Daily Archives: September 2, 2010

iePolitics: A pit bull isn’t born vicious

Posted on by Administrator
11

If one investigates a pit bull that attacks, it is usually easy to pinpoint a reason.  Something precipitated it. And the same is true with people.

I’ve got a few people on the Fifth Floor upset with me these days.  I’ve been told that I should not expect help when I keep taking jabs.

County administrators have brought the pit bull out in a few people of late.  I would say the two most prominent are Jim Erwin and me.  Let’s put my situation aside for a moment and look at Jim’s.

We are told regularly  that the Fifth Floor doesn’t like our blogs.  But which came first—the blogs or the torment?  The answer is the torment.

Continue reading →

iePolitics: Sharks aside . . .

Posted on by Administrator
1

We have spent a lot of time lately writing about the misdeeds of law enforcement officers. We also spend a lot of time writing about hostile work environment, bigotry, and racism.  So, I’m sure it comes as a surprise to some of you that when I read the article on the Barstow police officer being arrested for a “hate crime” because he used racial slurs during a fight, I really have a problem with it.

Continue reading →

iePolitics: Brady issues in the District Attorney’s office

Posted on by Administrator
6

We have been saying all along that there are some “issues” with the District Attorney’s investigation in the corruption scandal.  Now we have proof.

For those not familiar with Brady, here is an excerpt from a previous post:

There is a case entitled Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).  The Wikipedia entry reads (emphasis added):

. . . in which the prosecution had withheld from the criminal defendant certain evidence. The defendant challenged his conviction, arguing it had been contrary to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Maryland prosecuted Brady and a companion, Boblit, for murder. Brady admitted being involved in the murder, but claimed Boblit had done the actual killing. The prosecution had withheld a written statement by Boblit confessing that he had performed the act of killing by himself. The Maryland Court of Appeal had affirmed the conviction and remanded the case for a retrial only of the question of punishment. Continue reading →