public place within the city, any dynamite, nitro-glycerine, gunpowder,
guncotton, TNT, or any other explosive material, including fireworks of every nature or description,
without first having stopped at a port of entry hereinafter designated, and having notified the Police
Department of the city of their intention to move said vehicle within or through the city and
requesting a police escort. Such vehicle, or vehicles, shall follow such route, or routes, as may be
designated to them by such police escort. The City Council shall, by resolution, designate ports of
entry at which all such vehicles shall stop. (Ord. 15625 §9; July 9, 1990: P.C. §9.28.150: Ord. 5633
§§ 1,2; October 21, 1953).
Now, why would that concern me. One of the people I know who lives in Lincoln is a relative of mine. My dad trained me to function at master carpenter level of skill, and I can imagine my relative buying a house and asking me to help with some remodeling. While I cannot work as an engineer or electrician in Nebraska without getting licensed there, I am unaware of any requirements for carpenter licensing in Nebraska.
So, I have a “powder actuated tool” intended for such uses as nailing a bottom plate (e.g. for a stud wall partition) to a concrete floor. Nowhere I have found in the U.S.A. is a powder actuated tool a firearm requiring registration (there are countries in which such registration is required, so I find).
So, without getting the relevant statutes and codes for every place I might go while carrying my powder actuated tool and its power loads, I may be in serious violation of law by simply, albeit unwittingly, attempting to help someone I care about.
Before I got the powder actuated tool for securing bottom plates to concrete floors, I used hardened cut nails with a hand-drilling hammer, a method which works, but one needs to be very accurate in aligning the hammer blows with the nail orientation to be sure that a cut nail will hold securely in concrete.
The tool is not a problem as I read the LMC; the power loads would require that I get to a port-of-entry and travel only on the route designated, with police escort, and the LMC would require this, as I read it, were I to carry with me only one Remington brown A22C2 Power Load, and what would be my proper punishment were I stopped by the Lincoln police and they discovered that, without my being aware, one such Power Load fell out of the toolbox when I had used the powder actuated tool in rural Wisconsin where, as best I have been able to learn, no such law exists?
The code wording is, “It shall be unlawful for any person…to…transport…any…explosive…” The Remington A22C2 Power Load does contain some explosive. Methinks I found a law which can be read almost any which way, depending on who is interpreting it. I deem it plausibly absurd beyond the ridiculous to need a designated route with police escort to move a single Remington A22C2 Power Load through Lincoln, Nebraska.
Power Loads are readily found in stores in Door County, and may be legal in rural Wyoming. I get stopped because a police officer on the I-80 Expressway in Lincoln thinks one of my parking lights is out because he didn’t notice it properly, stops me, finds one A22C2 Power Load, and I was going to a job site in Wyoming, in a rural area where Power Loads are perfectly legal…
When we have laws which cannot be found without making a ridiculous effort, and which, if found, cannot be understood, we may end up with people who, out of unbearable frustration, to simply horrible things.
I do not fault the Lincoln Police for the incident which is the original basis of this comment thread. Why? Do a Google search for “Deputy Suzanne Hopper” AND “Andrew Welsh-Huggins” and take your pick from the many available printed versions of the AP story. Then ponder why what the Lincoln Police did was appropriate, given the unpredictable risk the sort of call made to the Lincoln Police may entail.
The problem in Lincoln, as at the Enon Beach mobile home park, is not about people, but about the structure of society and the effects of the structure of society on people’s behaviors.
It is my view that the tradition of, “no one is above the law” may be a key aspect of the impending disaster that is present-day human society. In my work everyone is above the law. Yeah, I realize that such a notion will likely seem cause for my being medicated into torpor in a strait-jacket… But methinks I may have a better idea.
Suppose society were structured so as the biological-chemical-physical laws of nature (the laws that neither break nor can be broken) are as though the bedrock of society. Suppose the human-made laws are as though the foundation of society, such that the foundation of society raises up the ability of each and every person to live socially-useful, productive lives.
Contrast such a society with one in which human-made laws, being above people, bear down upon them, crushing people in ways reminiscent of Giles Corey? Who reasonably now cries out, “More weight?”
If ignorance of the law excuses no one, perhaps I ought to share what I find to be a law of nature, the sort of law that neither breaks nor can be broken. “Learning occurs, and only occurs, when mistakes are made; teaching people to avoid making mistakes is teaching people to avoid learning; to whatever extent teaching people to avoid making mistakes actually happens, what really happens is the biophysical brain damage of learned helplessness.”
Or, once again, you know the law, and you are excused.
Just an update on the notorious cross-bow caper here in Lancaster county which resulted in 32 year old Gary Grana being charged with a 3A felony (assault on a police officer). Mr. Grana has NO NEBRASKA CRIMINAL RECORD and is being held on a $50,000 (10%) bond. The public defender was appointed and a bond review was just DENIED.
The Lincoln Chief of Police has stated that his officers at the scene were justified in questioning/tackling/demanding identification from Mr. Grana because it was “illegal” to discharge a cross-bow within the Lincoln city limits. Well, it is true that you cannot discharge any firearm (rifle, shotgun, pistol, etc.) under any circumstances within the city limits. However, the actual ordinance regarding discharging a non-firearm, such as a cross-bow, bow & arrow, slingshot, BB gun, or nerf bazooka is as follows:
9.36.050 Discharge of Weapons and Other Instruments Unlawful.
It shall be unlawful for any person, except as provided in this chapter, to fire or discharge, within the corporate limits, or on any property of the City of Lincoln outside of the corporate limits, any air rifle, toy pistol, toy gun, slingshot, or any other air, gas, or spring operated gun, weapon, apparatus, or instrument for the purpose of throwing or projecting missiles of any kind by any means whatsoever in such a manner as to endanger the safety of persons or property, whether the instrument is called by any name set forth above or by any other name. (Ord. 15625 §5; July 9,
1990: P.C. §9.28.040: Ord. 9382 §2; January 22, 1968: prior Ord. 3489 §9-103; July 6, 1936).
The discharge of a cross-bow is not per se “illegal” unless it is discharged “in such a manner as to endanger the safety of persons or property.” In other words, target shooting with a bow and arrow in a reasonably safe enviornment is NOT illegal. I am certain that there are many people who have done this exact same thing within the Lincoln city limits, some within the law enforcement community.
When the officers arrived, they admit that they did not see Mr. Grana with a cross-bow or see him shooting it in an unsafe manner. They did not interview the complaining witness BEFORE tackling Mr. Grana as he walked away. I agree that police officers can approach someone to ask them questions based on “reasonable suspicion.” However, it does NOT mean they can tackle that individual when he walks away and doesn’t want to answer questions regarding what may actually be legal activity. Mr. Grana was under absolutely no obligation to discuss the matter with the police under the 5th Amendment.
It must also be remembered that AT BEST, the officers were responding to an ordinance violation committed at some unknown time outside of their presence and IF the discharge of the crossbow endangered the safety of others. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-404.02 would ONLY have allowed the police to arrest Mr. Grana for a misdemeanor ordinance violation IF committed in their presence, OR that if Mr. Grana was not immediately arrested for the ordinance violation, a) he would not be immediately apprehended, b) he might injury himself or others, or damage property, c) or he might destroy or conceal evidence. That rationale seems pretty thin on the evidence, given that Mr. Grana said in effect, “that’s my residence, I’m going inside.” Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-422 states that the intent of the legislative that citations be issued whenever possible in lieu of custodial arrest.
It seems to me that the LPD has a misperception of when they can demand identification from an individual, both on public and/or private premises. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-829 provides that:
A peace officer may stop any person in a public place whom he reasonably suspects of committing, who has committed, or who is about to commit a crime and may demand of him his name, address and an explanation of his actions. When a peace officer has stopped a person for questioning pursuant to this section and reasonably suspects he is in danger of life or limb, he may search such person for a dangerous weapon. If the peace officer finds such a weapon or any other thing the possession of which may constitute a crime, he may take and keep it until the completion of questioning, at which time he shall either return it, if lawfully possessed, or arrest such person. For purposes of this section, peace officer shall include credentialed conservation officers of the Game and Parks Commission.
In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Nevada, Humboldt County, 542 U.S. 177, 124 S. Ct. 2451 (2004), the defendant was suspected of being involved in a domestic assault. When contacted by the police he refused to identify himself. The Court upheld the conviction for violation of Nevada’s “stop and identify” statute. However, what is most significant is that the court did NOT say the person had to provide a photo identification to the police. The opinion makes reference to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-829 as the type of statutes at issue. This means that if the officer comes up to the individual and he/she says, “My name is John Brown, I live at 222 Main St, and I ain’t doing nut’in’.” then the individual has complied with the law. This is no requirement to produce a photo identification when in a public place and certainly not when on a person’s private property.
This whole “show me your papers” mentality is right out of 1933-1945 Germany.
Buddha Is Laughing,
i appreciate your concern for my safety, and your concern about what other people may attempt to do, or do to me, in consequence of my living according to my inner sense of vocation.
As a biologist/bioengineer, it is my consistent observation that a person’s conduct is determined (pardon the somewhat simplified model here given) by interaction among the person’s inner environment, outer environment, internalized outer environment, and externalized inner and internalized environments.
It is also my essentially life-long observation that people whose behaviors stem from free will are enslaved by that will as though free will is the most despicable of all possible tyrants.
Dr. Abraham A. Low, whose work was the strongest basis in the psychiatric literature I used for my thesis, observed that having free will is far from an optimal way for a person to live.
His main book, “Mental Health Through Will Training” is a verbal prescription for overcoming the “temper” that leads to “tenseness” that leads to “symptoms” that enslave people in the temperamental deadlocks of vicious cycles of retaliation masquerading as decency through societal traditions which tend to destroy society and its members.
Were my “primary point of reference” myself, and were I to base my work mainly on my own life, I would never have done the research I did, nor done it the way I did.
That which I am able to share with other people must somehow be within some aspect of my life, or I would be obtusely oblivious to it, and would have no access to it that would permit sharing it.
Thanks to iatrogenic difficulties, much of them grounded in the such difficulties as psychiatrist Peter Breggin has described in his books, e.g. “Toxic Psychiatry,” I was given an astonishingly remarkable research setting and findings whereby to learn what I work at discovering the sharability whereof.
I knew four people who were murdered by two murderers, two murders per murderer, and I knew their murders before the murders. I had psychiatric hospital roommates who met a vastly more divers panoply of diagnostic criteria than
At or near the center of Dr. Low’s work is his recognition that there is really only one accurate psychiatric diagnosis, “temper, tenseness, symptoms.” Starting in April, 1987, as my way of learning how to deal with the iatrogenic psychosis in which I found myself imprisoned by the workings of the medical model of so-called mental illness, I set out to find so much as one person who, identified by psychiatric diagnosis as having a form of mental illness, did not fit the “temper, tenseness, symptoms” pattern described by Dr. Low.
Not only did I never encounter any such psychiatric patient, but, as I learned from my peer inpatient companions of their traumas, traumatizations, and traumatizing experiences, a pattern formed in my understanding, of the social process which ensnares people in states of what Dr. Low described as “temper.”
Yes, psychopathic people can be dangerous. But who, among us, is sufficiently free of every form of psychopathology as to be able to truthrully state as fact being free of every form of psychopathology? Would not anyone sincerely making such a claim plausibly be psychopathic by definition merely by having so claimed?
If nothing exists which does not exist, then existence must be its own maker. If self-understanding of self is of the self, then can self-understanding be else than its own maker? And, if not otherwise, how can self-understanding elude circular self-reference validation of itself?
If only non-existence can exist outside existence itself, what exists that does not exist?
My brother wrote a sociology doctorate which none of his committee members could understand. The approved his thesis and dissertation because they were unable to find anything wrong with it. While he was alive, he told his wife, as he told me and other people, that I was the only person he knew who understood his thesis and disserttion. His widow has recently confirmed what I remembered my brother said, and she gave me his field work notes. She is a Distinguished Professor at a college where she teaches sociology and other social science classes. Most of the work of my brother’s thesis research was never mentioned in his dissertation; he and I talked at great length about the whole of his work.
Came time for me to do a thesis and dissertation, and I held firmly in mind my brother’s thesis and dissertation experience. As my work built on,and added diversely to, my brother’s prior work, I chose to avoid putting my committee members in a replica of the sort of contundrum my brother’s work put his committee members. So, I extracted the core ideas of my field work findings into a small nucleus grounded resolutely upon the work of Dr. Abraham A. Low, who had been a neuropsychiatrist at the University of Illinois at the Medical Center until his “untimely” death.
I structured my dissertation so that it would be refutable with only a single instance of a counter-example, and further structured it so that “almost everyone” (like the spoon in the movie, “The Matrix,” which Neo sees a small child “bending” when Neo first visits the Oracle, there is no “almost everyone”) knows thousands upon thousands of counter-examples of mistakes made which could have been avoided.
And, as for Pete’s earlier comment about what I do, I do not make “their airplanes disappear” because there are no such airplanes for me to make disappear. Nor can I “diss-appear” such airplanes.
I do what I do as I do it in the manner in which I do it precisely because there are people whose beliefs lead them to doing very dangerous things, and I cannot reach out in an effort to be of help to to such people if they are obtusely, obliviously unaware of me.
Buddha Is Laughing
1, January 2, 2011 at 11:38 pm
“There are no people of bad intent, as best I can understand people and people’s lives.”
This is a logical error based on your primary point of reference: yourself. Because you have no bad intent, it’s a composition error to think that there are no other people with bad intent. There are people in this world who will cheat, lie and steal from you – even kill you – simply because they can. Psychopaths are very real and very dangerous.
….and Buddha is right. Take heed, all who believe otherwise.
(Well said, Buddha. Hope you’re getting settled and enjoyed the holidays. Also, that your cat is doing well… You’ve been missed around here. Haven’t done any baking yet… Someday.)
@BBB Quote “If you commit an illegal act (ignorance is no excuse)”
Andersen conviction overturned
May 31, 2005: 2:58 PM EDT
WASHINGTON (CNN) – The Supreme Court Tuesday unanimously threw out the conviction of accounting firm Arthur Andersen, a symbolic victory for a nearly defunct company torn apart in a document-shredding case involving the fallen energy giant Enron.
In a 9-0 opinion, the justices concluded that
=====”jury instructions at issue simply failed to convey the requisite consciousness of wrongdoing.”=====
Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote the opinion, saying, “Indeed, it is striking how little culpability the instructions required.”
It seems that ignorance of the law IS an excuse now!
And this from a company that, no doubt, had law firms in it’s employ.
Comments are closed.