Back HomeAboutContactLinksSearch this SiteSue Bob's Diary
November 23, 2007


October 28, 2007

This past Saturday night, I was babysitting for friends. I saw this story on the news about an 10 year old boy who brought a pocket knife to school. The administrators and parents are acting as if he brought a weapon of mass destruction to school!

Parents were interviewed saying things like, “this makes me think my child is not safe at school” and, “How did he ever get his hands on a pocket knife?” Over a pocket knife!

When I was 10, I received a Girl Scout pocket knife for Christmas. It was my proudest possession and I carried it everywhere. Back then, people thought of it as a handy tool. Kids were taught to whittle.

I race sailboats. The kids at the AYC are taught to use knives. If you are out in a blow and a line fouls, you have to use a knife to cut it–so you don’t broach or swamp.

The world is nuts. Personally, I think that public schools share a big part of the blame for that.


By: Sue Bob @ 12:52 pm in: Asshats,Uncategorized | Discussion (0)

September 9, 2007

A couple of months ago, some Barney Fife clones were called out to a rural neighborhood in Oklahoma because of a snake in a birdhouse. One of the fools shot at the snake without knowing what was beyond and killed a 5 year old boy who was fishing with his grandfather.

Two of the officers have now been charged with second-degree manslaughter. They should get a worse sentence than a regular citizen because of their training. People given responsibility like this should be held to a higher standard.

Luke 12:48
:

From everyone who has been given much, much will be required, 4 and from the one who has been entrusted with much, 5 even more will be asked. 6


By: Sue Bob @ 5:46 pm in: Asshats | Discussion (0)

From LRC, comes this story:

UNION CITY, Ga. – A McDonald’s employee spent a night in jail and is facing criminal charges because a police officer’s burger was too salty, so salty that he says it made him sick.

Kendra Bull was arrested Friday, charged with misdemeanor reckless conduct and freed on $1,000 bail.

Bull, 20, said she accidentally spilled salt on hamburger meat and told her supervisor and a co-worker, who “tried to thump the salt off.

Can’t this cop just call an attorney like everyone else?


By: Sue Bob @ 4:13 pm in: Asshats,Stupid Civil Government | Discussion (0)

For over a month, I have been following the case of Monica Montoya after finding it at Will Grigg’s blog. It is the story of a young working mother who lives in Roselle, New Jersey.

Ms. Montoya works at a Dunkin Donuts in Roselle. One day in July 2007, she was walking to the bus stop near her job in order to go pick up her 6 year old daughter from school. It was her daughter’s first day of summer school at a new school.

As she walked toward the bus stop, she came upon an accident involving a van and a pedestrian. All parties to the accident were still present. The pedestrian was bleeding from her head and Ms. Montoya approached her with a kleenex to wipe her head.

At that point, one of the officers who recognized her from the Dunkin Donuts asked her to interpret because the pedestrian could only speak Spanish. She interpreted for quite a while and also borrowed another officer’s cell phone in order to call the pedestrian’s family.

She then noticed that she had missed her bus and she became concerned about her daughter. She expressed her concern and the officers asked her to stay longer. She asked the officers for the use of a cell phone to call her own mother to ask her to pick up her daughter. At that point, the officer whose telephone she borrowed before told her that the battery was dead.

She walked toward the crowd to ask for a cell phone. Suddenly Officer Harold Breuninger grabbed her from behind and threw her down, causing a huge and lasting bruise to the side of her forehead. He arrested her for “obstruction” and “resisting arrest”, despite the fact that these charges are questionable in light of the 20 minute video of the event–although the seconds of the arrest are off camera. Below is an edited version:

Despite the video, the prosecution of Ms. Montoya continues. In fact, things have worsened. The case has been moved from the municipal prosecutor to the Union County prosecuter’s office–the very same office which is investigating the arresting officer’s conduct. The prosecutor denies that there is a conflict of interest, but will not agree that any interview of Ms. Montoya regarding her complaint will not be used in her prosecution. In other words, the prosecutors would have the option of twisting her words in an interview about the officer’s conduct in order to further their obscene prosecution. Her attorney, understandably will not agree to the interview.

Thus, the investigation of the office is at a stalemate and the prosecution continues to trial. This is a farce.

In my opinion, there is no way that probable cause exists to prosecute Ms. Montoya. The elements of the crime are absent.

She did not obstruct the investigation in any way, shape or form–whether purposely or unintentionally. The police had the option of calling an official interpreter retained by the police department to finish up the investigation–one who is actually paid for their service. Moreover, what legal duty did she have to stay to continue interpreting?

Here is the statute under which she is being prosecuted:

2C:29-1. Obstructing Administration of Law or Other Governmental Function. a. A person commits an offense if he purposely obstructs, impairs or perverts the administration of law or other governmental function or prevents or attempts to prevent a public servant from lawfully performing an official function by means of flight, intimidation, force, violence, or physical interference or obstacle, or by means of any independently unlawful act. This section does not apply to failure to perform a legal duty other than an official duty, or any other means of avoiding compliance with law without affirmative interference with governmental functions

There is simply no evidence that she PURPOSELY impaired, perverted, or prevented the investigation. Thus, that element is absent. Second, as I stated above, the police had the option of getting an official interpreter–so the investigation could have continued–while she made arrangements for her daughter, or went to pick her up so that the daughter wasn’t whisked away by government functionaries because of abandonment.

In one of the earlier articles, there was a suggestion that this is a case of first impression and that no one knows how the courts will rule on a situation where “obstruction” has not been charged against a person that was ceasing his or her volunteerism in such a situation. If this is true, such a case should never be filed because the public is not on notice that ceasing to help the police in a non-emergency situation where they are not a witness or party to the accident is a crime.

The ethical use of prosecutorial discretion does not allow for criminally prosecuting people under novel and untried theories and interpretations of statutes. Thus, the argument that because a court has never encountered such a case, the prosecution should continue to determine if the courts will rule that these facts constitute violation of this law simply does not hold water–and takes us down the path to totalitarianism. The prosecutor knows that Ms. Montoya did nothing to hinder the investigation–much less purposely. He is engaging in nothing less than CYA behavior.

The longer the Union County prosecutor continues down this road, the more he transforms himself into a clone of disgraced Durham, N.C. D.A., Michael Nifong–complete with Nifong’s bird-brains and shameful lack of decency.

If he continues the prosecution–he should suffer the consequences–just like Michael Nifong.

Here is a character reference by one of her daughter’s teachers.

Here are links to other articles regarding this story:

1.

2.

3.



August 11, 2007

They are not whom you assume them to be:


By: Sue Bob @ 10:42 pm in: Asshats,Stupid Civil Government | Discussion (0)

June 27, 2007

The senator complained that some of his constituents have attempted to “intimidate” him by saying they would oppose his re-election if he voted for the bill.

“You do not intimidate George Voinovich,” he said. “During my 40 years in this business, I have always looked at the pros and cons of each piece of legislation and made a determination. If people don’t like my decision, they can express their will during the next election.”

I happened to listen to Sean Hannity’s radio show while madly rushing home to move my sailboat trailer out of the dry sail area before the Hill Country floods swept it away. For the first time ever, I thought that Hannity did a good job cross-examining a guest. Hannity was interviewing Sen. George Voinovich, who it appears, supports the ridiculous amnesty bill.

Despite the fact that the man can’t answer the simplest questions about the bill, he condescends to his constituency and snivels about intimidation. Though he claims HE can’t be intimidated–he cowardly runs away from Hannity’s persistent–though reasonable–questions.

World Net Daily has the whole story complete with sound clips. You have got to listen to it.

Voinovich’s disrespect for his constituents reinforces my opinion that the 17th amendment should be repealed and selection of U.S. Senators placed back on the State Legislatures. Direct election dilutes the power of the electorate over Senators–especially in the face of six year terms. For instance, Voinivich is not up for reelection until 2010. By then, the damage will be wrought.

Tom Dilorenzo wrote a wonderful column in support of repealing the 17th Amendment. He describes how it used to work:

State legislatures did not hesitate to instruct U.S. senators on how to vote. In fact, the very first instruction that was given to them was to meet in public! The Virginia and Kentucky Resolves of 1798 (see William Watkins, Reclaiming the American Revolution) were the work of state legislatures that instructed their senators to oppose the Sedition Act, which essentially made it illegal to criticize the federal government.

State legislatures were instrumental in Andrew Jackson’s famous battle with the Bank of the United States (BUS), which ended with the Bank being de-funded and replaced by the Independent Treasury System and the era of “free banking” (1842–1862). State legislatures throughout the U.S. instructed their senators to oppose the BUS in the senate. Senator Pelog Sprague of Maine was forced to resign in 1835 after ignoring his legislature’s instructions to vote against the Bank. The U.S. Senate voted to censure President Andrew Jackson for opposing the BUS, but the states responded by forcing seven other senators to resign for taking part in that vote. (It seems that it’s not only twenty-first century Republicans who run for office by calling Washington, D.C. a cesspool, and then thinking of it as more like a hot tub once they get there).

I’ve been hearing stories about how the U.S. Senators have been turning off their fax machines and telephones in the face of overwhelming constituent protest of the amnesty bill. If State Legislatures could kick these overweening, high-hatted fops out on their duffs, do you think they would be forcing this bill down our throats? Your State Legislator is up for reelection a lot sooner than a Voinovich–and I doubt that he or she would be able to ignore constituents–considering that he or she lives there right in the neighborhood instead of Washington.

The U.S. Senate is filled with would-be potentates who are really nincompoops needing to be taken down a peg or two. A diffuse electorate can’t really do that. A State Legislature could take a Senator to the woodshed for a little dose of humility.

Voinovich should be first in line. McCain should be second.


By: Sue Bob @ 6:30 pm in: Asshats | Discussion (0)

June 18, 2007

In James Webb’s book Born Fighting; How the Scots-Irish Shaped America, he describes his Appalachian aunt’s reaction when he came home on break from law school. “Have they taught you how to lie, yet?”, she asked.

Here’s a reason why people think that about lawyers, parts of a video-taped seminar designed to help corporations adhere to federal immigration law through pure pretense. Note when the lawyer says this:

“And our goal is clearly not to find a qualified and interested U.S. worker. And you know in a sense that sounds funny, but it’s what we’re trying to do here. We are complying with the law fully, but ah, our objective is to get this person a green card, and get through the labor certification process. So certainly we are not going to try to find a place [at which to advertise the job] where the applicants are the most numerous. We’re going to try to find a place where we can comply with the law, and hoping, and likely, not to find qualified and interested worker applicants.”

(HT FreeRepublic)


By: Sue Bob @ 7:39 pm in: Asshats,Immigration | Discussion (0)

January 11, 2007

That’s how Radley Balko begins his latest post on the Kathryn Johnston case, the elderly woman who was killed by police officers busting down her door on a no-knock warrant. I blogged about her in my last few posts.

It appears that there is now direct evidence that the warrant was obtained under false circumstances. One of the officers is spilling the beans–the story about the confidential informant was made up, according to him.

If so, I was right when I said here that a homicide was committed. In fact, if the officer is telling the truth, it’s an unjustifiable homicide:

Buddy Parker, a former federal prosecutor, said that officers who lied to the magistrate could face serious charges in addition to making false statements to a judge.

“If that was the case, you have a conspiracy,” said Parker. “If you have a warrantless entry, you have no legal investigation. It can be either conscious disregard for the law and all conduct flowing from that is criminal — the entry, the homicide. It’s no different from people going in to rob a bank and kill someone in a shooting.”

What thuggery!

Update:

The Fulton County D.A. is planning to pursue criminal charges against the cops. Good move.



November 18, 2006

What if I showed you a video featuring a number of police officers surrounding a supine Pro-Life protestor in front of an abortuary? What if the police officer was angrily and repeatedly demanding that the demonstrator get up and leave while almost simultaneously tasering the protestor? What if the protestor was audibly and loudly praying as the police officer was giving orders causing the officer to become more and more frustrated as a result? Would you think that the repeated tasering was a good idea in such circumstances? And what if a bystander, disgusted with this performance by the police officer asked for the identities of the officers and was, in turn, threated with a tasering himself?

Turn the facts around. What if a student, angry at being asked to identify himself in the library that he pays for, in part as a student, engages in protest–not by trying to assault the police officer–but by, like the pro-life demonstrator–going limp and supine while he yells about what he believes his rights to be and how they are being violated? What if he is repeatedly tasered while being ordered to get up? What if a bystander asks for the officers’ identities and is threatened with tasering himself? Was that right? Patterico has the whole story.

During my last year of law school and first year out, I worked in a D.A.’s office–prosecuting after receiving my license. Before I worked there, I thought that police officers were like Marshal Matt Dillon on Gunsmoke. I’d read the cases about violations of civil rights–but that wasn’t real to me yet. The cop on the street was still Marshal Dillon to me. Remember how Marshal Dillion always used reason and persuasion, when possible, before resulting to force and violence?

Then, one day, I was exposed to bantering among officers about their methods of “attitude adjustment”. “What is that? I asked. “That’s when a smart ass needs a beat down.” replied the officer. Note, his emphasis was on the “smart ass” part, not breaking the law. My illusions were shattered.

I see great value in tasers. However, it appears to me that the officers in the case discussed at Patterico were replacing common sense and persuasion with the taser. There was no probable cause of a crime in this instance. The police were not witnessing a robbery or other emergency. They were confronted by a kid who, as a law abiding citizen, felt offended at being treated as some sort of suspect who needed to reveal his identity. Rather than recognizing this and dealing with it in an intelligent and humane way–the officers resorted to inflicting pain to accomplish compliance. The taser becomes a crutch in such instances.

I will never agree with such methods in the absence of physical danger to an officer.


By: Sue Bob @ 7:29 pm in: Asshats | Discussion (3)

November 1, 2006

I don’t understand what this thing is about asking for apologies from people for what they say. Why are people asking for an apology from John Kerry?

I don’t care whether Kerry was making a joke or not, it is quite obvious, and always has been that he is a total and arrogant snob who considers members of the military and anyone who is not of his social set to be beneath him. If somebody makes a racist joke–simply because it is a joke–do we assume that they don’t have racist thoughts? Jokes aren’t funny to people, unless the people think there is a grain of truth in the joke.

Kerry proves that he thinks we are stupid by claiming he wasn’t talking about members of the military–but was talking about Bush. Even if he was talking about Bush–he was also talking about the kinds of people “stuck going to Iraq” as well.

In my opinion, requests for apologies should be confined to those to whom one is related, friends with or someone worth it. Kerry fits none of those requirements–except to the Democrats who realize what Kerry had done to them.

To heck with apologies. He’s a putz and a snob–like the rest of the liberal ex-hippie Democrats.


By: Sue Bob @ 7:52 pm in: Asshats | Discussion (2)

April 12, 2006

Debbie Schlussel has the answer. They were prevented from doing their jobs during the protests:

We got word from ICE agents in Michigan and Ohio that they wanted to attend the rallies (which, in Detroit, were RIGHT in front of their building, the McNamara Federal Bldg.). They were ordered by their boss, Michigan/Ohio ICE Special Agent in Charge Brian Moskowitz a/k/a “Abu Moskowitz” to stay away from the rallies.

Remember what I wrote about the coming anarcho-tyranny as a result of this undermining of the rule of law?

And then, just as has happened in Great Britain, Canada, Australia and Italy, will our leaders impose upon us anarcho-tyranny? In other words, will they continue to refuse to control the criminal, allowing anarchy among the illegals, and, instead control and tyrannize the innocent?

Well, the proper authorities were prevented from controlling and interdicting the illegals as Debbie Schlussel reveals, it appears they may, instead, be tyrannizing a lawful citizen for exercising his rights:

A Tucson man was arrested Tuesday for his role in the burning of a Mexican flag as part of a counterprotest at a pro-immigration rally.

Quite frankly, I think that American citizens are screwed. It appears that the politicians and business interests want to replace us with new constituencies.

It would be one thing if we were getting a bunch of Einsteins or Mozarts or truly exceptional new constituents. Instead, we are getting a people who will live paycheck to paycheck and who will be particularly vulnerable to economic downturns. If one of those happens, they will be living on the dime of the American citizen–that is, the American citizens who aren’t forced into economic straits due to things like this.

Another good question, will these new constituencies become beneficiaries of affirmative action set-asides despite the fact that none of them were here to be discriminated against in times past? Vdare dares to ask.

Yep, we’re screwed.


By: Sue Bob @ 4:57 pm in: Asshats,Big Ideas Paid for by Us | Discussion (1)

April 3, 2006

In my last post, I wrote about the responses of other countries to the anarchy caused by their immigrants. Based on the column I linked to, I said that these countries are responding to the anarchy by tyrannising and controlling their innocent, law abiding citizens who object to the breakdown of the rule of law.

Today, Michelle Malkin brings us a story directly on point. In Colorado, a high school does nothing about the illegal immigrant students skipping school and behaving in an aggressive manner toward students who are displaying the flag of this country, in a peaceful manner.

Not only have the American students been suspended, this happened:

According to my student, the Longmont Police responded in force and surrounded the “patriot” students. The police did not surround or try to contain the Latino students. The Latino students approached the “patriots.” My student continued walking home for his lunch break. When my student returned to the school from his lunch break he saw some of his friends in handcuffs and sitting inside police cars. My student said that virtually all of his teachers, in talking to students about this situation during classes, have “sided” with the illegal aliens or sympathizers there-with in the situation, and he does not at all understand why this is so.

It is happening over here now. Our leaders are allowing the immigrants to commit anarchy, while controlling us.


By: Sue Bob @ 8:41 am in: Asshats | Discussion (2)

March 27, 2006

The whole idea of which is stupid since we weren’t intended to be a Democracy either, but rather a Republic. In other words, our government was founded to be based on the rule of law protecting the individual, rather than the rule of the mob.

It looks like Sharia law (the law of the collective) and mob law are going to win out in Afghanistan. They dismissed charges against one Christian.

Now, they’ve arrested others:

A monitor of Christian persecution says two more Afghan believers have been jailed in the wake of the case of Abdul Rahman, a convert to Christianity who faced the death penalty under the nation’s Shariah law.

According to Compass Direct, two other Afghan Christians were jailed in the past few days.

Can we please stop pretending that the Muslim culture or whatever you want to call it, is anything BUT a danger to our country? Can we stop pretending that we can make over Muslim countries in our image? Can we stop dreaming that if we let them over here in masse, that their children will become fans of Beavis and Butthead, and thus, okay with American culture.

Can we, instead, be mentally and physically ready to kick the crap out of them if they they pose a real and imminent threat to us?

Otherwise, let’s just buy their oil and let them be in their brutish, backward, poverty-inducing, dictator-magnet, filthy countries.

Oh, and go look at Barely a Blog for a great piece entitled, DEATH FOR APOSTASY AS ISLAMIC AS APPLE PIE IS AMERICAN.


By: Sue Bob @ 5:50 pm in: Asshats,GWOT | Discussion (3)

March 26, 2006

About the Afghan Christian being threated with death.“This is clearly not the end of the story,” Rep. Tom Lantos, D-Calif., told Fox News today. “The dots spell out Islamic fanaticism. … We will not let this matter rest.”

Go read the whole story. Rep. Lantos gets in the Afghan President’s face.

Perhaps this is a good division of labor. Congress can speak truth to barbarism and the President can try to help them save face–so they don’t act like psycho’s over the fact that we “shamed” them.

It’s a good thing that I’m not a diplomat–I’d just as soon tell them to kiss my grits than allow them to save face. I’m definitely in a Jacksonian mood tonight.


By: Sue Bob @ 7:17 pm in: Asshats,Crazy People,GWOT | Discussion (0)