If “kettling” was used as a strategic tactic, was Renee Good’s death a premeditated murder? Here’s what LA Times reported in 2014: “Patrol agents have deliberately stepped in the path of cars apparently to justify shooting at the drivers…according to an independent review of 67 cases that resulted in 19 deaths.” They’ve had a dozen years to refine their tactics. https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-border-killings-20140227-story.html.
Do you remember when people remonstrated with you and accused you of hysterical over-reaction when you compared the current "administration" to the early years of Nazi Germany. Brownshirts beating and murdering people in the streets? Persecution of a despised minority? Involuntary transfer to camps that concentrate and brutalize people? A Department of "Justice" that perpetrates injustice? Government departments openly deploying white nationalist slogans and images? Territorial aggression in search of plunder and Lebensraum? Check, check, check ...
M - i hesitated to click 'Like' - b/c, altho i agree 100% with what you've said, and said well, i'm mortified to to click 'Like'. in this case, i wish there were an option Agree', or 'Strongly Agree'
I am with you, EZ, on opposing the death penalty in general, but I disagree that the firing squad is somehow more or at least equally humane and acceptable as other methods. Granted, I have no idea how exactly it is implemented in modern days, but the mention of it always reminds me of Albert Camus' description of it in The Plague, pasted below. I think it's a pointed display of dominance by the state, a show of its overwhelming power and the lack of regard or compassion for its subjects that dare transgress against it, and a stark warning to all witnessing or hearing about it. It's simply barbarian. No wonder it's been readily embraced by Republicans.
"Have you ever seen a man shot by a firing-squad? […] You’ve gleaned your ideas about it from books and pictures. A post, a blindfolded man, some soldiers in the offing. But the real thing isn’t a bit like that. Do you know the firing-squad stands only a yard and a half from the condemned man? Do you know that if the victim took two steps forward his chest would touch the rifles? Do you know that, at this short range, the soldiers concentrate their fire on the region of the heart and their bullets make a hole into which you could thrust your fist? No, you didn’t know all that; those are the things that are never spoken of. For the plague-stricken their peace of mind is more important than a human life. Decent folks must be allowed to sleep easy o’nights, mustn’t they? Really it would be shockingly bad taste to linger on such details, that’s common knowledge."
I'm curious about the psychological effect on the shooters, and who would qualify for the job to begin with? It seems to me it would require the emotional vacancy of a sociopath.
I oppose capital punishment in all cases for thar very reason: the effect on the people and society who exercise it. All of the flaws in American culture and government are writ large now. Those who support capital punishment are driving this clown car.
My guess is it wouldd be similar to nazi minions, justifying their actions by believing in the ideology, telling themselves they're just following orders and enforcing the law. I'm sure most of the people currently working for ICE would be willing if not eager to take that job.
I too oppose the death penalty, largely for the reason K Mason (below) cites: If the wrong person is executed, there is no way to retract and correct the error. Of course, circumstances exist in which it is known with 100% certainty that the right person was convicted, and it never will be safe to allow that person among the public again. That situation makes execution more justifiable, I guess, but I agree with Wendy C. (also below) that it's still not healthy to encourage even more coldblooded disregard among our population.
But as long as this society continues to execute those ruled criminally incorrigible, we are morally obliged to do so dispassionately and painlessly -- as genuine euthanasia, not vengeance. Given the appalling vagaries of firing squads, hanging, electrocution, lethal injection (which Eric correctly notes does seem to work when administered by veterinarians), etc., I've wondered why that dependable old "cure" that nonetheless often unintentionally eased people out of life isn't used -- bloodletting.
When framed as blood donation, it's so non-traumatic that thousands of us voluntarily participate every year. The only difference at an execution would be that collection wouldn't stop at a single pint, and if the executed person's blood was medically suitable, it could go to a blood bank, thus at least somewhat compensating society.
Executing someone with blood unsuitable for donation would be even easier: Dose him with warfarin, locally anesthetize a patch of skin, cut down to an artery (carotid? brachial? femoral?), and direct the person's exiting blood into a drain until the flow stops. That ought to be reliably painless and guaranteed lethal. Its optics are grisly, but surely no more than those of an electric chair, gallows, or firing squad. Yet I've never seen the idea proposed.
I agree with your general philosophy, but something about this method feels too morbid and unseemly. I can't put my finger on why exactly. Can we really deny bodily autonomy to people sentenced to death? I guess killing them implies that we can, doesn't it? Why stop at blood, why not harvest their organs? Something about that feels even more wrong than capital punishment itself.
BTW, the way they used to do it during Stalin's repressions in the USSR is they'd take the convicted person to a basement on a pretext of going for questioning or something and a guard would shoot him in the back of the head unawares. I'm sure the failure rate was also minimal if any.
Whether or not the shooting of Good was murder or not, I think that it was a mistake for the ICE agent to place himself in front of her car. I’d be interested in what the agent manual says in that.
There is ample evidence that many of these latest ICE agents are not fully trained, if at all. They are more of a state-sanctioned lynch mob at this point.
I thought I read that the shooter had 10 years on the job? I keep remembering scenes in movies (like It’s a Wonderful Life) where police shoot wildly into crowds at people running away. That seems to still be a thing.
He also was seriously injured on the job last June & obviously has PTSD from that, which is why he should've been on desk duty & banned from possessing or using a firearm!
No doubt there were plenty of ICE agents prior to last year, but since the inauguration they have added lots more with apparently minimal training and cursory background checks.
The death penalty, in and of itself, is so barbaric that the method is of less importance than the fact of its existence. And the fact that some of these methods result in further torture of the victim just adds to the barbarity.
I've not been the victim of a crime nor has anyone in my family been a victim so I do not have any insight into the feelings of those who have been. But I have great difficulty imagining that watching someone die at the hands of an executioner would give me relief from my anger and pain.
And as a further objection to executions, the criminal justice system is so terribly flawed that the likelihood that the road to the death room is true and straight is low. From arrest to charging to trials to sentence there is bias and misconduct.
Life sentences are terrible but they offer the possibility of living long enough that correcting the errors in the process. Executions end the opportunity for corrections.
I actually see a potential interesting debate. How are punishments in general determined? Who decides that 5 or 30 years or life is appropriate for certain crimes? Why do prisons exist- is it punishment, simple separation from society or fixing criminals for return to society? Death is final. Whether or not one agrees with the death penalty, it must be done right if not banned. It could make for quite a discussion.
The execution *is* the correction. Emotional catharsis for the victim or victim's family is incidental to the outcome of eliminating the possibility of future murders, rapes, etc.
“Men are not hanged for stealing horses, but that horses may not be stolen.”
This is true, but if you want to think about it in terms of Blackstone's ratio, 10:1 is off by many orders of magnitude, and in any event is not a formal part of the legal code. The number of innocent people in prison for serious crimes is vanishingly small, particularly when compared with the number of violent criminals who are not in prison.
I’m not David, but I’ll offer this: there’s more than one video of this incident, and among the others is one from an angle in which it’s clear that the vehicle DID hit Ross. In the still photo in which his feet are framed you’ll notice that his feet are set back and his legs appear to lean forward. That’s because he’s just been struck by the car. I realize that this makes no difference to anyone else around here. More importantly, based on my interpretation of the guidelines that are posted in today’s edition, it also apparently makes no difference in the eyes of the law which, sure enough, seems to hold that even if someone weaponizes their vehicle, a law enforcement agent is not permitted to fire upon them. That seems utterly bizarre to me, but I do know of at least one recent case in which a cop was acquitted for shooting a suspected shoplifter who drove her car into him.
There is much ado about the fact that her wheels were turned to the right and not pointed directly forward, but seriously? The agent is supposed to compute all that in the small fraction of a second in which a two ton vehicle has just accelerated and hit him? Did anyone other than Rex Huppke or Steve Thrasher hold Adam Toledo’s shooter to such exacting standards?
Part of the disconnect here, I think, is the distorted way in which society exaggerates certain hazards whilst minimizing ones that might perhaps warrant more consideration for their potential to cause harm. We have developed a culture which overwhelmingly seems to regard automobiles as these innocuous implements that only feature in our lives as provisions of luxury, convenience and satisfaction, and while they do offer all that, they are also massive, heavy, unwieldy pieces of machinery capable of quickly achieving high speeds that can, and do, contribute to grand scale levels of catastrophic damage, injury and loss of human life (about 40,000 American ones annually). I point all this out because a big part of the argument that Ross should be charged and tried for murder is this cavalier attitude that, Ms. Good didn’t REALLY pose any sort of threat to him or put him in harm’s way. She was, after all, just driving her car.
I said this the other day, but I’ll repeat it: the tactics that ICE are employing are outrageous, unconscionable and authoritarian. But they are the policies that were promised by the autocrat that was freely and fairly elected fourteen months ago after the opposition party consciously decided not to run a candidate that would defeat him. Peacefully protesting what ICE is doing is the honorable and courageous thing to do, but actively attempting to interfere, impede and seek out confrontations with them is spectacularly reckless and foolish. It’s self serving (pretexts to the contrary), it endangers the activists and bystanders alike, and it isn’t preventing anyone from being apprehended or deported.
I haven't seen the video where it looks like he was hit. I saw one -- I can't seem to find it now -- where it's from a distance and blurry and black and white and we see him sort of recoil as if to get out of the way.
It looks to me like he was in the process of setting himself up to stand in front of the car and do "don't move or I shoot" type scenario. He draws his gun and points it. But by that time, she was already backing up and getting ready to drive away. This was not sufficient time for a fair warning.
Moreover, he should not have drawn his gun at all. The situation didn't warrant it. The thing to do as she's getting ready to drive away is to let her go. The use of deadly force, even the drawing of the gun and setting himself up in that position, to effectuate an arrest or get her to move her car or whatever was way out of line. The woman was obviously no threat to anyone and had committed no serious crime.
I do believe that there is at least probable cause for an indictment on a state criminal charge and that Minnesota authorities should be looking seriously into doing that. I assume they are. There is no absolute immunity for federal officers. It is a fact-specific inquiry that depends on legal factors subject to hearing in federal court after what's called "federal officer removal" to such federal court applying state law.
We may find out definitively at some point whether Jonathan Ross was actually hit by Renee Good’s car. Good’s estate has hired lawyers to bring an appropriate civil action against Ross (a Bivens claim) and/or the government (under the Federal Tort Claims Act). Subpoenas will issue. Medical records which are relevant to the dispute will be produced.
In addition, I’m sure that there is a grand jury in Minnesota which will hear evidence relevant to the issue of whether the killing was justified. The Attorney General of Minnesota indicted Derek Chauvin even when the local prosecutor refused to do so. Grand juries have subpoena powers. Again, medical records will be produced.
There is confidentiality with respect to evidence produced to a grand jury, and there would be a HIPAA confidentiality order in the civil case brought by Good’s estate. But, if either case went to trial, the medical records would come out. And if the medical records were relevant to a claim dispositive motion in the civil case, they would be disclosed in the public record.
Do you have a view on how strong qualified immunity will be as a defense to a Bivens claim? By the way, this is an actual organization that I think is probably worth our support, American Against Qualified Immunity.
A little p.s.: It's worth noting that a criminal case against Ross, even one that proceeds in federal court, would not be subject to Trump's pardon power, because it would be a state law claim.
I agree that qualified immunity should be abolished. It’s a doctrine created by the Supreme Court in litigation under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 that has no basis in the language of the statute. It was created in a case called Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982). The ostensible reason for the doctrine was the Supreme Court’s concern that the best people would not go into government service if they might be required to pay damages for their conduct in cases where a reasonable government agent in their position would not have known that his conduct was illegal or unconstitutional. But the courts, especially in the Fourth Amendment context, have been using the doctrine to limit liability to all but the most egregious cases. The courts have been requiring the plaintiff to show controlling precedent with very similar facts to get around qualified immunity. And since the government indemnifies its agents when they are liable to someone for violating their constitutional rights for conduct in the scope of their employment, the ostensible rationale for the rule was fraudulent from the very beginning.
I don’t have an opinion yet on the application of the qualified immunity affirmative defense to Good’s Bivens claim. Those inquiries are very fact specific, especially where the Fourth Amendment is the basis of the Plaintiff’s claim, and I don’t know enough of the facts yet to venture an opinion.
And, yes, a state conviction would be beyond the President’s pardon power.
Please, please, please look at the video. There is no agent in front of the car. There is no agent behind the car. This is not only tragic, it’s becoming a sick joke. Now the orange stain is saying that the agent has suffered internal injuries. Even if you believe his foot was run over, which I question, internal injuries? A person with common sense wouldn’t stick their foot under a tire in the first place. How would that stop a car? By the way, EZ, just to make you feel better, I agreed with you on Ben Johnson. Maybe it’s time for the sports media to stay out of locker rooms and let them privately enjoy their man-boy, mancave celebrations.
You mentioned music being an important part of growing old. In about 2000 I went to a New Year’s party at my grandmother’s nursing home. It was like the movie Awakenings (with Robin Williams) which I had seen previously. A room of people in wheelchairs sitting there, but not quite being present. The music from the 1920s and 1930s started playing. I heard comments like “that was her best song”, followed by “that was her only song”. The people all seemed very alert. Then the party ended, the heads dropped down again, and it was earily quiet again. My grandmother lived there for 3 more years, but I never saw that awakening again.
You said you never saw the awakening again. Was that because the ‘20s/‘30s music was never played again? It would seem almost criminally negligent if the staff knew that such a simple elixir was available, but couldn’t be bothered to trot it out.
Ross was clearly already reaching for/pulling his gun before Renee Good’s vehicle started forward. If you assume that he was anticipating her driving forward, then you have to also assume that he had already decided to shoot her instead of getting out of the way.
When I am on the final leg of my life I’ll want a playlist of music from 1975 to 1982. That was my sweet spot. And I’ve journaled since 1990, so I’ll ask my caregiver to “read me my memories “.
His conversion (or whatever) is not unlike Pascal's Wager ... or maybe it is exactly like it!
Quoting Wikipedia:
"Pascal contends that a rational person should adopt a lifestyle consistent with the existence of God and should strive to believe in God. The reasoning for this stance involves the potential outcomes: if God does not exist, the believer incurs only finite losses, potentially sacrificing certain pleasures and luxuries; if God does exist, the believer stands to gain immeasurably, as represented for example by an eternity in Heaven in Abrahamic tradition, while simultaneously avoiding boundless losses associated with an eternity in Hell."
In statistical terms, the Expected Value of Belief is larger than the Expected Value of Non-Belief.
Pascal's Wager doesn't work because we don't know what God might want us to believe and lots of beliefs are mutually exclusive. What if God, say, is Islamic, Protestant, Jewish, or none of those and any form of belief that isn't correct from His perspective really annoys him? If you just say, Well I believe in God generally, God may well not be satisfied because He wants you to believe in the more specific set of beliefs and you'd have no protection. If you say, Well I believe in this specific one, God may well say, "You have chosen poorly." And then there's the possibility that God is a rationalist and really doesn't want you to believe in Him without more evidence and finds such faith-based belief an egregious abuse of one's God-given powers of perception and reasoning. You can't deny that possibility so long as we're just making up possibilities. One could likewise imagine a God that wants you to be a jerk as well as a God that wants you to be good. Contra Pascal, there's no way to hedge. The only way it makes sense is if you grant a socially dominant religious view or one that one happens to be immersed in -- Pascal's Roman Catholicism, for example -- a greater presumption of possible likelihood vis-a-vis others than it deserves.
p.s. The other reason Pascal's wager doesn't work is that God may not be satisfied with belief as wager or hedge. Such a belief seems, after all, insincere and not pure of heart.
Apart from what other religions say, Scott Adams claimed to be making a "Christian Faith" decision. Whether that type of deathbed conversion can be valid we could look at two biblical passages since the Bible is what the Christian Faith is predicated upon.
Romans 10:9&10 is common passage used almost as a formula for salvation. "If you declare with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved."
In Luke 23:39-43, one of the thieves crucified on either side of Jesus confesses he is guilty but Jesus is innocent and concludes with the request to Jesus to "remember me when you come into your kingdom." This man seems to recognize Jesus as his Lord and expects him to rule after the crucifixion. Given Jesus' following response to this thief, "...today you will be with me in paradise." obviously this is a genuine deathbed conversion.
For Scott Adams and Pascal's wager it seems to me that the verbal declarations are easy, but the harder question is whether there is a "heart belief" on the part of the wagerer as JakeH references in his p.s.
I do not see in Adams' "risk-reward" statement much to suggest that he believed the Christian message in his heart. Any death-bed conversion inspired by fear strikes me as an effort at appeasement, a hedging of the bet.
I would agree with your assessment of his heart based upon his explanation for his decision, but cannot know for sure. I can ask the larger question of at what point any "fire escape" faith becomes a "saving" faith, but do not think there is a formula for that either.
Not that it is any church’s doctrine (that I know of) I believe that God, being all powerful, can make exceptions and accept anyone he pleases. That helps when you have deceased family members who have died.
A general wealth tax has big problems. Say you start up a company and in its early years it has revenue, but it is losing money. How do you put a value on it if it is not publicly traded? There are plenty of companies that have high valuations that lose money. Suppose you come up with a value of $100 million. Neither the company or you has nearly that much money because the valuation is based on future potential profits. If you cannot pay the wealth tax, that is a big problem. Or suppose you can pay it, but then things do not work out for the company and it ends up being worthless. Do you get your wealth tax refunded?
Taxing realized gains is much cleaner. Some people see problems with this since there are some equity owners who can avoid ever realizing gains and pass the equity to heirs who get a step up in valuation, but I think that is much smaller problem.
Even if people would not move out of CA in larger numbers, investment in new start-ups would be done much less in CA.
How about taxing loans taken out not needed for a house or car or pay for college? Maybe a threshold of say 10 million? This would prevent the buy borrow and die method. Maybe not prevent but put a kink in the manipulation of money to avoid taxes.
I had not heard of that idea before. You are suggesting putting a tax of home mortgage loans, car loans, and college loans? Business owners and people with a lot of access are going to have access to credit. The buy, borrow, and die method rests heavily on the step-up in basis for heirs. The challenge is that there are good reasons for that rule.
The idea of making the rules different for the ultra-rich is not new. In 1969 the first Alternative Minimum Tax law as enacted in response to media reports of high income people not paying any federal taxes. My issue with that is that they did not address the underlying mechanisms used to avoid taxes. Exemption of municipal bond dividends was and still is a large source of income exempt from federal tax. Not paying any tax and not have a cost burden because of the tax law are two different things. Muni investors accept a lower return on their investment instead of paying tax. Be benefit accrues to the bond issuer, not the bond buyer. Over time the AMT ended up impacting a large number of people, not just very high income people. Consider that the same thing could happen if we start taxing debt or assets.
I was not suggesting putting a tax of home mortgage loans, car loans etc. In my haste to write my comment I did not convey my thoughts. My bad. I was suggesting that we tax certain individuals that borrow against their assets to fund their lifestyle and avoid paying any or a small amount of income tax. I suggested that we exempt certain loans such as loans to purchase a home or a car and other such things that will certainly get the public all up in arms. Or put a threshold on how much you can borrow without triggering a tax.
Nobody really likes paying taxes, I get it. But taxes are how we fund things of public need. Whether it be highways, police and fire, education, common defense; these things are to the benefit of everyone living in this country. Even Jeff Bezos gets a benefit from the taxes we all pay. I should not have to go through the list here. So why do we as a people let our lawmakers create such large loopholes so Jeff can borrow against his Amazon stock live a lavish lifestyle and only pay a modest interest on the loan with no tax due. My understanding is when he dies his heirs will inherit the stock at a stepped-up basis (avoiding capital gains) and sell some of the shares to pay off the loan. So, he could and probably does borrow tens of millions with no tax due. This way he can give himself a modest salary that will put him into a lower tax bracket. But God forbid we increase minimum wage (which is taxable) or we give out food stamps.
If I understand you correctly, someone like Jeff Bezos would trigger a tax liability whenever he takes out a loan. It is hard to impossible, even for moderately affluent people, to determine what a loan is for. That would make it a tax on debt. If there is a rule that it only applies to people with a net worth above some threshold, then it is a combination of wealth tax and debt tax.
The step-up in basis for inherited assets is not a loop-hole. The rule is there for a good reason. Also, people who borrow against their assets are taking a risk. If their assets drop in value, they still owe what they borrowed and they may not be collateralized after the drop. This is exactly what happened in th 2008 housing/mortgage crisis to a lot of people who got highly leveraged. This also happens to wealthy people. Donal Trump is an example. He personally borrowed money using real-estate holdings as collateral. In 1990-1991 real estate values dropped and profits from casinos and hotels shrunk resulting in him not being able to service the loans and lenders seized them. Trump was insolvent.
Supporters liked the president because he was a businessman and they liked the idea of a businessman unencumbered by red tape. But with that red tape comes checks and balances. What we got was a 19th century businessman like the ones who ruthlessly destroyed their competition. Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, and others.
Except the 19th Century businessmen you mentioned were all successes.
The demented, deranged, moronic, child raping, narcissistic sociopath, fascist traitor is a business failure, he actual went broke running casinos, a business where people go to lose money to you!
Interesting article in the Tribune that just came to my inbox. What to make of it?
“But Chicagoans were sharply divided on enforcement — and the city’s sanctuary status — by race, income and age.
The strongest opposition to federal enforcement and support for the city’s sanctuary policy was among people who were white, wealthier and living on the city’s North Side, the survey found.“
I haven’t read the article yet, but its findings would seem to comport with similar socioeconomic differences in views about policing in general. White, wealthy and politically liberal residents are usually the ones that entertain ideas like defunding or abolishing the police, and throw around invented terms like “overpolicing”, whereas black people are far less likely to espouse this kind of rhetoric. I don’t know if there are any studies that have helped to account for this, but the assumption is that it is because white wealthy residents are less likely to suffer the ravages of rampant crime than black and economically disadvantaged residents are.
Renee thoughts in no particular order: Enforcement experts have noted standing in front of a vehicle is not a trained action - for just these reasons, getting hit by the vehicle. The officer had previously been hit by a car 1. Think he would have learned. 2. Perhaps a PTSD response to this situation. Time to retire the phrase 'dometic terrorism.' Finally, I have heard no comparison of Trumps outrage at the government of Iran for attacking its people, protestors and is threatening response, yet ICE is on the streets attacking Americans in which they are being encourged to do.
D-Penalty: It's still around for now. I would defintely select firing squad if given the choice. Highly accurate. Quick. Less mistakes.
Music Challenge: Some songs stand out - not always for the good - but certainly takes you back to the time. Will have to explore more.
Bear Weather. Obviously a myth for decades - more of a catch phrase for fans. That said Roger Craig, Manager MLB SF Giants played in Candlestick Park - one of the worst stadiums especially for baseball with the cold temps, wet and windy days. He rallied his team to change their mindset for what a rotten home field to embracing the awfulness and claim this is our park and the weather is to our advantage. Embrace it and let the visiting team cry and whimper about visiting our field.
Watch Jon Stewart's monologue from Monday (that EZ linked to in today's PS). He not only tackles the irony of lambasting Iran for killing protestors while defending ICE for the killing of Renee Good, but also juxtaposes the right-wing rhetoric around Jan 6th rioters with their statements about her shooting.
I believe that Noem, the puppy killer is a domestic terrorist. Unaccountable, violent, untrained Ice Agents are also domestic terrorists. The domestic terror is the point.
Since my retirement, I have a lot more free time. I started creating playlists a couple of months ago, I'm using Apple Music right now, but I'm looking for a free way to download and save music without subscribing to an online source. My range of favorites covers about three decades, mostly rock music, and I would like to transfer saved lists to a personal library. Any suggestions?
If “kettling” was used as a strategic tactic, was Renee Good’s death a premeditated murder? Here’s what LA Times reported in 2014: “Patrol agents have deliberately stepped in the path of cars apparently to justify shooting at the drivers…according to an independent review of 67 cases that resulted in 19 deaths.” They’ve had a dozen years to refine their tactics. https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-border-killings-20140227-story.html.
Do you remember when people remonstrated with you and accused you of hysterical over-reaction when you compared the current "administration" to the early years of Nazi Germany. Brownshirts beating and murdering people in the streets? Persecution of a despised minority? Involuntary transfer to camps that concentrate and brutalize people? A Department of "Justice" that perpetrates injustice? Government departments openly deploying white nationalist slogans and images? Territorial aggression in search of plunder and Lebensraum? Check, check, check ...
M - i hesitated to click 'Like' - b/c, altho i agree 100% with what you've said, and said well, i'm mortified to to click 'Like'. in this case, i wish there were an option Agree', or 'Strongly Agree'
I am with you, EZ, on opposing the death penalty in general, but I disagree that the firing squad is somehow more or at least equally humane and acceptable as other methods. Granted, I have no idea how exactly it is implemented in modern days, but the mention of it always reminds me of Albert Camus' description of it in The Plague, pasted below. I think it's a pointed display of dominance by the state, a show of its overwhelming power and the lack of regard or compassion for its subjects that dare transgress against it, and a stark warning to all witnessing or hearing about it. It's simply barbarian. No wonder it's been readily embraced by Republicans.
"Have you ever seen a man shot by a firing-squad? […] You’ve gleaned your ideas about it from books and pictures. A post, a blindfolded man, some soldiers in the offing. But the real thing isn’t a bit like that. Do you know the firing-squad stands only a yard and a half from the condemned man? Do you know that if the victim took two steps forward his chest would touch the rifles? Do you know that, at this short range, the soldiers concentrate their fire on the region of the heart and their bullets make a hole into which you could thrust your fist? No, you didn’t know all that; those are the things that are never spoken of. For the plague-stricken their peace of mind is more important than a human life. Decent folks must be allowed to sleep easy o’nights, mustn’t they? Really it would be shockingly bad taste to linger on such details, that’s common knowledge."
I agree with EZ on firing squads. The issue has been researched by people more knowledgeable than me.
https://news.law.fordham.edu/blog/2025/03/20/is-the-firing-squad-a-more-humane-method-of-execution/
Not to give them ideas, but I’ve often wondered why the state doesn’t simply anesthetize the person and then flood the room with nitrogen?
I'm curious about the psychological effect on the shooters, and who would qualify for the job to begin with? It seems to me it would require the emotional vacancy of a sociopath.
I oppose capital punishment in all cases for thar very reason: the effect on the people and society who exercise it. All of the flaws in American culture and government are writ large now. Those who support capital punishment are driving this clown car.
My guess is it wouldd be similar to nazi minions, justifying their actions by believing in the ideology, telling themselves they're just following orders and enforcing the law. I'm sure most of the people currently working for ICE would be willing if not eager to take that job.
I too oppose the death penalty, largely for the reason K Mason (below) cites: If the wrong person is executed, there is no way to retract and correct the error. Of course, circumstances exist in which it is known with 100% certainty that the right person was convicted, and it never will be safe to allow that person among the public again. That situation makes execution more justifiable, I guess, but I agree with Wendy C. (also below) that it's still not healthy to encourage even more coldblooded disregard among our population.
But as long as this society continues to execute those ruled criminally incorrigible, we are morally obliged to do so dispassionately and painlessly -- as genuine euthanasia, not vengeance. Given the appalling vagaries of firing squads, hanging, electrocution, lethal injection (which Eric correctly notes does seem to work when administered by veterinarians), etc., I've wondered why that dependable old "cure" that nonetheless often unintentionally eased people out of life isn't used -- bloodletting.
When framed as blood donation, it's so non-traumatic that thousands of us voluntarily participate every year. The only difference at an execution would be that collection wouldn't stop at a single pint, and if the executed person's blood was medically suitable, it could go to a blood bank, thus at least somewhat compensating society.
Executing someone with blood unsuitable for donation would be even easier: Dose him with warfarin, locally anesthetize a patch of skin, cut down to an artery (carotid? brachial? femoral?), and direct the person's exiting blood into a drain until the flow stops. That ought to be reliably painless and guaranteed lethal. Its optics are grisly, but surely no more than those of an electric chair, gallows, or firing squad. Yet I've never seen the idea proposed.
I agree with your general philosophy, but something about this method feels too morbid and unseemly. I can't put my finger on why exactly. Can we really deny bodily autonomy to people sentenced to death? I guess killing them implies that we can, doesn't it? Why stop at blood, why not harvest their organs? Something about that feels even more wrong than capital punishment itself.
BTW, the way they used to do it during Stalin's repressions in the USSR is they'd take the convicted person to a basement on a pretext of going for questioning or something and a guard would shoot him in the back of the head unawares. I'm sure the failure rate was also minimal if any.
Whether or not the shooting of Good was murder or not, I think that it was a mistake for the ICE agent to place himself in front of her car. I’d be interested in what the agent manual says in that.
There is ample evidence that many of these latest ICE agents are not fully trained, if at all. They are more of a state-sanctioned lynch mob at this point.
I thought I read that the shooter had 10 years on the job? I keep remembering scenes in movies (like It’s a Wonderful Life) where police shoot wildly into crowds at people running away. That seems to still be a thing.
He also was seriously injured on the job last June & obviously has PTSD from that, which is why he should've been on desk duty & banned from possessing or using a firearm!
I often think of Barney Fife at times like these. But Barney had to keep his bullet in his shirt pocket.
No doubt there were plenty of ICE agents prior to last year, but since the inauguration they have added lots more with apparently minimal training and cursory background checks.
ICE training has been reduced to 47 days, in honor of our 47th president.
Are you sure it's not 47 seconds?
The death penalty, in and of itself, is so barbaric that the method is of less importance than the fact of its existence. And the fact that some of these methods result in further torture of the victim just adds to the barbarity.
I've not been the victim of a crime nor has anyone in my family been a victim so I do not have any insight into the feelings of those who have been. But I have great difficulty imagining that watching someone die at the hands of an executioner would give me relief from my anger and pain.
And as a further objection to executions, the criminal justice system is so terribly flawed that the likelihood that the road to the death room is true and straight is low. From arrest to charging to trials to sentence there is bias and misconduct.
Life sentences are terrible but they offer the possibility of living long enough that correcting the errors in the process. Executions end the opportunity for corrections.
Thank you for this thoughtful comment.
I actually see a potential interesting debate. How are punishments in general determined? Who decides that 5 or 30 years or life is appropriate for certain crimes? Why do prisons exist- is it punishment, simple separation from society or fixing criminals for return to society? Death is final. Whether or not one agrees with the death penalty, it must be done right if not banned. It could make for quite a discussion.
The execution *is* the correction. Emotional catharsis for the victim or victim's family is incidental to the outcome of eliminating the possibility of future murders, rapes, etc.
“Men are not hanged for stealing horses, but that horses may not be stolen.”
It’s pretty well established that it isn’t a deterrent.
It is definitely a deterrent in absolute terms.
Yes, executed convicts never commit another crime. Both the guilty AND the innocent.
This is true, but if you want to think about it in terms of Blackstone's ratio, 10:1 is off by many orders of magnitude, and in any event is not a formal part of the legal code. The number of innocent people in prison for serious crimes is vanishingly small, particularly when compared with the number of violent criminals who are not in prison.
"If anyone wants to offer a contrary interpretation of the video evidence, let’s hear it."
would love to hear David Leitschuh's take on this one.
I’m not David, but I’ll offer this: there’s more than one video of this incident, and among the others is one from an angle in which it’s clear that the vehicle DID hit Ross. In the still photo in which his feet are framed you’ll notice that his feet are set back and his legs appear to lean forward. That’s because he’s just been struck by the car. I realize that this makes no difference to anyone else around here. More importantly, based on my interpretation of the guidelines that are posted in today’s edition, it also apparently makes no difference in the eyes of the law which, sure enough, seems to hold that even if someone weaponizes their vehicle, a law enforcement agent is not permitted to fire upon them. That seems utterly bizarre to me, but I do know of at least one recent case in which a cop was acquitted for shooting a suspected shoplifter who drove her car into him.
There is much ado about the fact that her wheels were turned to the right and not pointed directly forward, but seriously? The agent is supposed to compute all that in the small fraction of a second in which a two ton vehicle has just accelerated and hit him? Did anyone other than Rex Huppke or Steve Thrasher hold Adam Toledo’s shooter to such exacting standards?
Part of the disconnect here, I think, is the distorted way in which society exaggerates certain hazards whilst minimizing ones that might perhaps warrant more consideration for their potential to cause harm. We have developed a culture which overwhelmingly seems to regard automobiles as these innocuous implements that only feature in our lives as provisions of luxury, convenience and satisfaction, and while they do offer all that, they are also massive, heavy, unwieldy pieces of machinery capable of quickly achieving high speeds that can, and do, contribute to grand scale levels of catastrophic damage, injury and loss of human life (about 40,000 American ones annually). I point all this out because a big part of the argument that Ross should be charged and tried for murder is this cavalier attitude that, Ms. Good didn’t REALLY pose any sort of threat to him or put him in harm’s way. She was, after all, just driving her car.
I said this the other day, but I’ll repeat it: the tactics that ICE are employing are outrageous, unconscionable and authoritarian. But they are the policies that were promised by the autocrat that was freely and fairly elected fourteen months ago after the opposition party consciously decided not to run a candidate that would defeat him. Peacefully protesting what ICE is doing is the honorable and courageous thing to do, but actively attempting to interfere, impede and seek out confrontations with them is spectacularly reckless and foolish. It’s self serving (pretexts to the contrary), it endangers the activists and bystanders alike, and it isn’t preventing anyone from being apprehended or deported.
I'm linking the following, and it's a long read, but I think you'll find it interesting. It's written by a lawyer and former FBI Special Agent.
"Regardless of whether deadly force was legally justified, Renee Nicole Good’s death was preventable."
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/before-and-after-the-trigger-press-that-killed-renee-good
I haven't seen the video where it looks like he was hit. I saw one -- I can't seem to find it now -- where it's from a distance and blurry and black and white and we see him sort of recoil as if to get out of the way.
It looks to me like he was in the process of setting himself up to stand in front of the car and do "don't move or I shoot" type scenario. He draws his gun and points it. But by that time, she was already backing up and getting ready to drive away. This was not sufficient time for a fair warning.
Moreover, he should not have drawn his gun at all. The situation didn't warrant it. The thing to do as she's getting ready to drive away is to let her go. The use of deadly force, even the drawing of the gun and setting himself up in that position, to effectuate an arrest or get her to move her car or whatever was way out of line. The woman was obviously no threat to anyone and had committed no serious crime.
I do believe that there is at least probable cause for an indictment on a state criminal charge and that Minnesota authorities should be looking seriously into doing that. I assume they are. There is no absolute immunity for federal officers. It is a fact-specific inquiry that depends on legal factors subject to hearing in federal court after what's called "federal officer removal" to such federal court applying state law.
We may find out definitively at some point whether Jonathan Ross was actually hit by Renee Good’s car. Good’s estate has hired lawyers to bring an appropriate civil action against Ross (a Bivens claim) and/or the government (under the Federal Tort Claims Act). Subpoenas will issue. Medical records which are relevant to the dispute will be produced.
In addition, I’m sure that there is a grand jury in Minnesota which will hear evidence relevant to the issue of whether the killing was justified. The Attorney General of Minnesota indicted Derek Chauvin even when the local prosecutor refused to do so. Grand juries have subpoena powers. Again, medical records will be produced.
There is confidentiality with respect to evidence produced to a grand jury, and there would be a HIPAA confidentiality order in the civil case brought by Good’s estate. But, if either case went to trial, the medical records would come out. And if the medical records were relevant to a claim dispositive motion in the civil case, they would be disclosed in the public record.
Do you have a view on how strong qualified immunity will be as a defense to a Bivens claim? By the way, this is an actual organization that I think is probably worth our support, American Against Qualified Immunity.
https://aaqi.org/
A little p.s.: It's worth noting that a criminal case against Ross, even one that proceeds in federal court, would not be subject to Trump's pardon power, because it would be a state law claim.
I agree that qualified immunity should be abolished. It’s a doctrine created by the Supreme Court in litigation under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 that has no basis in the language of the statute. It was created in a case called Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982). The ostensible reason for the doctrine was the Supreme Court’s concern that the best people would not go into government service if they might be required to pay damages for their conduct in cases where a reasonable government agent in their position would not have known that his conduct was illegal or unconstitutional. But the courts, especially in the Fourth Amendment context, have been using the doctrine to limit liability to all but the most egregious cases. The courts have been requiring the plaintiff to show controlling precedent with very similar facts to get around qualified immunity. And since the government indemnifies its agents when they are liable to someone for violating their constitutional rights for conduct in the scope of their employment, the ostensible rationale for the rule was fraudulent from the very beginning.
I don’t have an opinion yet on the application of the qualified immunity affirmative defense to Good’s Bivens claim. Those inquiries are very fact specific, especially where the Fourth Amendment is the basis of the Plaintiff’s claim, and I don’t know enough of the facts yet to venture an opinion.
And, yes, a state conviction would be beyond the President’s pardon power.
Please, please, please look at the video. There is no agent in front of the car. There is no agent behind the car. This is not only tragic, it’s becoming a sick joke. Now the orange stain is saying that the agent has suffered internal injuries. Even if you believe his foot was run over, which I question, internal injuries? A person with common sense wouldn’t stick their foot under a tire in the first place. How would that stop a car? By the way, EZ, just to make you feel better, I agreed with you on Ben Johnson. Maybe it’s time for the sports media to stay out of locker rooms and let them privately enjoy their man-boy, mancave celebrations.
You mentioned music being an important part of growing old. In about 2000 I went to a New Year’s party at my grandmother’s nursing home. It was like the movie Awakenings (with Robin Williams) which I had seen previously. A room of people in wheelchairs sitting there, but not quite being present. The music from the 1920s and 1930s started playing. I heard comments like “that was her best song”, followed by “that was her only song”. The people all seemed very alert. Then the party ended, the heads dropped down again, and it was earily quiet again. My grandmother lived there for 3 more years, but I never saw that awakening again.
You said you never saw the awakening again. Was that because the ‘20s/‘30s music was never played again? It would seem almost criminally negligent if the staff knew that such a simple elixir was available, but couldn’t be bothered to trot it out.
To be honest I didn’t visit much, and that was a special party.
Ross was clearly already reaching for/pulling his gun before Renee Good’s vehicle started forward. If you assume that he was anticipating her driving forward, then you have to also assume that he had already decided to shoot her instead of getting out of the way.
When I am on the final leg of my life I’ll want a playlist of music from 1975 to 1982. That was my sweet spot. And I’ve journaled since 1990, so I’ll ask my caregiver to “read me my memories “.
Re: Scott Adams
His conversion (or whatever) is not unlike Pascal's Wager ... or maybe it is exactly like it!
Quoting Wikipedia:
"Pascal contends that a rational person should adopt a lifestyle consistent with the existence of God and should strive to believe in God. The reasoning for this stance involves the potential outcomes: if God does not exist, the believer incurs only finite losses, potentially sacrificing certain pleasures and luxuries; if God does exist, the believer stands to gain immeasurably, as represented for example by an eternity in Heaven in Abrahamic tradition, while simultaneously avoiding boundless losses associated with an eternity in Hell."
In statistical terms, the Expected Value of Belief is larger than the Expected Value of Non-Belief.
Pascal's Wager doesn't work because we don't know what God might want us to believe and lots of beliefs are mutually exclusive. What if God, say, is Islamic, Protestant, Jewish, or none of those and any form of belief that isn't correct from His perspective really annoys him? If you just say, Well I believe in God generally, God may well not be satisfied because He wants you to believe in the more specific set of beliefs and you'd have no protection. If you say, Well I believe in this specific one, God may well say, "You have chosen poorly." And then there's the possibility that God is a rationalist and really doesn't want you to believe in Him without more evidence and finds such faith-based belief an egregious abuse of one's God-given powers of perception and reasoning. You can't deny that possibility so long as we're just making up possibilities. One could likewise imagine a God that wants you to be a jerk as well as a God that wants you to be good. Contra Pascal, there's no way to hedge. The only way it makes sense is if you grant a socially dominant religious view or one that one happens to be immersed in -- Pascal's Roman Catholicism, for example -- a greater presumption of possible likelihood vis-a-vis others than it deserves.
p.s. The other reason Pascal's wager doesn't work is that God may not be satisfied with belief as wager or hedge. Such a belief seems, after all, insincere and not pure of heart.
Apart from what other religions say, Scott Adams claimed to be making a "Christian Faith" decision. Whether that type of deathbed conversion can be valid we could look at two biblical passages since the Bible is what the Christian Faith is predicated upon.
Romans 10:9&10 is common passage used almost as a formula for salvation. "If you declare with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved."
In Luke 23:39-43, one of the thieves crucified on either side of Jesus confesses he is guilty but Jesus is innocent and concludes with the request to Jesus to "remember me when you come into your kingdom." This man seems to recognize Jesus as his Lord and expects him to rule after the crucifixion. Given Jesus' following response to this thief, "...today you will be with me in paradise." obviously this is a genuine deathbed conversion.
For Scott Adams and Pascal's wager it seems to me that the verbal declarations are easy, but the harder question is whether there is a "heart belief" on the part of the wagerer as JakeH references in his p.s.
I do not see in Adams' "risk-reward" statement much to suggest that he believed the Christian message in his heart. Any death-bed conversion inspired by fear strikes me as an effort at appeasement, a hedging of the bet.
I would agree with your assessment of his heart based upon his explanation for his decision, but cannot know for sure. I can ask the larger question of at what point any "fire escape" faith becomes a "saving" faith, but do not think there is a formula for that either.
I agree. It sounded to me like he was writing one last bit of humor before he died. I does sound kind of like a Dilbert cartoon
This reminds me of Homer Simpson's line: "What if every Sunday you're going to the wrong church and God is just getting madder and madder?"
Yup, can't rule it out!
Not that it is any church’s doctrine (that I know of) I believe that God, being all powerful, can make exceptions and accept anyone he pleases. That helps when you have deceased family members who have died.
A general wealth tax has big problems. Say you start up a company and in its early years it has revenue, but it is losing money. How do you put a value on it if it is not publicly traded? There are plenty of companies that have high valuations that lose money. Suppose you come up with a value of $100 million. Neither the company or you has nearly that much money because the valuation is based on future potential profits. If you cannot pay the wealth tax, that is a big problem. Or suppose you can pay it, but then things do not work out for the company and it ends up being worthless. Do you get your wealth tax refunded?
Taxing realized gains is much cleaner. Some people see problems with this since there are some equity owners who can avoid ever realizing gains and pass the equity to heirs who get a step up in valuation, but I think that is much smaller problem.
Even if people would not move out of CA in larger numbers, investment in new start-ups would be done much less in CA.
How about taxing loans taken out not needed for a house or car or pay for college? Maybe a threshold of say 10 million? This would prevent the buy borrow and die method. Maybe not prevent but put a kink in the manipulation of money to avoid taxes.
I had not heard of that idea before. You are suggesting putting a tax of home mortgage loans, car loans, and college loans? Business owners and people with a lot of access are going to have access to credit. The buy, borrow, and die method rests heavily on the step-up in basis for heirs. The challenge is that there are good reasons for that rule.
The idea of making the rules different for the ultra-rich is not new. In 1969 the first Alternative Minimum Tax law as enacted in response to media reports of high income people not paying any federal taxes. My issue with that is that they did not address the underlying mechanisms used to avoid taxes. Exemption of municipal bond dividends was and still is a large source of income exempt from federal tax. Not paying any tax and not have a cost burden because of the tax law are two different things. Muni investors accept a lower return on their investment instead of paying tax. Be benefit accrues to the bond issuer, not the bond buyer. Over time the AMT ended up impacting a large number of people, not just very high income people. Consider that the same thing could happen if we start taxing debt or assets.
I was not suggesting putting a tax of home mortgage loans, car loans etc. In my haste to write my comment I did not convey my thoughts. My bad. I was suggesting that we tax certain individuals that borrow against their assets to fund their lifestyle and avoid paying any or a small amount of income tax. I suggested that we exempt certain loans such as loans to purchase a home or a car and other such things that will certainly get the public all up in arms. Or put a threshold on how much you can borrow without triggering a tax.
Nobody really likes paying taxes, I get it. But taxes are how we fund things of public need. Whether it be highways, police and fire, education, common defense; these things are to the benefit of everyone living in this country. Even Jeff Bezos gets a benefit from the taxes we all pay. I should not have to go through the list here. So why do we as a people let our lawmakers create such large loopholes so Jeff can borrow against his Amazon stock live a lavish lifestyle and only pay a modest interest on the loan with no tax due. My understanding is when he dies his heirs will inherit the stock at a stepped-up basis (avoiding capital gains) and sell some of the shares to pay off the loan. So, he could and probably does borrow tens of millions with no tax due. This way he can give himself a modest salary that will put him into a lower tax bracket. But God forbid we increase minimum wage (which is taxable) or we give out food stamps.
If I understand you correctly, someone like Jeff Bezos would trigger a tax liability whenever he takes out a loan. It is hard to impossible, even for moderately affluent people, to determine what a loan is for. That would make it a tax on debt. If there is a rule that it only applies to people with a net worth above some threshold, then it is a combination of wealth tax and debt tax.
The step-up in basis for inherited assets is not a loop-hole. The rule is there for a good reason. Also, people who borrow against their assets are taking a risk. If their assets drop in value, they still owe what they borrowed and they may not be collateralized after the drop. This is exactly what happened in th 2008 housing/mortgage crisis to a lot of people who got highly leveraged. This also happens to wealthy people. Donal Trump is an example. He personally borrowed money using real-estate holdings as collateral. In 1990-1991 real estate values dropped and profits from casinos and hotels shrunk resulting in him not being able to service the loans and lenders seized them. Trump was insolvent.
Supporters liked the president because he was a businessman and they liked the idea of a businessman unencumbered by red tape. But with that red tape comes checks and balances. What we got was a 19th century businessman like the ones who ruthlessly destroyed their competition. Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, and others.
Far worse. More venal and cruel than any of them.
Except the 19th Century businessmen you mentioned were all successes.
The demented, deranged, moronic, child raping, narcissistic sociopath, fascist traitor is a business failure, he actual went broke running casinos, a business where people go to lose money to you!
Interesting article in the Tribune that just came to my inbox. What to make of it?
“But Chicagoans were sharply divided on enforcement — and the city’s sanctuary status — by race, income and age.
The strongest opposition to federal enforcement and support for the city’s sanctuary policy was among people who were white, wealthier and living on the city’s North Side, the survey found.“
I haven’t read the article yet, but its findings would seem to comport with similar socioeconomic differences in views about policing in general. White, wealthy and politically liberal residents are usually the ones that entertain ideas like defunding or abolishing the police, and throw around invented terms like “overpolicing”, whereas black people are far less likely to espouse this kind of rhetoric. I don’t know if there are any studies that have helped to account for this, but the assumption is that it is because white wealthy residents are less likely to suffer the ravages of rampant crime than black and economically disadvantaged residents are.
Renee thoughts in no particular order: Enforcement experts have noted standing in front of a vehicle is not a trained action - for just these reasons, getting hit by the vehicle. The officer had previously been hit by a car 1. Think he would have learned. 2. Perhaps a PTSD response to this situation. Time to retire the phrase 'dometic terrorism.' Finally, I have heard no comparison of Trumps outrage at the government of Iran for attacking its people, protestors and is threatening response, yet ICE is on the streets attacking Americans in which they are being encourged to do.
D-Penalty: It's still around for now. I would defintely select firing squad if given the choice. Highly accurate. Quick. Less mistakes.
Music Challenge: Some songs stand out - not always for the good - but certainly takes you back to the time. Will have to explore more.
Bear Weather. Obviously a myth for decades - more of a catch phrase for fans. That said Roger Craig, Manager MLB SF Giants played in Candlestick Park - one of the worst stadiums especially for baseball with the cold temps, wet and windy days. He rallied his team to change their mindset for what a rotten home field to embracing the awfulness and claim this is our park and the weather is to our advantage. Embrace it and let the visiting team cry and whimper about visiting our field.
Watch Jon Stewart's monologue from Monday (that EZ linked to in today's PS). He not only tackles the irony of lambasting Iran for killing protestors while defending ICE for the killing of Renee Good, but also juxtaposes the right-wing rhetoric around Jan 6th rioters with their statements about her shooting.
I don't know if that's irony or hypocrisy (or both?)
I believe that Noem, the puppy killer is a domestic terrorist. Unaccountable, violent, untrained Ice Agents are also domestic terrorists. The domestic terror is the point.
Since my retirement, I have a lot more free time. I started creating playlists a couple of months ago, I'm using Apple Music right now, but I'm looking for a free way to download and save music without subscribing to an online source. My range of favorites covers about three decades, mostly rock music, and I would like to transfer saved lists to a personal library. Any suggestions?