‘Express lane to death’: Texas seeks approval to speed up death penalty appeals, execute more quickly
By Keri Blakinger
Houston Chronicle
April 2, 2018
Texas is seeking to speed up executions with a renewed request to "opt in" to a federal law that would shorten the legal process and limit appeals options for death-sentenced prisoners.
Defense attorneys worry it would lead to the execution of innocent people and — if it's applied retroactively, as Texas is requesting — it could end ongoing appeals for a number of death row prisoners and make them eligible for execution dates.
"Opt-in would speed up the death penalty treadmill exponentially," said Kathryn Kase, a longtime defense attorney and former executive director of Texas Defender Services.
A spokeswoman for the state's attorney general framed the request to the Justice Department as a necessary way to avoid "stressful delays" and cut down on the "excessive costs" of lengthy federal court proceedings.
"Opting-in would serve several purposes for Texans, including sparing crime victims years of unnecessary and stressful delays, ensuring that our state court judgments are respected by federal judges as cases progress, and reducing the excessive costs of lengthy federal court proceedings," said the spokeswoman, Kayleigh Lovvorn.
The Department of Justice declined to comment, and a representative of Gov. Greg Abbott's office referred questions to the state attorney general.
The request — which comes after years of declining executions — has sparked a federal lawsuit and hundreds of pages of comments from a broad coalition of concerned parties including the ACLU, the American Bar Association, Mexico's government, a former federal judge and dozens of defense attorneys.
There's doubt among the defense bar whether Texas actually meets the qualification criteria. Approval is up to Attorney General Jeff Sessions, the nation's top law enforcement officer who recently advocated for capital punishment for drug dealers in some cases.
If Sessions gives the green light to the Lone Star State's application, it will be the first opt-in approval in the more than two decades since the law's inception.
For attorneys like Casey Kaplan — who helped free a wrongfully convicted Harris County man, Alfred Dewayne Brown, from death row — that's a chilling possibility.
"In an environment like Texas where you know the state gets it wrong — and not just accidentally, but intentionally — why in the world would you ever take steps to speed up the process to execute a potentially innocent person?" he said. "Until somebody can answer that question, they should be taking steps to slow it down."
Whitewashing failure
The state's hopes for fast-tracking a path to execution date back to at least 1996, when Congress passed the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act.
Written in the tough-on-crime 1990s and in the aftermath of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing that killed 168 people, the law set time limits to expedite federal appeals in death penalty cases and gave greater deference to state courts.
"We are about to curb these endless, frivolous appeals of death sentences by those convicted of murder," then-U.S. Sen. Bob Dole said at the time. Nationally, the average time between sentencing and execution has continued to rise, according to the Death Penalty Information Center.
But in addition to what is already in place, the law opens the door to creating even tighter deadlines with a special opt-in provision under a section called Chapter 154.
In order to qualify for Chapter 154 certification, states have to prove they offered good enough lawyers earlier in the process, during the so-called "state habeas" appeal. If the condemned were all able to get competent, sufficiently paid attorneys with the funds to afford things like investigators and specialists during the state habeas appeal, then the law would permit speeding up the later federal habeas appeal.
"Opt-in presumes that we've reached this promised land of excellent and well-resourced legal representation at all levels for everyone on death row and in fact we have not," Kase said.
The letters submitted to the government early this year were highly critical of Texas' current defense system, calling it "inadequate" and "infected" by "well-publicized failures," pointing out that the state doesn't even guarantee counsel for all types of post-conviction proceedings.
So far no state has qualified.
But in November, Sessions fired off letters to Texas and Arizona — two states that previously put in certification requests —and asked if they still wanted to apply.
They did.
The states' affirmative responses prompted a required comment period, during which Texas Defender Services and other capital defense organizations produced a 247-page comment — bolstered by more than 100 appendixes — criticizing Texas' application, calling it "little more than a whitewash of the state's persistent historic failures" that includes "no evidence at all."
The application itself doesn't explain why the state wants to opt in.
Kent Scheidegger, death penalty supporter and legal director of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation touted opt-in as a way to speed up the process.
"We talk about due process of law — I call this overdue process of law," he said. "The victims' families just get frustrated beyond belief with all this reexamination when in most cases the guy is guilty beyond any doubt. The fact that a federal court overturns the judgment doesn't mean that that's a just result."
Houston-based capital defense attorney Patrick McCann stressed that federal courts are where many condemned men —including those wrongfully convicted like Anthony Graves, and those deemed too intellectually disabled to execute, like Bobby Moore — have gotten relief.
"This is a political quest," he said. "It's an appeal to Gov. Abbott's base to make it very proudly explained that we have an express lane to death."
'Worst-case scenario'
If Sessions approves it, opting in would include limitations on how long federal courts have to resolve cases, restrictions on judges' abilities to grant stays of execution, and limits on the claims that prisoners can raise in federal habeas proceedings.
But what's sparking the most concern among defense lawyers is a change that would halve the time attorneys have to file the first part of their federal appeal.
If Texas opts in, attorneys would have six months instead of a year to interview witnesses, hire investigators and familiarize themselves with sometimes a decade or more of case files to sift out any possible past lawyering mistakes, suspicion of withheld evidence or proof of actual innocence stuffed away in boxes and boxes of materials.
"Doing all that in one year is already extraordinarily difficult, and any further limitations would only exacerbate the existing problem," said Emily Olson-Gault, director of the Death Penalty Representation Project at the American Bar Association.
"We know that errors are made in capital cases," she added. "The more that the allotted time to prepare is limited, the greater the risk that serious constitutional errors will stand uncorrected."
And if claims aren't raised in the first filing, they can't always be raised later.
"They're valid concerns but you gotta consider the other side of the coin," said Scheidegger "The state and the victims have an interest in seeing these sentences carried out and at present it is taking far too long."
Death penalty lawyer Kenneth McGuire — who is among those suing in federal court in Washington, D.C., to challenge the certification process — called the shorter time frame "completely impractical" and said it would "only guarantee a miscarriage of justice." Attorney James Rytting concurred, adding that sometimes it takes "several months" for the courts to appoint federal habeas lawyers.
And, because Texas has requested certification dating back to 1995, there's some question as to whether it would retroactively be applied to cases now entering federal appeals.
"That's a worst-case scenario," McCann said.
'Bigger problems'
Opting in wouldn't just affect defense attorneys and their clients.
Defense attorney Margaret Schmucker, who previously worked for the state attorney general under both Abbott and John Cornyn before him, highlighted the problems it could cause for the state attorneys, who would likely have to handle appeals at a quicker clip.
"On any given day, any one of the capital division attorneys would have a couple dozen cases on their docket," she said. "And it's not going to be any easier on them. So unless the money and the staff comes to deal with the expedited processes they're going to have bigger problems."
It also could have an impact on which cases are taken up by the nation's highest court, which issued two groundbreaking decisions stemming from Houston-area cases last year.
"The Supreme Court can only hear what's brought to it and if those cases never get there because they get shut out or shut down, the Supreme Court is gonna be a lot less busy," McCann said.
"Bobby Moore would be dead under this standard of time limits. Anthony Graves would be dead. Pretty much everybody who's been released or commuted on death row would have already been executed so not only would we have done wrong we wouldn't even know we had."
As of now, it's not clear when a decision from Washington might come.
Friday, April 6, 2018
Thursday, April 5, 2018
CHAPLAIN FIRED FOR BAR BANGING
by Bob Walsh
A U. S. Navy Chaplain has been relieved of his post for having sex in a bar.
Chaplain Loften Thornton was videoed last month having sex with a woman at the Crown and Anchor English Pub near the Marine Forces Reserve in Algiers, across the river from New Orleans, where Thornton was stationed. Thornton has been a navy chaplain for 26 years.
He was removed because his command had "lost trust and confidence" in him.
The lord moves in mysterious ways......
A U. S. Navy Chaplain has been relieved of his post for having sex in a bar.
Chaplain Loften Thornton was videoed last month having sex with a woman at the Crown and Anchor English Pub near the Marine Forces Reserve in Algiers, across the river from New Orleans, where Thornton was stationed. Thornton has been a navy chaplain for 26 years.
He was removed because his command had "lost trust and confidence" in him.
The lord moves in mysterious ways......
SUCCESSFUL PROGRAM ??
by Bob Walsh
The formerly great state of California announced gleefully yesterday that over 1 million illegal aliens have now received California drivers licenses. If that means they are actually obeying the laws (all the laws except those against illegal immigration I guess) and actually have insurance that is at least MAYBE a good thing.
I am somewhat bothered by the fact that we seem to be making it easier and easier for people here illegally to be thought of as acceptable. Must be just me. I guess I am a racist bastard because I want people to follow the law.
The formerly great state of California announced gleefully yesterday that over 1 million illegal aliens have now received California drivers licenses. If that means they are actually obeying the laws (all the laws except those against illegal immigration I guess) and actually have insurance that is at least MAYBE a good thing.
I am somewhat bothered by the fact that we seem to be making it easier and easier for people here illegally to be thought of as acceptable. Must be just me. I guess I am a racist bastard because I want people to follow the law.
COUNTRY MUSIC STAR TURNED LIVID AFTER LAST-SECOND GAME-TYING GOAL BY HER HUSBAND’S NHL TEAM WAS DISALLOWED
'I am livid': Carrie Underwood hits out at NHL in a series of tweets after her husband's team loses over controversial decision to take away a game-tying goal
By Minyvonne Burke
Daily Mail
April 4, 2018
Carrie Underwood is not happy her husband's team lost Tuesday night's NHL game in Florida after a goal was taken away.
The country superstar took to Twitter following the Nashville Predators' defeat to the Florida Panthers, tweeting that NHL officials made a bad call when they decided that Filip Forsberg last-second goal didn't count.
The decision ultimately caused the Panthers to win 2-1.
'I am seriously livid. @NHL, fix this,' Underwood posted.
In another tweet Underwood, who is married to Predators centerman Mike Fisher, said officials taking the goal away was the 'worst call ever'.
'Goaltender interference? Are you out of your mind? On what planet?' she posted.
During the last few seconds of Tuesday's game, Fornsberg scored a goal tying the game 2-2.
However, officials in Toronto's Situation Room - where every goal at every game is reviewed - said the goal was disallowed due to goalie interference. Officials said Predators' Viktor Arvidsson's stick hit Panthers' goalie Roberto Loungo causing him to spin.
As Luongo tried to regain his composure Forsberg came in and scored.
'The deliberate actions of Arvidsson's stick caused Luongo to spin and cause the covered puck to come loose prior to the goal,' a statement from the Situation Room read.
Predators head coach Peter Laviolette told NHL.com that it was a 'tough call' but he '100 per cent' disagrees with the final decision.
'We obviously feel it was (Panthers defenseman Keith) Yandle who caused the goalie to be disrupted. He got on the backside of Arvidsson and moved him, so we 100 per cent disagree with the call.
Forsberg added: 'I don't know what's going on, and it's so inconsistent that we don't even know when it's a goal or not, but it's one that's clearly a goal. The puck is never covered, the goalie had no clue where it is and it ends up on my tape and it's in and they somehow don't think so. I disagree 100 per cent.'
Other celebrities and hockey fans also took to Twitter to express their anger over the controversial decision.
'Dear NHL I love you and I always will but PredsNHL were robbed tonight,' actor Kiefer Sutherland tweeted.
'Hey NHL, those are the kind of calls that cause fans to lose faith in the head office. Always let officials on the ice have final say. That is weak. At least it wasn't an important game #sarcasm,' professional golfer Brandt Snedeker wrote.
The loss prevented the Predators from clinching the Central Division or Western Conference.
By Minyvonne Burke
Daily Mail
April 4, 2018
Carrie Underwood is not happy her husband's team lost Tuesday night's NHL game in Florida after a goal was taken away.
The country superstar took to Twitter following the Nashville Predators' defeat to the Florida Panthers, tweeting that NHL officials made a bad call when they decided that Filip Forsberg last-second goal didn't count.
The decision ultimately caused the Panthers to win 2-1.
'I am seriously livid. @NHL, fix this,' Underwood posted.
In another tweet Underwood, who is married to Predators centerman Mike Fisher, said officials taking the goal away was the 'worst call ever'.
'Goaltender interference? Are you out of your mind? On what planet?' she posted.
During the last few seconds of Tuesday's game, Fornsberg scored a goal tying the game 2-2.
However, officials in Toronto's Situation Room - where every goal at every game is reviewed - said the goal was disallowed due to goalie interference. Officials said Predators' Viktor Arvidsson's stick hit Panthers' goalie Roberto Loungo causing him to spin.
As Luongo tried to regain his composure Forsberg came in and scored.
'The deliberate actions of Arvidsson's stick caused Luongo to spin and cause the covered puck to come loose prior to the goal,' a statement from the Situation Room read.
Predators head coach Peter Laviolette told NHL.com that it was a 'tough call' but he '100 per cent' disagrees with the final decision.
'We obviously feel it was (Panthers defenseman Keith) Yandle who caused the goalie to be disrupted. He got on the backside of Arvidsson and moved him, so we 100 per cent disagree with the call.
Forsberg added: 'I don't know what's going on, and it's so inconsistent that we don't even know when it's a goal or not, but it's one that's clearly a goal. The puck is never covered, the goalie had no clue where it is and it ends up on my tape and it's in and they somehow don't think so. I disagree 100 per cent.'
Other celebrities and hockey fans also took to Twitter to express their anger over the controversial decision.
'Dear NHL I love you and I always will but PredsNHL were robbed tonight,' actor Kiefer Sutherland tweeted.
'Hey NHL, those are the kind of calls that cause fans to lose faith in the head office. Always let officials on the ice have final say. That is weak. At least it wasn't an important game #sarcasm,' professional golfer Brandt Snedeker wrote.
The loss prevented the Predators from clinching the Central Division or Western Conference.
CALIFORNIA LAWMAKERS APPARENTLY WANT TO HAVE COPS KILLED INSTEAD OF HAVING ANYONE SHOT BY THE POLICE
After Stephon Clark shooting, California lawmakers push to make it easier to prosecute police officers
By Liam Dillon
Los Angeles Times
April 3, 2018
Flanked by civil rights advocates, California lawmakers announced new legislation Tuesday designed to make it easier to prosecute police officers who kill civilians.
"We have been deeply saddened and frustrated by the killing of black and brown men by law enforcement," said Assemblywoman Shirley Weber (D-San Diego), the bill's author. "It seems that the worst possible outcome is increasingly the only outcome that we experience."
The bill follows the Sacramento shooting of Stephon Clark, an unarmed, 22-year-old black man who was killed in his grandmother's backyard last month by police looking for a vandal in the neighborhood. Lawmakers described Clark's killing, and other instances in which officers shot black and Latino residents, as the impetus behind the legislation.
The Sacramento incident has sparked protests in the capital city, and Raj Manni, grandfather of Clark's children, attended Tuesday morning's news conference at the Capitol.
Weber and other legislators supporting the bill described the measure as the most far-reaching in the country to allow for the prosecution of officers who kill civilians. Under current law, police use of deadly force must be "objectively reasonable."
Weber's bill would make two key changes. It says officers could use deadly force only if it's necessary to prevent imminent and serious bodily injury or death, encouraging prosecutors to consider whether officers could have deescalated the situation with verbal warnings or used nonlethal force beforehand. It also would allow prosecutors to take into account an officer's actions prior to a killing that could have negligently placed the officer in harm's way.
Advocates pointed to the killing of 12-year-old Tamir Rice in Cleveland in 2014 as an example in which it might have been easier to charge officers under the proposed standard. In that case, Cleveland police responded to a 911 call mentioning someone who was pointing a gun outside a recreation center, and killed Rice, who was holding a pellet gun. Officers pulled up within feet of Rice and shot him less than two seconds after arriving. A grand jury declined to indict the officers, saying they reasonably feared for their safety.
Activist groups cheered the announcement of Weber's bill Tuesday . Samuel Sinyangwe, co-founder of Campaign Zero, the policy arm of the Black Lives Matter movement, said no state currently takes into account officers' actions leading up to killings when determining whether to prosecute. Just four states — Delaware, Iowa, Rhode Island and Tennessee — require officers to exhaust all other reasonable means before using deadly force, Sinyangwe said. Police killings in those states are 17% lower than the rest of the country, according to data compiled by Sinyangwe's organization.
"It's a huge deal," Sinyangwe said of the bill. "It's probably the biggest thing that can be done to address police shootings is to address deadly force standards."
Robert Weisberg, a Stanford law professor and co-director of the school's Criminal Justice Center, said it would be hard to tell how much the law might change prosecutors' ability to charge officers or gain convictions. No officer, he said, is going to say that it wasn't necessary for them to use deadly force. And it's unclear, he said, how much time prior to specific incidents that officer behavior could be scrutinized as part of a criminal case.
Still, Weisberg said the bill would add pressure to prosecute police.
"It is clearly a kind of admonition to the courts and to police officers that the ante is being upped," he said.
Law enforcement organizations are expected to strongly oppose the legislation. Officer groups have long noted that police have to make split-second decisions to protect bystanders and their own safety, something courts must take into consideration when weighing the use of excessive force.
Craig Lally, the president of the Los Angeles Police Protective League, the union representing rank-and-file Los Angeles police officers, said in a statement that the bill ignores the dangers involved in policing and that LAPD training ensures that officers use deadly force only when it's absolutely necessary.
If the bill becomes law, Lally said, "it will either get cops killed or allow criminals to terrorize our streets unchecked."
"It's one thing to criticize from your keyboard or from behind a microphone at a press conference; it's another to actually work in the very real and dangerous world of policing," he said.
Ron Hernandez, the president of the Assn. for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs, had similarly strong words. He said in a statement that the measure would replace longstanding Supreme Court precedent with "an unworkable standard whose goal is to criminalize use of force by law enforcement."
Those at Tuesday's news conference, however, said that current policies must change. Activists called out the names of those they said were unnecessarily killed by police officers in recent years. Lawmakers also cited disparities in how police have used deadly force against black residents who turned out to be unarmed compared to other situations, including a 2015 incident in which police took into custody a white man who had killed nine attendees of a historically black church in South Carolina.
"African Americans in this country and in the great state of California feel a target is on their back by police and the justice system," said Assemblyman Chris Holden (D-Pasadena), who is the chairman of the Legislative Black Caucus.
"We should no longer be the target practice or victims of a shoot first, ask questions later police force," he added.
Weber's legislation, which has yet to be formally introduced, will be Assembly Bill 931.
Sacramento District Atty. Anne Marie Schubert has pledged a full investigation of the Clark killing before deciding whether to prosecute the officers involved. State Atty. Gen. Xavier Becerra is assisting in that investigation, and also reviewing the Sacramento Police Department's internal use-of-force policies. Becerra's office did not respond to a request for comment on the bill.
By Liam Dillon
Los Angeles Times
April 3, 2018
Flanked by civil rights advocates, California lawmakers announced new legislation Tuesday designed to make it easier to prosecute police officers who kill civilians.
"We have been deeply saddened and frustrated by the killing of black and brown men by law enforcement," said Assemblywoman Shirley Weber (D-San Diego), the bill's author. "It seems that the worst possible outcome is increasingly the only outcome that we experience."
The bill follows the Sacramento shooting of Stephon Clark, an unarmed, 22-year-old black man who was killed in his grandmother's backyard last month by police looking for a vandal in the neighborhood. Lawmakers described Clark's killing, and other instances in which officers shot black and Latino residents, as the impetus behind the legislation.
The Sacramento incident has sparked protests in the capital city, and Raj Manni, grandfather of Clark's children, attended Tuesday morning's news conference at the Capitol.
Weber and other legislators supporting the bill described the measure as the most far-reaching in the country to allow for the prosecution of officers who kill civilians. Under current law, police use of deadly force must be "objectively reasonable."
Weber's bill would make two key changes. It says officers could use deadly force only if it's necessary to prevent imminent and serious bodily injury or death, encouraging prosecutors to consider whether officers could have deescalated the situation with verbal warnings or used nonlethal force beforehand. It also would allow prosecutors to take into account an officer's actions prior to a killing that could have negligently placed the officer in harm's way.
Advocates pointed to the killing of 12-year-old Tamir Rice in Cleveland in 2014 as an example in which it might have been easier to charge officers under the proposed standard. In that case, Cleveland police responded to a 911 call mentioning someone who was pointing a gun outside a recreation center, and killed Rice, who was holding a pellet gun. Officers pulled up within feet of Rice and shot him less than two seconds after arriving. A grand jury declined to indict the officers, saying they reasonably feared for their safety.
Activist groups cheered the announcement of Weber's bill Tuesday . Samuel Sinyangwe, co-founder of Campaign Zero, the policy arm of the Black Lives Matter movement, said no state currently takes into account officers' actions leading up to killings when determining whether to prosecute. Just four states — Delaware, Iowa, Rhode Island and Tennessee — require officers to exhaust all other reasonable means before using deadly force, Sinyangwe said. Police killings in those states are 17% lower than the rest of the country, according to data compiled by Sinyangwe's organization.
"It's a huge deal," Sinyangwe said of the bill. "It's probably the biggest thing that can be done to address police shootings is to address deadly force standards."
Robert Weisberg, a Stanford law professor and co-director of the school's Criminal Justice Center, said it would be hard to tell how much the law might change prosecutors' ability to charge officers or gain convictions. No officer, he said, is going to say that it wasn't necessary for them to use deadly force. And it's unclear, he said, how much time prior to specific incidents that officer behavior could be scrutinized as part of a criminal case.
Still, Weisberg said the bill would add pressure to prosecute police.
"It is clearly a kind of admonition to the courts and to police officers that the ante is being upped," he said.
Law enforcement organizations are expected to strongly oppose the legislation. Officer groups have long noted that police have to make split-second decisions to protect bystanders and their own safety, something courts must take into consideration when weighing the use of excessive force.
Craig Lally, the president of the Los Angeles Police Protective League, the union representing rank-and-file Los Angeles police officers, said in a statement that the bill ignores the dangers involved in policing and that LAPD training ensures that officers use deadly force only when it's absolutely necessary.
If the bill becomes law, Lally said, "it will either get cops killed or allow criminals to terrorize our streets unchecked."
"It's one thing to criticize from your keyboard or from behind a microphone at a press conference; it's another to actually work in the very real and dangerous world of policing," he said.
Ron Hernandez, the president of the Assn. for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs, had similarly strong words. He said in a statement that the measure would replace longstanding Supreme Court precedent with "an unworkable standard whose goal is to criminalize use of force by law enforcement."
Those at Tuesday's news conference, however, said that current policies must change. Activists called out the names of those they said were unnecessarily killed by police officers in recent years. Lawmakers also cited disparities in how police have used deadly force against black residents who turned out to be unarmed compared to other situations, including a 2015 incident in which police took into custody a white man who had killed nine attendees of a historically black church in South Carolina.
"African Americans in this country and in the great state of California feel a target is on their back by police and the justice system," said Assemblyman Chris Holden (D-Pasadena), who is the chairman of the Legislative Black Caucus.
"We should no longer be the target practice or victims of a shoot first, ask questions later police force," he added.
Weber's legislation, which has yet to be formally introduced, will be Assembly Bill 931.
Sacramento District Atty. Anne Marie Schubert has pledged a full investigation of the Clark killing before deciding whether to prosecute the officers involved. State Atty. Gen. Xavier Becerra is assisting in that investigation, and also reviewing the Sacramento Police Department's internal use-of-force policies. Becerra's office did not respond to a request for comment on the bill.
CARTEL CUTS OFF UTILITIES TO MEXICAN TOWN BUT BISHOP GETS THEM TO RESTORE ELECTRICITY AND WATER
Narcos promise Bishop Rangel not to kill more candidates in Guerrero State
Mexico News Daily
April 2, 2018
Narcos in Guerrero have agreed not to kill any more candidates for election after meeting with the bishop of Chilpancingo.
Bishop Salvador Rangel Mendoza, who has previously encouraged dialogue with drug cartels as a means of reducing violence, said he met Friday with a gang leader during a visit to Heliodoro Castillo in the state’s Sierra region.
After raising the issue of the assassination of candidates, he said, the gangster “promised to try to prevent it and allow a free election to take place in which the choice of the people would prevail .
. . .”
The cartel insisted on two conditions: that those running for office not give away money in an attempt to buy votes, and that once the election was over the candidates must fulfill all their promises.
“What they ask for is a free, just and secret vote, nothing more,” the bishop declared.
Bishop Rangel had traveled to the town of Pueblo Viejo where criminal elements had cut off electricity and water in an attempt to flush out a number of rivals.
“I explained to them that while some of their enemies might have been there it was also true that there were old people, children and pregnant women, and all of them needed those services,” he said.
Rangel’s intercession succeeded and the gang yielded, reconnecting the utilities.
The bishop refused to identify the criminals with whom he spoke or provide any other information regarding the gang to which they belong.
Relations between Rangel and criminal organizations went awry two months ago when two priests and the relatives of a nun were murdered in two different incidents.
Of the 42 politically-related assassinations in Mexico since September, 12 were in Guerrero. Oaxaca was next with eight.
Mexico News Daily
April 2, 2018
Narcos in Guerrero have agreed not to kill any more candidates for election after meeting with the bishop of Chilpancingo.
Bishop Salvador Rangel Mendoza, who has previously encouraged dialogue with drug cartels as a means of reducing violence, said he met Friday with a gang leader during a visit to Heliodoro Castillo in the state’s Sierra region.
After raising the issue of the assassination of candidates, he said, the gangster “promised to try to prevent it and allow a free election to take place in which the choice of the people would prevail .
. . .”
The cartel insisted on two conditions: that those running for office not give away money in an attempt to buy votes, and that once the election was over the candidates must fulfill all their promises.
“What they ask for is a free, just and secret vote, nothing more,” the bishop declared.
Bishop Rangel had traveled to the town of Pueblo Viejo where criminal elements had cut off electricity and water in an attempt to flush out a number of rivals.
“I explained to them that while some of their enemies might have been there it was also true that there were old people, children and pregnant women, and all of them needed those services,” he said.
Rangel’s intercession succeeded and the gang yielded, reconnecting the utilities.
The bishop refused to identify the criminals with whom he spoke or provide any other information regarding the gang to which they belong.
Relations between Rangel and criminal organizations went awry two months ago when two priests and the relatives of a nun were murdered in two different incidents.
Of the 42 politically-related assassinations in Mexico since September, 12 were in Guerrero. Oaxaca was next with eight.
Wednesday, April 4, 2018
MORE IDIOCY FROM THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CALIFORNIA
by Bob Walsh
There is yet another idiotic and even dangerous legislative proposal erupting from the state legislature. Under current law, based on a SCOTUS decision, police use of deadly force must be "reasonable", that being what a reasonable peace officer in similar circumstances would have done in more or less the same way.
The proposal, by Senator Nancy Skinner, D_Bezerkley, would demand that peace officers fire their weapons only when absolutely necessary, when there is not an alternative to doing so under the circumstances.
That would of course be virtually never, you can always just let the bad guy escape if you choose to do so. There is almost ALWAYS an alternative, just not always a reasonable alternative.
San Francisco D. A. George Gascon, who was at one time the chief of police there, thinks this is a WONDERFUL idea. The ACLU also thinks it is absolutely marvelous.
I would not care to bet that this will actually pass, but I would not care to be that it won't either.
There is yet another idiotic and even dangerous legislative proposal erupting from the state legislature. Under current law, based on a SCOTUS decision, police use of deadly force must be "reasonable", that being what a reasonable peace officer in similar circumstances would have done in more or less the same way.
The proposal, by Senator Nancy Skinner, D_Bezerkley, would demand that peace officers fire their weapons only when absolutely necessary, when there is not an alternative to doing so under the circumstances.
That would of course be virtually never, you can always just let the bad guy escape if you choose to do so. There is almost ALWAYS an alternative, just not always a reasonable alternative.
San Francisco D. A. George Gascon, who was at one time the chief of police there, thinks this is a WONDERFUL idea. The ACLU also thinks it is absolutely marvelous.
I would not care to bet that this will actually pass, but I would not care to be that it won't either.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)