Isaiah Nathaniel Sais appears to be the latest hapless man undone by the “erratic behavior” of Jack Sparrow. In this case, Jack Sparrow is a Chihuahua who was exhibiting strange behavior so his owner Sais took him to the veterinarian. Jack Sparrow tested positive for methamphetamine and the police were alerted and Sais eventually was arrested on suspicion of animal cruelty.
If you guessed murdering the woman mentioned in his neck tattoo, “Melanie”, you could join the Connecticut police department as a detective. Adam Plaeger, 38, is accused of strangling to death his girlfriend, Melanie Heuberger.
Cleveland Browns running back Isaiah Crowell, 23, is under fire for a grotesque image posted on Instagram showing a man dressed in all black slitting the throat of a police officer. It is a disgusting image that few of us would have even contemplated showing to another person, let alone posting on social media. Yet, Crowell posted the image with a statement “Mood: They give polices all types of weapons and they continuously choose to kill us…(hashtag)Weak” After an immediate outcry, Crowell removed the image and insisted issued a long statement that sounded like it was the product of a room of panicked NFL and Browns lawyers. The question is now the response of the NFL to the posting. Update: Notably, the first black Miss Alabama was suspended on Tuesday for calling Micah Johnson a “martyr” for killing the five police officers.
Warning the image below is graphic and disturbing.
Police in Urbana, Illinois appeared to throw well-established constitutional law to the curb with an abusive arrest of Bryton, Mellott, 22, who filmed himself burning the American flag. The Wal-Mart employee was charged with flag desecration despite two Supreme Court cases clearly saying that such an act is constitutionally protected. Now, after various experts (including myself) said that the arrest was unconstitutional, the police have dropped the charges. However, there remains the question of any discipline against the officers and supervisors involved in such a facially unconstitutional case.
If you guessed spraying gasoline on a woman who criticized her for smoking at a gas pump, you are a genius. Kimberly Brinton, of Meshoppen, Pa., was arrested for aggravated assault and other charges at the Mehoopany Dandy Mart, about 30 miles northwest of Scranton.
There is another arrest in the United Kingdom for criminal speech, a crime that is on the rise in the West to censor and punish those who are deemed hateful or insulting in their views. The latest arrestee is reported to be Matthew Doyle, 46, a partner at a London PR agency. He was arrested after tweeting about how he asked a Muslim woman to “explain” the terror attacks in Brussels. It was a stupid and insulting act, in my view. Moreover, Doyle reportedly used some slur for Muslims in later postings. However, none of that justifies criminalizing speech and the arrest shows the increasing appetite in England (and the West) for rolling back on free speech. Indeed, we recently discussed the Obama Administration’s threats of prosecution for those who speak in ways deemed misleading or hateful.
There is a disturbing threat from an Obama Administration official that the Administration could prosecute those who “spread false information or inflammatory statements about the perpetrators” in an alleged sexual assault by juvenile Muslim migrants in Idaho. The remarks of United States Attorney Wendy J. Olson has triggered concerns over the criminalization of speech.
In what can be seen as a prelude to future rights abuses by Turkish military and police forces engaged in countering the pro-Kurdish resistance fighters in the east, Turkey’s parliament passed laws granting immunity to its military engaged in “anti-terrorist” operations.
The government has become engaged in fighting since a cease-fire with the PKK broke down two years ago.
We have seen many incidents of lower courts ordering those convicted of crimes to endure unusual punishments: some as novel as holding signs advertising that they are criminals; requiring the cutting hair of their children; or forced attendance in Church. While these are fundamentally unusual, a case before us here fortunately never rose to these levels of miscarried justice.
An appellant argued before the Washington Supreme Court that a letter compelled by a juvenile court, mandating an apology to the victim of a sexual assault, violated his free speech rights by imposing a government mandated speech of which he objected.
Many might see the matter as a minor requirement to apologize to a victim and not “worth the trouble” on behalf of the defendant, or, perhaps representing a rather cold hearted approach by the defendant to contest such a matter out of spite. Yet, the Court likely granted review due to the compelled speech question not having been previously addressed in Washington.
Previous case law in the state tends to much favor free speech which is interpreted to be afforded greater protection within purview of the state constitution, and in most cases provides greater rights than the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
As discussed this week by the TechDirt, new evidence is further contradicting the account of Hillary Clinton as her former aides have increasingly refused to answer questions in depositions or, in one case, invoked the Fifth Amendment over 125 times. New evidence shows that the State Department was faced with an incompatible use of an unsecured server in sending emails to State Department staff. Efforts to convince Clinton to use the secure State Department system were rejected. Instead, the State Department “solved” the problem by removing security protections — essentially lowering the communications to the security level of the the private server. Moreover, as reported by CBS, it is now clear that Clinton did not turn over a critical email expressing her desire to deny access to “personal” emails despite assuring the country that anything remotely connected to the State Department or email system was turned over before her aides deleted tens of thousands of emails.
Our close ally, Saudi Arabia, is again showing that it is as extreme as countries like Iran in its application of Sharia law and Islamic practices. Ramadan has triggered a crackdown on clothing deemed “unIslamic” ranging from ripped jeans, Crocs shoes, shorts, necklaces and Western hair styles. Up to 50 men have been arrested off the streets by the infamous Saudi “Mutaween,” or the Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice.
We previously discussed the case of Casey Nocket, a New York-based graffiti artist, who proudly posted pictures of her defacing surfaces in at least six national parks: Death Valley, Colorado National Monument, Canyonlands, Zion and Crater Lake. Thanks to Reddit (one of my favorite sites), she was tracked down by irate viewers who helped the national park investigators. She has now been sentenced to 200 hours of community service but also banishment from all national parks and other federally administered lands. We earlier discussed the fine and probation as facially insufficient. The banishment element is an important advance, even if the lack of jail time is disappointing. For years, I have advocated such a ban for those who deface our national and state parks. Nocket is now banned from 20 percent of the United States and that is a good thing.