Showing posts with label violent crime. Show all posts
Showing posts with label violent crime. Show all posts

Saturday, February 22, 2020

Comments on Former Lake County Sheriff Mark Curran's Supposed Assault of William Kelly


     The following two bodies of text were written in response to a question by my former campaign manager, Phil Collins, asking me whether I think former Lake County Sheriff Mark Curran is guilty of a crime, in the supposed “assault” or “battery” which he allegedly inflicted upon former Illinois Governor candidate and political podcast host William Kelly.
     The second body of text was sent as a follow-up email. It has been edited, but only to make it more coherent; the content of the second body of text has not been changed. The first body of text has not been edited.
     I should note that I have written all of these comments without seeing the entire video showing Curran's alleged assault on Kelly. I do not know where that video can be accessed. I have watched the most important part (the alleged assault), but I have not seen what took place beforehand, nor afterwards. I have also watched Mark Curran being interviewed by police after the supposed assault.



     It's difficult to say whether a crime was committed, because Illinois Criminal Code says assault includes when a person "engages in conduct which places another in reasonable apprehension of receiving a battery", while battery is when a person "intentionally or knowingly without legal justification and by any means causes bodily harm to an individual or makes physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature with an individual".
     I personally don't think that what Curran did should constitute assault. Curran was not attempting to cause Kelly any harm or pain, and I suspect that Kelly did not suffer any injury or pain as a result of Curran putting his hands on him. That could mean that Curran had no malice of forethought, and it could also mean that there is no actual physical evidence of any harm or injury or trauma.
     On the other hand, Curran did "engage in conduct which places another in reasonable apprehension of receiving a battery", when he placed both of his hands on Kelly's arms. That could be perceived as a provocation, because Curran used physical power to move Kelly. Curran didn't shove or push any part of Kelly's torso, but instead firmly placed his hands on Kelly's arms, and pushed him towards the door, but with minimal effort and arguably no actual force.
     What Curran did might technically fall within a very very loose definition of assault or battery, but since there was no injury (that I can detect), and also considering that Kelly was arguably trespassing at the time when Curran informed him that he was no longer welcome. But on the other hand, Curran waited only half a second after saying "get out of here" before he put his hands on Kelly.
     Kelly responded by asking whether Curran wanted to fight; this means that Curran arguably engaged in "conduct which places another in reasonable apprehension of receiving a battery", which is assault in Illinois. Arguably Curran wanted Kelly out in order to avoid a fight, but on the other hand, Curran should have had the sense to instruct Kelly to leave, and only consider using force or calling the police when Kelly refused to leave. Curran didn't give Kelly a reasonable amount of time to respond to his request to leave, and instead resorted to physical "force" (albeit arguably non-violent) to solve the problem.
     As a private citizen, I would say that this altercation doesn't bother me, but if I were a juror, I'd have to conclude that Curran did commit assault and/or battery, in the strict legal sense of how those words are defined. But if I were a juror, I'd also want to know about whether Kelly has a history of violence, or fighting, or being quick to fight, or being quick to assume that another person wants to fight when they do not. But whether Curran has a history of fighting, should also be taken into consideration.






     Watching the interview with Mark Curran, he seems to be exaggerating Kelly's "screaming" when he was pushed towards the door. On the other hand, it is also concerning that (according to Curran) Kelly has previously challenged Curran to physical fights such as boxing or wrestling matches.
     Kelly's behavior could arguably constitute stalking, if he were to begin making threats. If what Curran says is true, then Kelly has been following him around, trying to provoke him, and inviting him to take part in physical altercations (although they would be sanctioned). It's still concerning though, because Kelly seems to want a fight.
     It's hard to tell whom is the real provocateur in all this, but I'm leaning towards Kelly.





Post-Script, written February 22nd, 2020:

     Considering that Illinois defines battery as that which occurs when someone “intentionally or knowingly without legal justification and by any means causes bodily harm to an individual or makes physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature with an individual", it is entirely possible that what William Kelly did, constitutes battery.
     That's because, if Curran is telling the truth when he says Kelly has repeatedly challenged him to fights before, then Kelly is the one whom is making “physical contact of a provoking nature with an individual”. However, that only constitutes battery if Kelly's following Curran around constitutes “physical contact”, which is debateable since there appears to be no evidence that Kelly has ever made any initial act of physically touching Curran in any way.

     Considering that Illinois defines assault as that which occurs when someone “engages in conduct which places another in reasonable apprehension of receiving a battery”, it is entirely possible that what William Kelly did, constitutes assault.
     That's because, if Curran is telling the truth when he says Kelly has repeatedly challenged him to fights before, it is Kelly who placed Curran “in reasonable apprehension of receiving a battery”. Curran could reasonably conclude that he could receive a beating, from the supposed fact that Kelly has repeatedly challenged him to fights (that is, if Curran is telling the truth).






Learn more about this case of supposed assault by visiting the following links:







Emails written on February 12th, 2020
This article created and published on February 22nd, 2020



at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Friday, February 21, 2020

Links to All of My Articles, Videos, and Memes About the Jussie Smollett Case

My April 2019 video "Why Jussie Smollett Might Be Innocent"


My (thus far incomplete) August 2020 article "State of Illinois v. Smollett: What if Jussie Smollett is Telling the Truth?":
http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2020/08/state-of-illinois-v-smollett-what-if.html






Compiled and Published on February 21st, 2020

List of links expanded, and title changed, on August 27th, 2020
at 1 comment:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Friday, January 27, 2017

Twenty-Nine-Point Comprehensive Immigration Plan


            1. THE WALL: Do not add fencing on the U.S.-Mexico border, and do not build walls on the borders with Mexico nor Canada.

             2. CIVIL RIGHTS: Do not revoke the civil liberties nor civil rights (such as rights to equal protection of law, and due process of law) on the basis of the suspect's national origin, religion, nor enemy combatant status. All persons have these constitutionally recognized rights; not just American citizens.

            3. BANS: Enforce neither temporary nor permanent bans on immigrants and refugees coming from particular countries; especially not as a way to discriminate against refugees on the basis of the religious majority of the nations from which they come.

            4. REGISTRIES: Pass legislation specifically prohibiting the creation of federal registries, and of lists of Americans' races and religions.

            5. VETTING: If illegal immigration is really the problem, then maybe we shouldn't worry about who is trying to immigrate into the United States legally as much. Either way, relax procedures for the naturalization of legal immigrants and refugees; background checks and health examinations should take up the majority of the procedure.

            6. CRIME: As soon as possible, deport all undocumented immigrants who have been convicted of violent crimes.

            7. ARREST: Do not allow police officers, nor immigration and customs officials, to detain and deport undocumented immigrants for non-violent crimes; not for breaking petty vice laws, nor for having insufficient identification.

            8. HARBORING: Urge all governments (at all levels) to decriminalize harboring and assisting undocumented immigrants and refugees; these actions should not be felonies. State and local governments, the private sector, and charity and religious organizations, should not be punished for providing humanitarian relief (such as housing, education, health services, and food), to undocumented immigrants and refugees.


            9. AMNESTY: Grant permanent or temporary amnesty, temporary work visas, or Green cards, to all non-violent undocumented immigrants, regardless of their religion or national origin.


            10. BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP: Continue allowing all people who were born on U.S. territory to apply for U.S. citizenship when they turn 18.


            11. CHILD ARRIVALS: Ensure that undocumented immigrants who arrived in the U.S. as children – especially in the last 35 years – are not deported; and ensure that they are not separated from family members who may be undocumented immigrants, unless they have been convicted of violent crimes. Support congressional deferred action for childhood arrivals and their parents; not executive orders which bypass Congress.


            12. TRAVEL: Increase the freedom of movement of labor and capital – and refrain from inhibiting the freedom of locomotion of non-violent undocumented immigrants to other countries – by decriminalizing the act of entry into the United States without going through required naturalization procedures. Urge governments to agree to make monetary settlements with any legal immigrants who feel slighted by the relative ease with which undocumented immigrants become citizens.

            13. NATURALIZATION: Ensure that the federal government retains its authority to establish a uniform rule of naturalization. Oppose and abolish any and all support of immigration quotas as calls for unconstitutional discrimination on the basis of national origin.

            14. WORK: Do not make work a condition for citizenship. Make it easier (for undocumented and documented immigrants alike) to get green cards and temporary work visas; by increasing the number of temporary work visas for immigrants who want to come here to work (especially the number of visas for high-skilled workers). Provide easy paths to legal work, lawful permanent residency, citizenship, and full voting rights.

            15. IDENTIFICATION: Do not establish a national identification card. Do not require businesses to use e-Verify (or similar programs) to confirm citizenship as a condition of hiring. All this does is turn undocumented immigrants who want to work into unemployed second-class citizens, and turn hiring managers into immigration enforcement officials.

            16. VOTING: Allow non-violent undocumented immigrants residing in the U.S. to vote, as long as they are not eligible to vote in any other country.

            17. PURCHASES: Ensure that undocumented immigrants are not expected to show identification documents that would reveal their citizenship status, in order to purchase products that have legally mandated minimum ages of purchase (such as alcohol and tobacco).

            18. DRIVING: Make it easier for immigrants and refugees – and ordinary citizens as well - to obtain drivers' licenses. First, by urging more states to allow undocumented immigrants to obtain drivers' licenses for non-citizens; second, by urging courts to find that charging fees to license drivers amounts to charging people to leave their state, which interferes with the freedom of locomotion. As long as driver's licenses are considered constitutional, and as long as people are expected to carry identification, all levels of government should be urged to issue driver's licenses and identification documents at no charge to the recipient.

            19. WELFARE: Ensure that state and federal welfare agency employees do not violate immigrants' Fifth Amendment freedom from self-incrimination, by using undocumented immigrants' state of need as an excuse to make them state their citizenship status, in order to have them detained and deported (without any evidence of commission of a real crime against person or property having appeared).

            20. SOCIAL DIVIDENDS: Ensure that governments cannot discriminate against undocumented immigrants seeking welfare support in the form of cash payouts from social dividends; if the opportunity arises to choose between a residents' dividend and a citizens' dividend, a proposal of a residents' dividend should be drafted and passed rather than a citizens' dividend.

            21. SAFETY NET: Stay open to the possibility of revoking federal social safety net benefits for undocumented immigrants; but only consider doing so after all structures supporting the corporate welfare system are abolished, and during the same time period that the federal social safety net is being phased out for all residents.

            22. SOCIAL SECURITY: The right to receive social welfare supports (including the entitlements, the S.N.A.P. / Food Stamps program, and others) should not be contingent upon paying taxes and paying into Social Security. There is no enumerated constitutional authority for federal involvement in retirement savings nor welfare; federal involvement in retirement should end; authority for any continued federal involvement in welfare should be passed constitutionally; and all government revenue should derive from fines that penalize waste rather than taxes that penalize productivity. Such a policy on welfare and taxation will provide additional tax relief to low-income undocumented immigrants and refugees; easing the transition to work, without overwhelming the worker with tax forms. Allow immigrant and native-born workers alike to opt-out of the Social Security system.

            23. SANCTUARY: End the federal government's monetary support of so-called “Sanctuary Cities” for undocumented immigrants; but only do so as part of a broader effort to stop these unconstitutional payments from the federal government to community governments.

            24. STATE WELFARE: Allow state and local governments to decide whether to grant undocumented immigrants' requests for social welfare benefits such as housing, education, health, and food assistance.

            25. PRIVATIZATION: Save money, shrink the welfare state, and make ordinary consumer goods more affordable (for immigrants and the native-born alike), by making health, education, and housing easier to purchase on the open market. Phase-out federal involvement in those sectors, and urge state and local governments to decrease regulations and taxes on them. Make purchasing goods like health insurance, medications, and education – and buying or renting housing – as easy and affordable as buying foods and drinks.

            26. EDUCATION: Require all publicly funded universities to offer in-state tuition rates to undocumented immigrants who reside in the state. Do not inhibit private colleges from offering scholarships and grants to undocumented immigrants.

            27. MILITARY: Ensure that acts of Congress concerning immigration allow non-violent undocumented immigrants to serve in the military (and become citizens); rather than giving undocumented immigrants a choice between serving in the military for two years or attending college. Do not make undocumented immigrants, nor anyone else, subject to selective service registration, military drafts, nor civil emergency preparedness service; not as a condition of citizenship, nor for any other reason.

            28. LANGUAGE: Do not interfere with the First Amendment freedom of speech of undocumented immigrants and refugees who speak languages other than English. Do not make English the official language of the United States of America; and pass a constitutional amendment formally prohibiting any state or local government from doing so. Do not require immigrants nor refugees to learn English as a condition of citizenship.

            29. CULTURE: Do not interfere with the freedom of cultural expression. Do not expect, nor require, immigrants and refugees to "assimilate" to American culture; which includes liberal and conservative political cultures, neither of which fully embraces all of the freedoms that make people want to come here. Achieve civic pluralism by respecting ethnic and religious cultures' self-determination rights; while protecting the rights of ethnic, religious, and political minorities, with full civil liberties, and equal protection of law with due process.




Written on January 26th, 27th, and 30th, 2017

Edited on February 18th, 2017
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Friday, December 14, 2012

Is it Time to Legalize Murder?

Written in December 2012
Edited in May 2014, and on April 22nd, 2016


In "Utopia", Sir Thomas More wrote that the government should stop focusing on enforcing harsh penalties for theft, and instead focus on eliminating the policies that led to the impoverishment of the tenant farmers (namely, encroaching on and fencing-off their lands, effectively forcing them to compete for labor in the city centers to survive).

Abbie Hoffman wrote that the decades-long prison penalties for violating anti-marijuana laws made it so that young people may feel pressure to commit acts of violence (including, potentially, murder) against witnesses in order to prevent being punished for the original crime.

Why do people turn to theft, drugs, and violence? They perceive that they have few other options. They harm themselves, others, and others' property, often as a way to feel in-control; while society has conditioned the set of legitimate alternative courses of action available to them.

It should make sense, then, that several of the last few famous American mass shooters were on prescription anti-depression and anti-schizophrenia medications. Depression and schizophrenia are over-diagnosed, and the medications prescribed to treat them often have suicidal thoughts as side effects.

We must begin viewing many of these shootings as symptoms of the ills of society, not simply as ills. Saying that a mass shooter was "deranged" is a cop-out. But calling for "free" psychiatric care for all Americans (as a preventive measure) is an expensive proposition that diminishes the value of the labor of the people who perform psychiatric evaluations for a living.

Capital punishment (execution) is not an effective deterrent for murder; like the marijuana example, it only leads to (and, in the criminal mind, excuses) further violence. But prison - with its routine beatings and rapes (corporal punishment, whether sanctioned or overlooked) - is no creative or effective way to humanize the criminal justice system.

In some non-industrialized societies [including the Babemba tribe of Africa], when a person commits a crime, it is seen as a cry for help, and the village comes together to praise the criminal, and tell him about all the good things he has done in the past, in order to convince him that he is a good person (no deterrence necessary). Similarly, Socrates suggested that as "punishment" for corrupting the youth of Athens he should not be sentenced to death but instead given free food for life.

The trial of Socrates undoubtedly led his student Plato (who wrote, "[g]ood people don't need laws to tell them to act responsibly, and bad people will find a way around the laws") to wonder whether justice is truly good or instead simply a necessary evil. It is an appropriate question, especially given that today some homeless commit acts of petty theft so that they will be arrested and taken to jail, thus ensuring them shelter for the night, and possibly also a meal or two.

It should seem obvious by now that once a man has killed, he is willing to eliminate witnesses without blinking an eye. So too police, and whatever non-witness innocent bystanders happen to be between him and his getaway car. Thus, the fear of being confronted with deadly force is not an effective deterrent for these people who have little or nothing to lose.

But what good, exactly, would result from the legalization of murder? In all likelihood, nothing. But what good has resulted from its decriminalization (i.e., reduced penalties, and augmented rights of the accused)? It depends on whether you ask a civil-libertarian or someone who thinks society "coddles" criminals and the disadvantaged.

So why, then, even bring up the idea of legalizing murder (that is, repealing laws against murder, and eliminating sentencing guidelines for it)? We may remember from the First Book of Timothy "...law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels...". Just as "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns", when murder is outlawed, only outlaws will commit murder.

Actions are not immoral because they are illegal, but illegal because they are immoral. Those who believe that murder is wrong will not commit murder, and nothing will stop those who do not care whether murder is wrong from committing it.

Nothing, of course, except threats by individuals (and threatening by the State, called "laws") that such actions will be met with violent retribution. And, naturally, in the absence of Statism, the same set of threats would have the same potential to prevent aggression and enact retribution against its victims.

In addressing the complaints of voters upset by the legalization of gay marriage, stand-up comic Daniel Tosh remarked that the fact that gay marriage is legal doesn't mean that people who participate in homosexual civil unions are not going to go to Hell, saying "Just because the state says it's legal, it's not like God's gonna let 'em into Heaven."

Maybe if legalizing murder doesn't work, we can always replace those "gun-free zone" signs in schools with "murder-free zone" signs.



For more entries on justice, crime, and punishment, please visit:
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2010/10/thrasymachus-support-for-justice-being.html
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

How to Fold Two Square Pieces of Card Stock into a Box

      This series of images shows how to take two square pieces of card stock (or thick paper), and cut and fold them into two halves of a b...