« "Criminal Proof: Fixed or Flexible?" | Main | Only three weeks now to US Sentencing Commission's first public hearing on its proposed guideline amendments »
February 1, 2023
Texas completes in second execution of 2023
As reported in this AP article, "Texas on Wednesday executed an inmate convicted of fatally shooting a Dallas police officer nearly 16 years ago after a high-speed chase." Here is more:
Wesley Ruiz, 43, received a lethal injection at the state penitentiary in Huntsville, Texas, for the March 2007 killing of Dallas Police Senior Corporal Mark Nix.... Nix, 33, a U.S. Navy veteran of Operation Desert Storm, had been on the Dallas force for nearly seven years and was engaged to be married when he was killed....
Ruiz was the second inmate put to death this year in Texas and the fourth in the U.S. Seven other executions are scheduled in Texas for later this year, including one next week....
The U.S. Supreme Court earlier Wednesday declined an appeal from Ruiz’s attorneys to halt the execution. The defense had argued that jurors relied on “overtly racist” and “blatant anti-Hispanic stereotypes” in appraising whether Ruiz posed a future danger, an element needed to secure a death sentence in Texas. Ruiz was Hispanic....
Ruiz was one of five Texas death row inmates who sued to stop the state’s prison system from using what they allege are expired and unsafe execution drugs. Despite a civil court judge in Austin preliminarily agreeing with the claims, the state’s top two courts allowed one of the inmates who had been part of the litigation to be executed on Jan. 10....
Gabriel Luchiano, who knew Nix when he worked as a security guard, said the officer always responded quickly when people needed help at the convenience store in northwest Dallas where Luchiano worked. He was a “guardian angel,” said Luchiano. “It’s still painful no matter what. Nothing is going to close it.”
February 1, 2023 at 11:38 PM | Permalink
Comments
“…unsafe execution drugs…” lol
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Feb 1, 2023 11:43:44 PM
We will not have justice until killer cops and cop killers receive exactly the same sentence. If the latter should be executed, then so should the former. If anything, cops should be held to a higher standard, not a lower one.
Also, thanks to the recent Memphis case and countless others, everyone who kills a cop during an encounter started by the cop can plausibly claim self-defense. "I was in fear of my life."
Posted by: Keith Lynch | Feb 2, 2023 1:16:33 AM
"We will not have justice until killer cops and cop killers receive exactly the same sentence."
Nonsense. In our system, each case gets judged on its own facts, and no two cases are identical.
"Also, thanks to the recent Memphis case and countless others, everyone who kills a cop during an encounter started by the cop can plausibly claim self-defense. "I was in fear of my life."
Also nonsense. A valid claim of self defense to a murder charge exists only where the defendant, IN THE SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES HE FACED, had an objectively reasonable fear of imminent grave bodily harm or death. A person who had nothing to say but, "Gosh, I was worried that at some point my standoff with Officer Jones might have turned into another Memphis," would not even be permitted by the court to put forward a claim of self-defense.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Feb 2, 2023 2:58:08 AM
Bill, I was going to post a response to Keith--but no need. Your response is pitch perfect.
Posted by: federalist | Feb 2, 2023 9:44:27 AM
Texas--reducing its incarceration numbers, one big jab at a time.
Posted by: federalist | Feb 2, 2023 1:50:29 PM
federalist --
Thanks! Mr. Lynch, a jailbird from long ago, has never forgiven the cops (or prosecutor or judge or his own lawyer) for his conviction, and, as you can see, views the police as being not all that different from the mob (and deserving the same fate).
Posted by: Bill Otis | Feb 2, 2023 2:01:16 PM
Mr. Otis:
That is NOT what Mr. Lynch said in his post, and you seemingly act as if it is perfectly acceptable to misquote, misinterpret, and mis-characterize his words, as well as belittle him for having suffered a conviction in his distant past. Nowhere does he state what you claim he believes. (Another straw man argument, by Mr. Otis). And to think I had called you a "great man". At long last, have you no shame?
Posted by: SG | Feb 2, 2023 7:33:55 PM
SG --
"That is NOT what Mr. Lynch said in his post..."
It's not what he said in his post on this thread, but he's said it in quite emphatic terms in posts on earlier threads and not that long ago, either.
"...and you seemingly act as if it is perfectly acceptable to misquote, misinterpret, and mis-characterize his words, as well as belittle him for having suffered a conviction in his distant past."
He's the one who brought it up and keeps harping on it. He'd do better to let it go, that's for sure.
"And to think I had called you a "great man"."
Yup, you love sarcasm. You're not alone. But most of the others who use it tend to know at least a little law.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Feb 2, 2023 11:08:55 PM
Mr. Otis wrote: "It's not what he (Mr. Lynch) said in his post on this thread, but he's said it in quite emphatic terms in posts on earlier threads..."
What utter nonesense. Mr. Lynch never said anything even remotely close to this in today's posting, nor in any of his previous posts, and we all know it. We can all read, Mr. Otis.
To reiterate, you chose to misquote,mischaracterize and misinterpret Mr. Lynch's posting. I don't know why you chose to do this.
I can only speculate. However, should I engage in wild speculation as to your intentions, and then present it as 'factual', I would be no better than you. Therefore, I choose not do engage in such adolescent behaviors.
My 7 year old grandson has been taught that "two wrongs do not make a right". I would like to think that somewhere and sometime in your childhood, that you were taught this very lesson.
Posted by: SG | Feb 3, 2023 5:37:03 AM
Mr.Lynch,
I may not agree with the entirety of your sentiments but I do understand the place from which they come.
This post is a reminder to you that there will be those who feel that your opinion on any given subject is trivial and bears no consequence. But it does. You have just as much right to feel as you do and speak your truths as they have to speak what they believe to be the truth. Contrary to what they feel or believe, their truth nor their simplistic view of the world is not the gospel---at least it is not to me.
These ideologues profess to love and respect law enforcement and other institutions---only until those very institutions are used to investigate and prosecute those that share their dogma. Only then, are law enforcement and those institutions that they have previously deified deemed to be part of some inquisition against those who share their tenets. They then become 'the victims.'
So please feel free to continue to speak 'your truth' because you have the right to do so even if others choose to misquote you. And also know that those who micro-analyze your words and then misquote those words, can't be taken quite serious because they do not live by the standards that they have used to judge others.
Posted by: Eric A. Hicks | Feb 3, 2023 8:59:33 AM
Eric A. Hicks --
You say to Keith Lynch: "I may not agree with the entirety of your sentiments but I do understand the place from which they come."
Which of Mr. Lynch's assertions to you agree with and why, and which do you disagree with and why?
"This post is a reminder to you that there will be those who feel that your opinion on any given subject is trivial and bears no consequence."
You seem to be talking about me (are you?), and if so, you're wrong. I never said his opinions are "trivial." I think some of them are WRONG, which is completely different. Evidently, you think some of them are wrong, too.
"You have just as much right to feel as you do and speak your truths as they have to speak what they believe to be the truth."
I never said and don't believe that he has no right to say or write whatever he wants. I do believe that he (and almost anyone else) would be better advised and healthier to walk away from decades-old grievances, you bet. Do you disagree?
And as to your characteristic "his truth" vs. "their truth" line -- solipsism isn't any better or more useful for communication now than it was the first time I brought it up with you. The cops are required to give Miranda warnings for custodial interrogation. That's the truth, period. It doesn't depend on your "perspective" of feelings. Prosecutors are allowed to threaten additional charges if you don't take their plea offer. Same deal -- it's not a matter of perspective. Use of acquitted conduct for choosing a sentence with a prescribed statutory range is not a violation of Double Jeopardy. That's the state of the law. It doesn't depend on the speaker or his varying views. And on and on. It is simply not the case that anyone's "truth" is as good as anyone else's "truth."
If NASA did its moon explorations based on somebody's "truth" that the moon is made of green cheese, where do you think astronautical science would be just now?
You can't possibly take this degree of dreamy relativism seriously -- and you don't, as shown by the certitude you show in the rest of your comment about ideologues and their putative hypocrisy. In your discussion of that, your "well, gosh, it just depends on your perspective, and to each his own" attitude is entirely absent.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Feb 3, 2023 1:30:31 PM
Bill Otis,
I wasn't referring to you specifically. Rather, my comments were directed at the 'bloc' that seems appear whenever Mr.Lynch makes a comment sharing his opinion on a given topic. If you're a part of that bloc, so be it.
Law enforcement needs to be held to a higher standard. The State and public have given them expansive authority to enforce laws and ensure public safety. This type of authority must be delegated with a commensurate amount of accountability.
People we have entrusted with this expansive authority should not be the subject of consent degrees---whether we agree with them or not.
People we have entrusted with this type of power should not have a culture of silence within their departments regarding wrongdoing by their peers.
The issue of acquitted conduct has been discussed ad nauseum. You're correct---it's the state of the law. I never said that it wasn't. What I said was that the issue had never been addressed in the context of the Sixth Amendment's right to a trial by jury.
Posted by: Eric A. Hicks | Feb 4, 2023 12:06:13 PM
Eric A. Hicks --
Thank you for your response. There are, however, two items in my comment to you that you did not discuss, and I'm hoping we might now get your views.
1. You said to Keith Lynch: "I may not agree with the entirety of your sentiments but I do understand the place from which they come."
Which of Mr. Lynch's assertions to you agree with and why, and which do you disagree with and why?
2. As to your characteristic "his truth" vs. "their truth" view -- solipsism isn't any more useful for communication now than it was the first time I brought it up with you. The cops are required to give Miranda warnings for custodial interrogation. That's the truth, period. It doesn't depend on your "perspective" of feelings. Prosecutors are allowed to threaten additional charges if you don't take their plea offer. Same deal -- it's not a matter of perspective....That's the law. It doesn't depend on the speaker or his subjective experience or his varying views. And on and on. It is simply not the case that anyone's "truth" is as good as anyone else's "truth."
If NASA did its moon explorations based on somebody's "truth" that the moon is made of green cheese, where do you think astronautical science would be just now?
You can't possibly take this degree of dreamy relativism seriously -- and you don't, as shown by the certitude you show in the rest of your comment about ideologues and their putative hypocrisy. In your discussion of that, your "well, gosh, it just depends on your perspective, and to each his own" attitude is entirely absent.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Feb 4, 2023 1:44:12 PM
Mr. Otis:
>> We will not have justice until killer cops and cop killers receive
>> exactly the same sentence.
> Nonsense. In our system, each case gets judged on its own facts,
> and no two cases are identical.
I meant that the sentences should be the same all else being equal.
There should be no extra penalty if the victim is a cop, and no
reduced penalty if the perpetrator is a cop. There should be no
LEOBOR (Law Enforcement Officers Bill of Rights). There's already
a Bill of Rights in the US, and it's the same for everyone.
> A valid claim of self defense to a murder charge exists only where
> the defendant, IN THE SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES HE FACED, had an
> objectively reasonable fear of imminent grave bodily harm or death.
Indeed. And after countless deaths of innocent people at the hands of
police, everyone who's confronted with cops who are angrily cursing
and screaming contradictory orders, or who are pointing weapons, is
perfectly justified in being in mortal terror. Wouldn't you be?
Scott Greenfield, an attorney, posted in
https://blog.simplejustice.us/2023/01/28/the-hundreds-who-will-follow-tyre-nichols/
Remember, when the guy you stop believes he either fights back or
dies like Tyre Nichols, cops brought this on themselves. You made
this problem. Only you can fix it. If you can't do it for the sake
of honor, for the sake of your fellow human beings, then do it for
yourself.
(His blog is where I first learned of this blog, four years ago.)
It's not just Memphis. There are hundreds of other such cases every
year. For instance Daniel Shaver, who was gunned down in a hotel
hallway despite obeying all police commands. You can find a video
of that online. And there was Justine Damond who was shot dead by
Minneapolis cops three years before they murdered George Floyd. And
note that both of those victims were white; it's not a race thing.
Also, when police burst into an innocent person's home in the middle
of the night the homeowner may not realize they're cops rather than
free-lance violent home invaders. For instance Cory Maye, a homeowner
with a clean record who shot and killed a plain-clothes cop during
such a home invasion intended for a different person at a different
address. Maye was sentenced to death for his act of defense of
himself and his sleeping daughter.
> A person who had nothing to say but, "Gosh, I was worried that at
> some point my standoff with Officer Jones might have turned into
> another Memphis," would not even be permitted by the court to put
> forward a claim of self-defense.
And yet cops frequently get away with shooting someone just because
they thought he might be armed or might be reaching for a gun rather
than for the requested drivers license. Why the double standard?
> Mr. Lynch, a jailbird from long ago,
"Long ago" is right. My record has been perfectly clear for more than
45 years. How many people can say the same? Fewer than half, given
that most people are under 45, and nobody gets credit for having a
clean record before they were born.
But "jailbird" is all I am to you, despite more than a half century of
peaceful productivity, friendship, honesty, and accomplishment before
and since the eleven days I had William Kelly Shields as a roommate.
And our patient and tolerant host is in "academic dreamland" according
to you. You don't get along well with other people, do you?
> has never forgiven the cops (or prosecutor or judge or his own
> lawyer) for his conviction,
If you were to stomp on my foot, I would forgive you, but not before
you removed your foot from mine, and not before you apologized. The
state's foot is still on mine, as I'm still officially a convicted
felon, although the crime victim proved my innocence, and the federal
government accepted this proof when they granted me a security
clearance more than 40 years ago.
Would you forgive people who deliberately lied to you to try to
convince you that you were criminally insane if you didn't remember
the crimes for which they claimed to have overwhelming proof of your
guilt, exploiting your having been raised to trust authorities by your
parents, your school, and by newspapers, magazines, books, movies, and
TV shows?
As for my court-appointed lawyer, he may have thought he was doing me
a favor by telling me lies intended to get me to plead guilty, given
that he was either unable or unwilling to defend me at trial, or even
to investigate the crime. And given that I told him I would refuse to
plead guilty to anything I didn't do. Very likely if I had gone to
trial without an effective defense I would have lost and gotten a much
longer sentence. But it was my choice to make, and he stole that
from me.
His lies included insisting that I was "technically guilty" of some
minor unspecified crime, and that if I were to insist on a trial that
he would resign as my attorney and I'd be on my own.
I trusted him, did exactly what he said, and signed documents placed
in front of me in court without reading them. When I explained this
to you before, you depicted it as my being guilty of perpetrating a
fraud on the court by reluctantly pleading guilty to a crime to be
named later.
> and, as you can see, views the police as being not all that
> different from the mob (and deserving the same fate).
When a group behaves exactly like a criminal gang, then they are a
criminal gang, no matter how spiffy their uniforms or how much they're
approved of by the government. Just as people who deliberately fly
an airplane into a skyscraper are terrorists even if they sincerely
believe they are doing God's work. And just as people who run death
camps are evil even if they're just trying to help evolution along by
eliminating who they sincerely believe are inferior races, and even if
they have the approval of their government.
> He's the one who brought it up and keeps harping on it. He'd do
> better to let it go, that's for sure.
Better for whom?
It's all about *truth*. I am an honest person. The police and
the courts are founded on lies. I help to make society better by
informing others of their lies, e.g. their "Reid technique" and
their grooming their future victims by sending "Officer Friendly"
to chat up elementary school children.
> I do believe that he (and almost anyone else) would be better
> advised and healthier to walk away from decades-old grievances,
> you bet.
I'll walk away from it when they get their foot off mine, apologize
for what they did to me, and, most importantly, stop victimizing other
people just as they did to me, and worse.
Now that I'm retired, I spend maybe 2% of my time informing people of
how profoundly broken the criminal justice system is. I suspect that,
even ignoring everything else good that I've ever done, that by doing
this I've done far more good for society than you have. Given that
you're a former prosecutor, and, like all prosecutors, used methods
of convicting people that have little correlation with actual guilt,
I think society would probably have been better off had you never
been born.
If you take offense at the above paragraph, maybe you should consider
how others feel when they're dismissed as just a lying jailbird or
just a dreamland academic.
And if you think I'm lying, then look up my record and see if you can
find anything in it that contradicts anything I've ever said. If
you're not willing to spend minutes on that, then perhaps you should
stop spending hours denouncing me.
Posted by: Keith Lynch | Feb 4, 2023 5:25:32 PM
Keith,
There is a lot there to unpack (much that I’m unfamiliar with such as your criminal history), so I’ll limit myself to one point for now.
You refer to the police as a “criminal gang.” That’s quite ironic coming from someone getting the vapors over “jailbird.”
But here is my point. We have seen over the last few years what happens when the police are in retreat and that is increased crime in the most vulnerable places. That doesn’t mean every organization cannot be better, but that is completely over the top. Just as it is is over the top that you have done more for society than a person who has actually put real gangsters in prison, perhaps even bad cops.
Policing is a necessary evil. Give anyone too much power and there will always be a desire to abuse it. It is something we have to counter when possible, but understand the statistical certainty of “bad people” getting into a demographic that large. It’s no reason to throw the baby out with the bath water. We don’t call nurses “criminal gangs” because some steal drugs and sell them. We don’t call public teachers “criminal gangs” (perhaps the unions though) because some have sex with students.
I know if I walked in a bad area at night, I’d fear criminals, not the cops. The same is true of African-Americans who want more policing, or at least the same, in their neighborhoods, not less.
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Feb 4, 2023 7:02:21 PM
Keith,
Another point.
The police go into tough situations daily not because they want to do so. A criminal commits a crime with premeditation. He planned to carjack, mug, etc. Cops don’t in almost every case. They don’t get to premeditate everything they do as every situation is different. The circumstances are thrust upon them.
The police walk into a confrontation not wanting to kill someone, likely true in even the Nichols situation (this is not a defense of them at all). In other words, they were put into a difficult situation. Split second life and death decisions are made and sometimes they will be wrong. It’s easy to say, “It was just his wallet,” looking at video after the fact and not having to deal with the realities of it in real time.
Gangs/cops is a ridiculous comparison.
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Feb 4, 2023 7:13:48 PM
TarlsQtr --
Thanks for your posts. They bring some needed good sense and perspective. All I care to say beyond that for the moment is that Mr. Lynch has some problems that are beyond my realm to solve.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Feb 5, 2023 2:43:23 AM
Keith Lynch --
You have supplied considerable detail about your lawyer's behavior. I was wondering if you could supply similar detail about the behavior of the police, the prosecutor and the judge -- behavior that you view as not in keeping with giving you a fair shake.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Feb 5, 2023 1:24:02 PM
Mr. Otis: You write, "You have supplied considerable detail about your lawyer's behavior. I was wondering if you could supply similar detail about the behavior of the police, the prosecutor and the judge -- behavior that you view as not in keeping with giving you a fair shake."
Objection. Asked and answered -- 13 months ago, in the last comment of
https://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2022/01/no-justice-no-pleas-subverting-mass-incarceration-through-defendant-collective-action.html
Please re-read that post of mine. Thanks.
Posted by: Keith Lynch | Feb 5, 2023 3:37:16 PM
TarlsQtr: You write, "Just as it is is over the top that you have done more for society than a person who has actually put real gangsters in prison, perhaps even bad cops."
That begs the question as to whether the people he locked up were guilty or not. The techniques used to convict people have little correlation with actual guilt.
"We don’t call nurses 'criminal gangs' because some steal drugs and sell them. We don’t call public teachers 'criminal gangs' (perhaps the unions though) because some have sex with students."
I would call nurses and teachers criminal gangs if they killed more than a thousand people every year, as cops do. And if lying was a job requirement for them, as it is for police.
"I know if I walked in a bad area at night, I’d fear criminals, not the cops."
There are about 20,000 homicides in the US each year, of which about 1000 are committed by cops. So yes, if someone kills me, chances are 20:1 that it won't be a cop. But cops are only 1/500th of the population. So if I encounter a person in a bad area (or anywhere else) at night (or at any other time), they're 25 times more likely to kill me if they're a cop than if they aren't. And the cop is far more likely to get away with it, so far less likely to be deterred.
If you object that some killings by cops are justified, I would argue that so are some killings by people who aren't cops. The latter are less likely to make a mistake, given that homeowners know who belongs in their house, while cops who go to that house usually do not.
"The same is true of African-Americans who want more policing, or at least the same, in their neighborhoods, not less."
As I am not African American, I won't presume to speak for them. I expect that their opinions are as varied as are those of whites. I certainly don't doubt that the several African American cops who recently murdered a man in Memphis want more policing, especially if the policing is done by them.
Posted by: Keith Lynch | Feb 5, 2023 4:15:08 PM
Keith Lynch --
Your conclusion that "society would probably have been better off had you never
been born" gives rise to a question.
There's not much I can do to get unborn. Still, the result had I not been born -- to wit, going forward, my not being here -- can be achieved by my dying. It wouldn't have to be murder necessarily -- just a lethal disease or getting run over by a truck, etc. So shouldn't people of good will hope that I croak so "society will be better off"? Society's well-being is certainly more important than mine.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Feb 6, 2023 12:53:27 AM
Bill Otis,
I agree with Mr.Lynch to the extent that he suggests that police officers should be held to a higher standard. Where I part ways is how that problem should be solved.
If I am not mistaken, you recently said that two things can be true at the same time. Cops are required to give Miranda warnings for custodial interrogation. It is also true that police departments in several cities were under consent decrees for the various actions---including violating the constitutional rights of those who they swore to protect and serve.
Prosecutors, like you stated, are allowed to threaten a defendant with additional charges if the plea that is offered is not accepted. It is also true that convictions have been overturned because prosecutors have violated the constitutional rights of a defendant.
The individuals that live in those areas where consent degrees have been ordered and have been subjected to aggressive (and unconstitutional) police tactics are naturally going to have a different 'perception' of law enforcement than you based on their experiences.
Come out of your bubble and talk to the Ms.Mamies, the Willie-Maes, the Ms.Mabels---these 90+ year old Black women and you will understand that they have a different perception of the United States than Bill Otis. Their perception is not dreamy relativism Mr.Otis---it is the sum of their lived experiences, their 'truths.' And, I would suggest that your insistence that my validation of their 'truths,' as opposed to the truths of another (such as yourself), is dreamy relativism comes off as dogmatic arrogance.
Not to go off on a tangent, but these discussions with you remind me of those that I once had with my uncle (my guess is you are perhaps 20+ years older than I). My uncle is an 80+ year old conservative Black man who has served this country proudly in the Air Force for more than 20 years. What I find so depressing these days is how a man who was reliably Republican for more than half of his life walked away from a party in utter disgust. In his words, the party stands for 'nothing.' Those who should be vocal are 'weak.' They have allowed the very worst parts of our society into their party and the so-called leaders lack the spine to stand for what they know to be right lest they draw the wrath of their constituency. We still have our share of debates---but they are not the same any longer. What a shame that the party has lost such an honorable man.
Posted by: Eric A. Hicks | Feb 6, 2023 8:46:26 AM
No, Mr. Otis. That's how you think. That's not how I think. Decades ago, when you were interviewing a dozen doctors, all of whom told you the child had died of natural causes, and you found a 13th who was financially desperate enough to testify, for enough taxpayer-supplied money, that it was definitely murder, allowing you to lock up the grieving mother who couldn't afford to pay for any of those doctors, or even for a lawyer who wasn't a public defender, I was coming up with potential routes to someday making offsite backups of living human brains, making it possible for people to someday al live until the heat death of the universe, trillions of eons from now.
Also, as a practical matter, you're retired. So the only harm you're doing now is by spewing false claims, such as that anyone who is coerced or tricked into pleading guilty is either guilty of that crime or of committing a fraud on the court by falsely pleading, or that every prisoner claims to be innocent, or that any innocent person who goes to trial is sure to win even if they're stuck with an overworked public defender who averages ten minutes per case. And fewer people believe such nonsense every year.
Also, even if you had, early in your career, locked up someone who really was guilty of being a violent criminal, and he had murdered you in revenge as soon as he was released, it would have made no difference. Prosecutors are paid quite well, so another would have been hired to replace you. Just as there's always an expert witness willing to testify to whatever for enough money, and just as, no matter how many drug dealers are locked up or killed by rival drug dealers, there will always be more, as long as there is demand for drugs. (I think all drugs should be legalized.)
One side effect of brain backup technology is that it will make it possible for someone to prove that they were telling the truth. I'd like you to live for many centuries, during every minute of which you will be painfully aware of exactly how many innocent people you caused how much pain to.
Posted by: Keith Lynch | Feb 6, 2023 9:01:19 AM
Keith Lynch --
You wrote: "No, Mr. Otis. That's how you think. That's not how I think. Decades ago, when you were interviewing a dozen doctors, all of whom told you the child had died of natural causes, and you found a 13th who was financially desperate enough to testify, for enough taxpayer-supplied money, that it was definitely murder, allowing you to lock up the grieving mother..."
That's a point blank lie. I never had such a case or anything like it. And don't hand me this fancy dance that you were really talking about someone else. You addressed me directly and by name.
"... I was coming up with potential routes to someday making offsite backups of living human brains, making it possible for people to someday al live until the heat death of the universe, trillions of eons from now."
Oh, OK Mr. Lynch, anything you say.
P.S. And how are the Rostafarians doing?
Posted by: Bill Otis | Feb 6, 2023 1:50:16 PM
Eric A. Hicks --
1. You still didn't answer the questions. If you're going to refuse to, that is your right. But just tell me so we'll all know.
2. As to Trump (which is what you're talking about in your oddly round-about way): My opinion, published for all to see, is here: https://ringsideatthereckoning.substack.com/p/trump-is-a-jackass-and-its-time-to. I also denounced the riot at the Capitol before anyone else I know of, conservative or liberal: https://www.crimeandconsequences.blog/?p=2710 In that blog entry, I called for the full force of law enforcement (which your pal Keith Lynch passionately hates) to be brought against the rioters.
And who is bringing the rioters to justice? Prosecutors maybe? Who's trying to make excuses for them with some fancy shake-and-jive? Defense lawyers maybe? Do tell.
3. Do you agree with Mr. Lynch that society would be better off if I had never been born? More broadly, do you think it's a healthy thing for Internet discussions to be personalized to that poisonous extent?
Posted by: Bill Otis | Feb 6, 2023 2:06:13 PM
Bill Otis,
Of course I do not think society would better had you not been born nor would I ever wish you any ill-will. Come on now!! We merely have a difference of opinion; it's not personal at all. You're a good sport in your own way.
Posted by: Eric A. Hicks | Feb 6, 2023 2:11:36 PM
Eric A. Hicks,
OK, good, thanks for that. Thought you might like knowing that many of us law-and-order types want the rioters to face the consequences of their behavior, and that Trump may have had his day, but that day is over.
If you'd care to take a crack at the other questions still on the floor, I'm all ears.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Feb 6, 2023 2:54:24 PM
Keith Lynch,
“That begs the question as to whether the people he locked up were guilty or not. The techniques used to convict people have little correlation with actual guilt.”
Of course, you pulled that statement out of your a$$ with literally nothing to back such a claim.
“I would call nurses and teachers criminal gangs if they killed more than a thousand people every year, as cops do. And if lying was a job requirement for them, as it is for
So, it’s OK as long as the teachers aren’t killing kids after having sex with them? Do you have any idea how ridiculous your statement is? What it does is illustrate that your outspoken claims are not based of facts and reason, but towards a specific group of people, truth be damned.
“There are about 20,000 homicides in the US each year, of which about 1000 are committed by cops. So yes, if someone kills me, chances are 20:1 that it won't be a cop. But cops are only 1/500th of the population. So if I encounter a person in a bad area (or anywhere else) at night (or at any other time), they're 25 times more likely to kill me if they're a cop than if they aren't. And the cop is far more likely to get away with it, so far less likely to be deterred.”
Absurd. I’m 52, often carry a handgun here in the free state of Kentucky, and have never had reason even to pull it out. Why? Because I look to avoid situations where I am putting myself in danger. I don’t walk the bad parts of Lexington at night. No one calls me to pursue a carjacker, run into a DV situation, or serve an arrest warrant. The police see and interact with the worst and most dangerous of society every shift, so your statistical breakdown is absolutely worthless. The average middle to upper class person will likely never once be in such a situation and if we do, we will call some organization that rushes out and tries to get us out of danger. I can’t remember what they are called off the top of my head.
“If you object that some killings by cops are justified, I would argue that so are some killings by people who aren't cops. The latter are less likely to make a mistake, given that homeowners know who belongs in their house, while cops who go to that house usually do not.”
Some? Almost all of them are justified. I agree with your last sentence, but how many homeowners are ever actually put into such a situation? And how many of them don’t even own guns to risk such an event?
“As I am not African American, I won't presume to speak for them. I expect that their opinions are as varied as are those of whites. I certainly don't doubt that the several African American cops who recently murdered a man in Memphis want more policing, especially if the policing is done by them.”
I’m not speaking for them either. The issue has been polled. Something like 80% of the African-American community want more or about the same police presence.
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Feb 6, 2023 4:09:33 PM
Bill,
I’m a second vote ok with you being alive.
Of course, here the best you can hope for is a hung jury. Lol
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Feb 6, 2023 4:17:22 PM
https://www.bizpacreview.com/2015/10/27/new-report-finds-95-percent-of-police-shootings-justified-268337/
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Feb 6, 2023 4:27:34 PM
TarlsQtr --
"I’m a second vote ok with you being alive."
This was just what I was afraid of -- you're getting soft in your old age.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Feb 6, 2023 4:48:44 PM
Bill Otis,
I am not sure what questions that you have asked that I have not answered.
Posted by: Eric A. Hicks | Feb 6, 2023 7:49:54 PM
TarsQtr --
You correctly note Mr. Lynch's (undocumented) claim that, "The techniques used to convict people have little correlation with actual guilt.”
Here's what the Innocence Project, a distinctly pro-defendant group, has to say (https://wvinnocenceproject.law.wvu.edu/innocence-project-blog/our-voices/2020/10/02/wrongful-convictions-the-facts): "Recent studies show that as many as 3-6% of all people incarcerated in U.S. prisons have been wrongfully convicted."
Let's assume arguendo that that figure is correct. What that means is that about 95% of convicted defendants are, in fact, guilty. If, as Mr. Lynch asserts, the techniques used to convict people have "little correlation with actual guilt," the figure couldn't possibly be 95% or anywhere close. It would be 50% if that.
Once again, he's just lying.
In addition to lying about that, he's also lying about the cause of the relatively small percentage of wrongful convictions there are. He attributes it to dishonest cops, prosecutors and judges. According the the Innocence Project piece, the top three causes are eyewitness misidentification, false confessions to get out with time served, and incompetent defense lawyers.
Still, he does tell us about "backing up" the human brain "trillions of eons" from now.
Doug does get quite the group commenting on his blog.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Feb 6, 2023 7:51:20 PM
SG --
You're a big fan of Keith Lynch, as you make clear in your enthusiastic comment of Feb 3, 2023 5:37:03 AM. I'm therefore wondering if you agree with his statement that society would probably be better off if I had never been born. Do you agree with it?
Posted by: Bill Otis | Feb 6, 2023 9:44:15 PM
SG --
One other question. Mr. Lynch makes the following accusation against me: "No, Mr. Otis...Decades ago, when you were interviewing a dozen doctors, all of whom told you the child had died of natural causes, and you found a 13th who was financially desperate enough to testify, for enough taxpayer-supplied money, that it was definitely murder, allowing you to lock up the grieving mother.."
I have denied this accusation against me, which is a complete fabrication.
Do you believe him or me? No dodging. Him or me.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Feb 6, 2023 9:49:53 PM
Bill,
I know you club baby seals and puppies, but even I find those claims against you over the top.
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Feb 6, 2023 11:01:52 PM
TarlsQtr --
Mr. Lynch just says whatever smear comes into his head, against me or prosecutors in general and police in general, because he knows there's no accountability for his lying.
P.S. You forgot that I also drown kittens.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Feb 7, 2023 2:13:18 AM
Mr. Otis: I apologize for my clumsy wording, which could lead a reader to believe I was specifically talking about you, rather than about prosecutors in general, when describing a typical example of the sort of expert-witness shopping that prosecutors do every day. That specific example was inspired by this recent news story about an expert witness who later retracted his testimony: https://www.kktv.com/2022/10/03/i-made-mistake-medical-examiner-changes-homicide-finding-convicted-woman-still-behind-bars/
But do you deny ever doing such expert-witness shopping? Or ever offering leniency to fact-witnesses who agree to testify the way you want them to? Or ever threatening a defense witness? My understanding is that these are such universal prosecution techniques that any prosecutor who refuses to use them would quickly be fired, and perhaps even disbarred.
And didn't your former boss, US Attorney General Edwin Meese, say "But the thing is, you don't have many suspects who are innocent of a crime. That's contradictory. If a person is innocent of a crime, then he is not a suspect"?
A (state) prosecutor whom I knew socially went to the effort of researching my case, and agreed with me that I was certainly innocent of the two burglaries I was convicted of. But he went on to say that since the average burglar gets away with a hundred burglaries before being arrested for one, that I was probably guilty of some previous burglary. Who can argue with such stunning logic?
As for my 1994 brain backup proposal, for those who are curious I was going to include a link to it, but I couldn't find a copy online that wasn't paywalled. I've since placed a copy online at
http://www.panix.com/~kfl/brain_backup.txt
Posted by: Keith Lynch | Feb 7, 2023 11:58:41 PM