Killer or Artist? Why Rap is on Trial.
Prosecutors' use of rap videos and lyrics as evidence is chilling artistic speech.
When Laz Tha Boy threatens to murder someone with an AK-47, it may seem scary. He proudly
mimes shooting handguns towards the camera in his videos and promises to "leave a … face burgundy," when he is finished killing. But he says, it's an act.
Deandre Mitchell is from Richmond, Calif., and Laz Tha Boy is his hip-hop rap music persona. Although he says he writes many different types of rap music, he has found local success in the Northern California area as a gangsta rapper.
"It was just a way for me to express myself and be able to show the world that I [could] do something else. Try to give the people around me the motivation to say we could come from nothing," said Mitchell to Reason TV behind a pane of glass at the Martinez Detention Facility in Martinez, California.
Three of Mitchell's rap videos (What You Do It Fo, It's Real and Southside Richmond) became evidence used against him in a 2012 grand jury proceeding in which he was indicted on two counts of attempted murder, stemming from two shootings in Antioch, Calif. His case is like a lot of other cases springing up around the United States featuring aspiring rappers who are having their violent rap lyrics used against them. But nowhere is this phenomenon more prevalent than in one of gangster rap music's birthplace, California, where prosecutors aggressively prosecute gangs.
"It's supposed to be freedom of speech. So when I use my freedom of speech and voice my opinion then you all turn around and try and use it against me like this is who I am as a person," says Mitchell.
Even though the videos were made years earlier and didn't include specific references to the the
shootings at the heart of the indictment, Satish Jallepalli, a prosecutor with the Contra Costa County District Attorney's Office, said the videos illustrate Mitchell had the mindset to commit such crimes and did so to benefit Deep C, a criminal street gang in Richmond.
"At the end of the day, yes a person has a First Amendment right to speak, but when they they commit a crime, sometimes what they say will end up being used against them," says Jallepalli.
Since a grand jury proceeding is secret the only way we can understand what was presented is through transcripts of the proceeding (Read an excerpt here). In the grand jury proceeding Jallepalli pointed to Mitchell's violent references to murder and AK-47s with lyrics like, "If I see him I'm gonna murk em" and "When that K-ter starts sparking it get to jumpin but I'm a grip em." This was supposed to illustrate Mitchell's character but Jallepalli did not provide context for the lyrics as artistic convention.
"The term murk, rappers use all of the time," says Charis Kurbrin, an associate professor of criminology, law and society at the University of California, Irvine. "If it's not murk, it's 'I'm gonna smoke him', 'I'm going to pop a cap in him', 'I'm going to blaze him'." Kurbin is the co-author of the paper "Rap on Trial" in the journal Race and Justice that details the history and scope of rap music used in criminal proceedings. She says prosecutors end up using rap lyrics and videos as evidence because they know the scary effect they will have on jurors.
"If you think about who is serving in our jury system in the United States, it's typically older, higher socioeconomic status, typically white. They often don't have the proper context for understanding rap music," says Kubrin.
In addition to word play, metaphor, and inverting meaning, rappers throughout hip-hop's history from Snoop Dogg to Eminem have fashioned characters as the vehicle for their violent lyrics.
"Deandre is the family man, I have two kids and everything. But when I do music, I build my character to be Laz Tha Boy," says Mitchell. "If you get around me and really understand me and see what is going on you see really it's just an image, it's not who I am."
Mitchell's lawyer, John Hamasaki, says the use of these rap videos and lyrics have a prejudicial effect on the young black males that make up the majority of these types of cases. "I think that the effect that it has on jurors […] perpetuates certain myths and stereotypes that are portrayed by the news media of young African American males being involved in criminal activity," says Hamasaki.
Jallepalli, disagrees saying, "The overwhelming majority of victims of gun violence in gang related cases often tend to be young minorities, whether African American or Hispanic."
Kubrin points out that this tactic of using rap lyrics in criminal proceedings has been going on since the 1990s but there has been a rise in their use lately because prosecutors have shared how successful the tactic can be with each other. Back in 2004, Alan Jackson, a former gang prosecutor in Los Angeles, wrote a guide for prosecutors for the American Prosecutor's Research Institute saying "through photographs, letters, notes, and even music lyrics, prosecutors can invade and exploit the defendant's true personality."
"You have to find a way to transport the jury to those dark streets and back alleyways where the crimes occur and the criminals ply their trade," says Jackson but offers the caveat that a prosecution should never solely be built on rap music lyrics—traditional evidence must accompany it.
Hamasaki says the use of these rap videos and lyrics in the Mitchell indictment may have blinded jurors from looking at the lack of physical evidence presented. In fact, the eyewitness testimony of the victim who said Mitchell was involved in both attempts on his life ended up to be based on street rumors.
While the victim told grand jurors that he saw Mitchell at both shootings, he also told Antioch police in a taped interview that what he knew was based on rumors he had heard around Richmond (View two pages of the interview). He signed a declaration in August 2014, saying "I never saw Deandre Mitchell during either of the shootings" and my previous statements about Mitchell were just "based on rumors I had heard in Richmond," (View document here).
Written and produced by Paul Detrick. Shot by Detrick, Tracy Oppenheimer and Zach Weissmuller. Associate Producer Will Neff. Music by Anitek, Robin Grey and Ben Von Wildenhaus.
Scroll below for downloadable versions. Subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube channel to get automatic notifications when new material goes live.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
John Wayne would be in trouble with today's prosecutors if anything happened in or near him. Art is no longer art, is it?
I think this is something that is pretty limited to music and other more first person artistic forms. People seem to do pretty well understanding that actors in movies and on TV are just playing characters. But a lot of people seem to have a huge problem seeing musicians the same way. Particularly in Gangsta' rap kind of stuff where playing up the tough persona is a big part of the act.
It also happens all the time with books. Anyone who writes a book with dark themes is invariably treated by a certain number of morons like he must be psychotic because of the themes presented.
As an example, there's that teacher who was put under emergency medical evaluation after he wrote a book about a school shooting.
***OLD COMMENTS BELOW CHECK DATES***
At least these comments aren't 3 or 4 years old, I guess....
Fuck you Reason editors.
Oh god why did I just read all this? I must have been really fucking bored. For anyone curious about what happens further down, there's a Civil War discussion where cytotoxic gives several examples of why he's an asshole and many people raise several points about the accuracy of this article. Yet Reason still chose to recycle this article 3 fucking times.
Plus there hasn't been other actors of the same genre acting out their roles in real life to set a precedent.
Some rappers do seem to have the occasional gun play.
John Wayne and John Ford never seemed to have a problem with each other that had to be settled by a drive by.
There's that.
The juries will be able to find the correct context for the lyrics alright. After all, the guy's accused of attempted murder. It's pretty obvious what he meant by the lyrics.
The Beatles should have been prosecuted for spying and treason for "Yellow Submarine". Also racism.
Umm, yellow not gray. Rings was obviously doing scientific research.
Dammit, autocorrect. You don't know the name of the coolest person who ever lived? Really?
the coolest person who ever lived
You mean it's not LOU REED?
The real answer BTW is Frank Zappa.
Hmm, Zappa I the only one of the three I have actually seen live on stage.
Took about two weeks to recover my heating fully.
i buy almost everything except food and clothing from online auctions most people aren't aware of the almost I unbelievable deals that they can get from online auction sites the site that has the
best deals is..===========
http://www.walletwiki.com
There are big problems with the legal system, but whether to admit rap videos into grand jury proceedings isn't one of them.
Grand juries were a well-intentioned attempt to protect citizens from prosecutorial overreach. For various reasons, they are not that effective; we should fix that.
A second problem is that merely being charged with a crime is often sufficient for forcing someone to plea-bargain; that also should get fixed. Personally, I think we should greatly restrict plea bargaining: it's unfair and being abused. Also, time spent in jury duty would put a natural cap on the desire for citizens to criminalize everything.
With regards to plea bargaining, defendants do it because their lawyers know that juries don't know what the hell "beyond a reasonable doubt" means and take LEOs at their effing word when it comes to everything.
Also, especially in the federal context, everybody is likely guilty of something: "hey, so we can't probably get a jury to convict you of money laundering; but this email evidencing wire fraud is a slam dunk!"
Well, as I was saying: there are big problems with the legal system; you named some. Admitting rap videos as evidence for grand juries is not one of them.
Don't forget the legal expenses for even an innocent person to take the case to trial. Not everyone can afford this, especially in the middle classes who are too "rich" for legal aid and not rich enough to put all the necessary resources in to their defense.
My best friend's mother-in-law makes $85 /hour on the internet . She has been out of work for 5 months but last month her pay was $16453 just working on the internet for a few hours.
Visit this website ????? http://www.jobsfish.com
It should be up to a jury to decide whether words and actions by a defendant say something about the defendant's proclivities. Part of that process is deciding whether a music video, or any other kind of action, is playing a character or communicating an opinion.
Neither of which is a crime.
It's libertarian to be against the introduction of relevant evidence? The fuck?
According to these cosmotardians, yes.
Also, rap is not music or art; it is mindless trash, and if you listen to it, you deserve it.
Are you accusing people here of reading Cosmo? Ouch.
Song of the day.
So you're saying that if someone writes a novel that has a murder in it, or a painter paints an image of a shooting, they should be indicted for murder, because only a murderer would produce art about killing?
It's libertarian to be against governments deciding that art is a confession without any other evidence.
Having read the details of his arrest, I'm willing to bet that the use of his youtube videos in the indictment proceedings isn't because of their violent content, but rather to establish gang ties and a relationship with the other assailant (whose name was known by the victim of the shooting).
The "artist" in these videos was believed to be a member of the exact gang which the known shooter was a member of, and given the nature of these videos, the known shooter likely appears in the video and there are likely a number of gang signs being flashed that identify the "artist's" membership in said gang. And the 45 year old man that was shot was done so because of a conflict between that gang and his son (hence why he knew one of the men that shot him by name, and he may be able to physically identify the other).
This probably isn't a case of a shitty youtube rapper's account being used as a confession like you indicate, it's much more likely a case of this video being used to establish the rapper's association with both the known shooter and the gang that he was affiliated with.
Of course, the article never bothers noting any of the details of the case and why the rap video may be pertinent in a grand jury setting (nor does it differentiate between the different evidentiary standards between grand jury and actual trial jury).
That's because Reason is absolutely terrible at providing all the relevant evidence of a case. There have been about a dozen instances I can think of when Reason wanted me to be OUTRAGED by a miscarriage of justice, but when I looked at the actual story it didn't seem like the cops or prosecutors did anything wrong.
My youngest daughter who want's to be an Editor has gone off about that sort of thing when I've forwarded articles to her. Not to mention the editing. She's not too impressed.
Yes, I've commented on this sort of thing before. Reason is often way too eager to jump on "police misconduct" stories that turn out to be not misconduct at all. E.g. the actress having sex in the car with her boyfriend "police profiling/racism" case.
This is the biggest thing I miss about Balko. Love or hate his editorial stance, he knew his stuff and IMO had a very high level of journalistic/editorial integrity.
This place needs new writers.
THIS. If this was the jury's primary evidence, I would definitely see the need to tread lightly. HOWEVER, claiming that rap is purely 'art' and in the same vein as movie stars and authors, is a bit of a stretch. This 'art' is all too often imitating life. Exhibit A: Tupac. Exhibit B: Biggie. Or is reason suggesting they are alive an well somewhere partying with Andy Kaufman??
Disclaimer: I enjoy the hell out of some rap (for workouts, etc) and appreciate it as an musical art form.
The "artist" in these videos was believed to be a member of the exact gang which the known shooter was a member of, and given the nature of these videos, the known shooter likely appears in the video and there are likely a number of gang signs being flashed that identify the "artist's" membership in said gang.
So they basically said, we can't the actual person responsible for the shooting, we'll just get this other dude who happens to be friends instead?
No, that's not what relevant evidence is. At all.
People seem to think that if a piece of evidence doesn't, on its own, prove something happened, it's not relevant. That's not how it works OUTSIDE the law, and certainly makes no sense in the legal context.
Indeed.
As my law school evidence professor was fond of saying, "A brick is not a wall."
For a fact to be relevent, it need not prove a fact at issue. It need only TEND to prove a fact.
Really? I am sure there are plenty of Profs who are intellectually honest and consistent in this thinking, but it seems to me that far more apply a different standard in other areas to suit their purposes. Now if we could only get all of the cocksuckers to apply that same reasoning to our constitution and the other side of the law.
It's libertarian to be against the introduction of relevant evidence? The fuck?
I think you should be able to admit all evidence. AND juries, grand juries, prosecutors and cops would ALL face retribution if they make the wrong decision.
Go ahead and send someone to jail. Seriously go ahead. Oh? You made the wrong choice? You actually believed a cop? Tough luck, now you'll be getting ass raped instead.
That's how it should work. The problem is that we assign absolute authority to a central institution and remove all incentives for justice by given immunity to those who serve that institution for any bad decisions made.
There is an epic hole in your theory. The jury is the final arbiter of the truth. Who are you going to get to judge "make the wrong decision?" If you believe there is some other authority that is more able to adjudicate truth, why not simply advocate that this other authority be assigned the duties of the jury?
my friend's step-sister makes $62 every hour on the laptop . She has been without a job for 7 months but last month her income was $19712 just working on the laptop for a few hours. visit the site...
?????? http://www.netjob70.com
"Got an ak 47 on my face, yo. So, you know I don't shoot no pistol."
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XtW6HW8jO_U
Another parent joins the homeschooling ranks. Her daughter suffered a vicious beating in the school cafeteria. School personnel didn't intervene - the superintendent says they didn't know what was going on.
Yet if some kid waves a Pop Tart around, the authorities are right there to discipline them!
http://www.ijreview.com/2014/1.....newsletter
And what, exactly, is the justification for all the assistant vice-principals and other non-teaching staff, when none of them are there to stop students from beating each other?
Paying them nice salaries and generous pensions stimulates the economy.
Vice principals are only marginally better than the high school drop outs and psych majors with connections to local politicians "performing" administration roles at the local board of ed.
With all the genius opinion above, you've convinced me - sounds legit
Are the admissibility standards for grand jury evidence lower than for criminal court? My understanding was that this sort of thing would be admissible in a criminal trial only to impeach "character" testimony by the defense ("Mr. Michell is a timid young man deeply opposed to violence") if and only if they offered such testimony.
Yes, absolutely.
Grand jury is a criminal court. But, in addition to investigating a potential crime using subpoena power, a grand jury merely determines whether there is enough evidence that probable cause exists to charge the defendant with the crime. If the grand jury determines there is probable cause, the defendant is "indicted" and the case typically moves to plea negotiations or a trial where the guilt would then have to be proved by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
In a grand jury proceeding in most jurisdictions, the proceedings are secret, the potential defendant had no right to be there, and only the prosecutor gets to ask questions and present evidence--and generally cherry picks what he wants to ask. He can usually ask leading questions until the cows come home. There are few limits on what the prosecutor can or must do.
Right-wing reactionary prelate obsesses over cultural issues, ignoring the warnings of Pope Francis.
http://www.ewtnnews.com/cathol.....p?id=11155
Right-wing reactionary prelate obsesses over cultural issues, ignoring the warnings of Pope Francis.
http://www.ewtnnews.com/cathol.....p?id=11155
GKC double-posts, HnR squirrels likely culprit.
http://www.gottomakeasquirrelsjoke.com
http://www.wasntafunnyjoke.net
OT: Texas Hit-and-Runners, I'm looking for a Chinese restaurant in San Antonio or Houston (I live two hours from either city) that sells good lemon chicken.
I want the kind that's already glazed, not the breaded strips you dip into the lemon sauce.
I don't know, but I thought of a great idea: A Chinese-Texas fusion restaurant.
Kung-POW Chicken
Fried Rice in Gravy
MOO-shu platter, with beef instead of pork
Slogan: You won't be hungry again after eating *here!*
+1 Colonel Travis' Chicken
"Fried Rice in Gravy"
I think someone had a link to a picture of that in the public school lunch thread.
If you kill a vampire with garlic chicken, is it undead again in a half hour?
Only if it's served with short grain rice.
All the Chinese restaurants around here sever jasmine rice.
So a Chinese man and a Chinese woman get married. She's very young and a virgin, and on their wedding night is cowering under the covers. He tries to reassure her:
"Don't worry darling, I just want to make you happy. We can do whatever you want."
"I want number 69."
"You want beef with broccoli?"
A Chinese guy goes to the eye doctor. Eye doctor says "Sir, you have a cataract." Chinese guy says "no, I drive a Rincoln Continentar."
I haven't eaten lemon chicken specifically but what part of Houston are you going to be in ?
Houston is a big city geographically.
Unless you don't mind driving an hour or so to eat.
I'm coming from Victoria, in from HWY 59.
Unless you don't mind driving an hour or so to eat.
I've been to Houston, that wouldn't even get you across town.
I haven't eaten lemon chicken specifically but what part of Houston are you going to be in ?
Houston is a big city geographically.
Unless you don't mind driving an hour or so to eat.
And a minute later, you post again.
Libertarian Policy Generator
That is really funny. Someone should make a random generator version.
I would say that's the work of a certain ex-troll/stalker but I don't believe she is that imaginative
My favorite: the SJW blog and argument generator.
please fucking stop. this month i'm tulpasexual
...
If this were a trial the prosecution would be wrecked
Because they'd have to show that the probative value of these lyrics exceeded the prejudicial effect
That's a test that would be difficult to meet
In a trial about a shooting on the street
But a grand jury isn't bound by evidentiary rules
They can look at just about everything, and that's all cool
You have to give a grand jury room
To suck up all the evidence like a vacuum
That doesn't mean the defendant can't thwart the heat
And beat the rap just like he raps the beat
Nice:) I would agree unless the lyrics contain specifics of a crime unknown to the public and the rapper was already a suspect due ro other evidence I would think it would be inadmissable.
"Hobbits may love big parties, but they hate big government, say the authors of The Hobbit Party: The Vision of Freedom that Tolkien Got, and the West Forgot....
"With multiple works touching on the spiritual significance of Tolkien's Lord of the Rings, few have come to realize that the iconic author - who spent much is his life in Africa and fellowshipped with C.S. Lewis in England - was just as zealous of an advocate for economic freedom and small government as he was a fiery dissident of tyranny. Consequently, [Jonathan] Witt and [Jay W.] Richards illustrate how Tolkien's passion for freedom is readily witnessed throughout Tolkien's epic works, which are said to show how Sauron's campaign of takeover of overreaching evil leads to political, economic and moral bankruptcy."
(from onenewsnow.com)
http://tinyurl.com/oyon8qg
"spent much of his life in Africa" = lived there in early childhood and got bitten by a giant spider, which he says didn't affect him.
Shelob would disagree with you there.
I would agree with Shelob.
"The fact that as a kid I got bitten by a big-ass African spider had *nothing to do* with the fact that some of the scariest monsters in my works happened to be giant spiders!"
Ungoliant and Shelob make the interdimensional spider in IT look like Charlotte from Charlotte's Web.
I spent a century in Africa last week.
I didn't read the entire article but if a musician can go to prison for his music, how in the world can a politician who use rhetoric (and there's plenty of examples with Holder, Biden and Obama on race and guns) that can rile people up get off the hook? Here in Quebec, nationalists are masters of using the 'I said it but I can't control people' excuse when they know all along the cues they just sent the population - on language for example.
Politicians are exempt from laws against fraud, slander, libel, insider trading, and many other things that send peons to prison.
Uh, Mr. Mitchell has yet to be convicted.
My roomate's aunt makes $71 /hour on the laptop . She has been out of a job for six months but last month her income was $12021 just working on the laptop for a few hours.
You can try this out. ????? http://www.jobsfish.com
No matter how violent someone may appear and no matter how much they insist they've done bad things, how can you indict somebody on a general charge of bad-assery rather than specific cases? Even if the guy says he's killed people you have to charge him with killing a specific person. If only prosecutors in general had more morals and principles than cops in general do, maybe they wouldn't prosecute cases where "well, I can probably get a conviction and boost my career and who gives a rat's ass if the guy is innocent or not"?
Cops arrest the nearest likely looking suspect on the grounds that if he didn't do this particular crime he's still a scumbag who did some sort of crime and prosecutors, rather than acting as a check on the cops like they're supposed to, are enablers of the system by agreeing to prosecute whatever poor bastard the cops dragged in. And judges and juries rubber-stamp the decision because the judges are all former prosecutors who know how the system works and the juries are all morons who have no idea how the system works.
Is that what happened? Because that would be good to know.
What I see here is that relevant evidence was admitted, which is trivial.
In related news the body of William Shakespeare has been exhumed and put on trial in connection with the deaths of Julius Caesar, Brutus, Cassius, Romeo, Juliet, the Prince of Verona, the Prince of Denmark, the King of Denmark...the Queen of Denmark, Richards I & II, and members of the Houses of York and Lancaster to be named later.
my classmate's ex-wife makes $79 /hr on the internet . She has been out of a job for ten months but last month her pay check was $17692 just working on the internet for a few hours. you can check here.....
?????? http://www.payinsider.com
I started with my online business I earn $58 every 15 minutes. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don't check it out.
??????? http://www.jobsfish.com
Ah, recycling!
1A
Fuck off!
If prosecutors can use diaries, letters, etc that show the disposition of a defendent, then certainly a person's music is every bit as relevant in showing what he is like, which is all that this is : showing the disposition of a defendent. No juror is going to base any decision on just that, and if the evidence in this case is as has been presented (about which I have doubts considering the biased slant of this article)
then this defendent is likely not to be indicted or, if he is, will be fairly easy to defend. Missing is any evidence about the history of this rapper - his past. At this point I have no way to base an opinion on the case.
OT: Government Success Stories (or, "have we reached maximum derp?")
Containing such gems as:
and:
Can you find the derpiest derp?
Wow, this is stupid. Winning a war is based on completing your objectives. The terms 'Pyrrhic Victory' and 'winning the battles but losing the war' exist for a reason - because you can technically emerge victorious and end in a worse position than you began.
Vietnam we objectively lost the war because we did not complete our objective. Iraq we objectively lost the war because Iraq is in worse shape now than it was before. Our interjection into Libya was an objective failure because Libya is now in worse shape than it was with Qaddafi.
In the last 30 years, we've probably lost more than we've won.
No study has shown that people who go through Head Start end up more educated or with better life outcomes than people from the same neighborhood who don't. Any other definition of success is meaningless.
But John Steward says that it *does* give them a head start in life, the effect simply goes away in later schooling, showing that the problem is with the later schooling, not Head Start, QED!
"Any other definition of success is meaningless."
Not if you got a grant for say showing that kids who go to head start don't spend as much time alone.
Sure, but that's only because of the obstructionist Tea Party Republicans who were hamstringing LBJ and President Bush to make the government look bad.
Really.
I particularly enjoy that the list includes "Funding railroads" as one of the "feats" that "private enterprise could not have accomplished". I don't know about you, but I've never even *heard* of a business try to attempt such a thing, especially in this country!
They also ignore the massive unbelievable corruption in the railroad enterprise. I think it's funny that progressives used to use railroads as examples of evil business because the banks were kicking people off their land to make way for the railroads, but now progressives use that same corrupt example of injustice as proof of the glory of government.
The corruption endemic to railroad construction really was legendary. Here's some actual facts about railroad construction and the brilliance of government incentives.
Thanks government! Mass corruption wouldn't be possible without your noble guidance!
The "Government Success Stories" lists "Settling the West" as the first gorram item on the list. Expecting historical literacy or even awareness of one's own political tradition seems to be beyond the type of progressive inclined to make "pro-government" lists.
So much for late 19th century America being libertopia.
Oh, I think the settling of the west was great. Unlike the settling of the East, the peaceful native tribes were basically wiped out as players by the time we got there and the Commanche were some murderous bastard rapers (militarily sophisticated ones, though). I have no problem with the US Army making the region safe for civilization.
That is far from the standard prog treatment, though.
That's why part of me wonders if it's satire. I'm sure it's just idiocy, but they specifically mention how much money the feds poured into every mile of track. THAT WAS THE FUCKING PROBLEM!
There's also The Great Northern Railway
Uh Irish you're derping the deep.
Vietnam we objectively lost the war because we did not complete our objective.
Well maybe but the VietCong were crushed. This was a USG failure, not an army failure.
Iraq we objectively lost the war because Iraq is in worse shape now than it was before.
I don't see how that means 'America lost'. The insurgents were crushed. This was an Iraqi government failure, not a US army failure.
Our interjection into Libya was an objective failure because Libya is now in worse shape than it was with Qaddafi.
Are all wars America fights failures if the targeted nation is worse off after intervention? That wouldn't make much sense.
Most of America's interventions do quite well, even the pointless ones. Panama, the Balkans, the drone campaign.
Yes, but they're using this as an example of U.S. government effectiveness. The fact that we lost because of the stupidity of the U.S. government rather than a military failure is irrelevant to that point - we still failed to meet our objective.
Who cares? We left the country in a state where it was bound to dissolve into sectarian chaos. Given that our goal was to leave behind a stable Iraq, the fact that we did the exact opposite counts as a failure. We did not meet our objective, ergo we lost.
If our goal is to make the country stable or liberate the country (as in Iraq, Libya, and Vietnam) and the country is left chaotic (as in Iraq and Libya) or is not liberated (as in Vietnam) we have failed at our objective. Since whether or not you win a war is based on whether or not your stated objective is achieved, those all count as losses.
Most of this is fair enough but...
I am being anal-retentive here but the original author did state that it was the US Army that is an example of the glory of government. It seems to do its job pretty well, even in Vietnam.
We left the country in a state where it was bound to dissolve into sectarian chaos.
No we didn't. America left that place pretty stable; they had everything they could want. Their government fucked it all up. Kurdistan is stable btw and for me, that is enough for victory.
I understand thinking that the modern US military is more than sufficient for policymakers to accomplish the goals that a traditional nation-state has set out for itself.
However, thinking that US Army/Navy are and always have been a "success" as institutions (much less that they have "won" every war they've been a part of) is insane.
They've been pretty successful. I am open to evidence to the contrary.
I suppose it depends on how you define success for the military. If it is their job to confront the enemies that the political leaders have ordered them to confront, killing them and destroying their ability to make war, then they are objectively extremely successful.
If there is some other job you have in mind for the military, maybe much less so.
I'd hate to be Tony or PB's computer screen after they see this
Deciding on the derpiest is really tough. The first three are equally stupid. The Federal Reserve entry probably also needs some updating...
It's also fun to go to the "Market Failures" page. New Coke is considered worthy of mention!
I was hoping someone would mention the Federal Reserve entry. Those economic wizards at the Fed have completely eliminated economic depressions, except maybe that really Great one...
Listed under Free Market Failures is Corporate Welfare...
Another is the Prisoners' Dilemma. Yeah, I remember when Unilever invented that. How we all laughed and laughed!
Also a lot of his examples in that list are things caused by government manipulation and distortions of the market place.
Score one for not being able to think contextually.
I found this pretty derpy:
"National Performance Review/"Reinventing Government": This is Al Gore's ambitious program to computerize and streamline government, borrowing techniques from high-performance private companies. It has already saved $58 billion and cut 200,000 workers, with much, much more to come."
The government emulating private companies is a "government success story" that supposedly proves that the government is inherently superior to private companies.
Wow.exe
Suppose the following: I kill my neighbor Jake Hunt and bury him next to my barn.* Then I record a song with these lyrics: "Jake Hunt is dead because I killed him/they'll never find him where I buried him next to the barn." The cops get a warrant, based on Jake Hunt being missing, my previous quarrels with him, and my song. The cops find the body next to the barn. Then at my trial, they introduce my song as evidence, along with the fact that it gave them accurate information about where the body was.
This is admittedly an extreme case. But it shows that there's no per se principle against using someone's songs against them.
At a trial, the question would be whether any evidentiary value of the guy's songs is outweighed by the prejudice it might cause. This doesn't usually apply in a grand jury, which has a broad power to consider all kinds of evidence.
*Note: Strictly a literary conceit. My neighbors are alive and well, and none of them are called Jake Hunt.
*Come to think of it, I don't even have a barn.
As far as the prosecutor is concerned - the tin shed out back is close enough.
And we know he's not called Jake Hunt, no one is ever named Jake Hunt.
*Mike* on the other hand . . .
Pretty soon they'll be investigating Killer Mike in connection to the death of Ronald Reagan.
You fool, that was the Jewish mafia.
If they can whack Tupac, they can get anybody.
The Reason weekend crew is so lazy. And GKC doesn't have a barn? Well, he's out of the club then!
I use your mother's barn
Oh, you're the guy leaving tire tracks everywhere! It all makes sense now!
Anything you rap about can and will be used against you in a court of law...
The War Nerd is a huge General Sherman fanboi http://pando.com/2014/11/20/th.....n-atlanta/
I didn't know the March to the Sea and the burning of Atlanta were still attributed to Sherman. I thought there was a decent amount of evidence suggesting the Confederates did much of the looting, and the plantation owners, slave holders, and sympathizers either set fires or claimed to have been victimized by the "March" when in fact the claimed sites were far removed from Sherman's path.
Even if the burning of Atlanta was done entirely by Sherman, torching a rail hub at your rear is a legitimate military operation which has been conducted as long as rail hubs existed.
I don't see the southerners still babbling about Sherman whining about the firebombing of Dresden, the nuking of Hiroshima, or all the other ways the Allied Powers targeted civilians during WWII. Their complaints about Sherman aren't because they actually care about 'just war' or 'gentlemanly war,' it's because they're pissed Sherman happened to do it to them.
The War Nerd's absolutely right. They should stop pretending this is about morality, when they're really just upset their ancestors were on the receiving end.
Very true
Then you haven't been to LewRockwell.com, heh.
I think there is a group of libertarians who will never, ever understand what war is or do anything but reflexively carp about it while claiming to be in favor of "defensive wars" (because I guess in defensive wars, killing people and destroying stuff doesn't count). Southern libertarians especially seem to be in this camp, where some war and/or violent revolution is romanticized right up until you reach the modern era. I don't have a problem with pacifism, but if that's what you then don't get pissed at being called that while opposing every theoretical and practical implementation of war in the history of humanity and sugarcoating the specific examples you like (e.g., American Revolution).
Essentially they're pissed off about officially losing a war they were going to lose anyway, a year or two earlier than they would have otherwise. Which meant suffering much fewer casualties, property destruction and disruption of commerce.
All that said a peaceful dissolution of the Union would have been the best option, but no one took it.
When was it on the table?
Never, and it would have perpetuated slavery which would have been awful.
It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'.
+42
For who?
An independent CSA would have had a far more bellicose foreign policy in Mexico and the Caribbean, and probably the rest of Latin America as well. It would also have shared one of the longest land borders in the world with the Union (which probably would have banned slavery). Having a war 10-20 years later over the North offering amnesty to slaves (or possibly worse, avoiding that war when the North refuses escaped slaves free harbor) doesn't exactly seem like a great scenario to me, especially when the CSA can drag France and the UK into the war. Having the US balkanize into various smaller nations also seems like a great way to guarantee lots of war and foreign European intervention in the Americas. A broken-up US has no power to assert dominance on a continent still very much untamed, and gives little latitude to the settler nations against unbowed imperialists (witness the fate of the Boer free states).
We haven't fought another war on US soil since the ACW. That was hardly a given at the time.
For these reasons and others, the unity of the Union in 1860 was a great cause, and both the North and the South should have recognized this fact.
A great post.
Slavery could have been ended peacefully, Jeffery Rogers Hummel points out that slavery was already losing strength.
Others have pointed to compensated emancipation as an option so fighting over slavery might not have been needed.
Worst-case scenarios can be written all day long but there's a range of possible outcomes. Why couldn't things have worked out better?
Not in 1860 America, it wasn't. In fact, it was expanding and seeking to expand geographically and numerically. Besides this, African chattel slavery was a social as well as an economic institution -- and one more entrenched and profitable in the South than in any other part of the world. As far as peaceful terminations of slavery go, they are few and far in between. Far more common was the case where civil war/independence wars included emancipation as a condition of termination of hostilities (France, Latin America, Haiti) or due to foreign imposition (Brazil, most of Africa and Asia). The Royal Navy and UK politics have far more to do with the practical cause of worldwide abolition than economic realities of the 19th century.
But let's take the eventual ending of slavery as a given.
Why don't I think this would have ended better? Human nature. As it is, this is very close to the ideal: no wars on the continent, incredible levels of prosperity, an early end to American slavery, a prosperous South, a settling of the West before Mexico or Britain, etc. While the destabilization of the state-federal relationship was a loss, it could have been worse. And of course was entirely avoidable by the South being reasonable about a fluke election (and their petulant rejection of Stephen Douglass).
Found a nice blog post that reviews Hummel's book and covers both sides of our discussion and some of the possible results.
http://www.friesian.com/civil.htm
It's been years since I read Hummel's book but he stated that there were experiments happening in the Richmond area for paying slaves that was leading to much improved yields. This process I believe would have been impossible to resist and would have rendered slavery obsolete.
I mean what person is going to turn down more money just so he can keep people in bondage?
Let's call this a polite disagreement. The Upper South was very different from the Deep South, and the commodity-based alternatives to slavery don't seem to have had the same outcomes in the Deep South as in the Upper South. As far as this:
Please refer to the persecution of Jews in Germany, the liquidation of most of Russia's productive assets under Communism, traditional Islam's prohibition on certain profitable economic relationships and practices, etc.
If we could expect people and societies to always be money-motivated and rational, dictatorship would work to a far greater degree than seems to be the case and violent conflict would rarely prevail over other forms of conflict resolution, given its relative expense.
Essentially they're pissed off about officially losing a war they were going to lose anyway, a year or two earlier than they would have otherwise. Which meant suffering much fewer casualties, property destruction and disruption of commerce.
So Sheldon Richman is wrong about the nukes?
An aside:
I've always been puzzled by folks who glorify the US Army's victory over the South and lament the US Army's conquest of the various plains tribes just a few years later. It was the same Army, the same government, and many of the same generals.
Heh heh, one of David Goldfield's points -
http://www.amazon.com/America-.....B00F6KMYGW
Or the people who hate the IRS, the draft and the militarized police...
All of this, for me anyway, is covered by the SLD.
I (if it's the now me, not the me that would have been raised in that milieu) would not have launched the war, and I would have found some other way to free the slaves.
However if you're going to fight a war get it over with as soon as possible. Do what's needed to stop the other guy from fighting and then move on.
I would have found some other way to free the slaves.
No you wouldn't have. You would have tried, failed, and set up America for endless war and misery.
I don't see the southerners still babbling about Sherman whining about the firebombing of Dresden, the nuking of Hiroshima, or all the other ways the Allied Powers targeted civilians during WWII. Their complaints about Sherman aren't because they actually care about 'just war' or 'gentlemanly war,' it's because they're pissed Sherman happened to do it to them.
You Know Who Else thought that tu quoque was an argument?
Anton Drexler?
Wow, did you see the colorful invective by the War Nerd?
The New York Times is "the old Confederate-gray lady." The author of the Times article about the burning of Atlanta is "pus-filled" and one of the neo-Confederate "vermin."
And when a Union soldier was deterred from burning some poor girl's house, the War Nerd comments: "Yes, one Michigan soldier, who was in a position to help slap the South awake by showing its impotence in the face of America's vengeance, was overcome by sentimentality and "dropped the torch." But that torch, as it were, was passed to stronger hands, and Atlanta burned. As it should have."
And of course Sherman, while shedding no tears for Atlanta, never claimed "credit" for *initiating* the burning.
I feel sorry for Sherman for having defenders like this spittle-emitting "war nerd."
The substance of his article is quite good.
Look, here's the thing: The Just War Doctrine thinks there are limits even to a righteous country fighting for a just cause! There is no "but...but...they're evil!" exception to the rules of warfare.
Maybe Sherman was doing the right thing. But you can't prove this simply by sputtering and protesting about, "don't you realize the Confederates are *evil!*"
As I said above, the govt and army that defeated the South went on to massacre and imprison many tribes. So was the federal government really morally superior?
I wonder if War Nerd would write another article about how Wounded Knee was an effort to slap sense into the tribes.
I'm not defending the CSA (you're not either), I'm just saying that the victorious North was made up of many elements, and anyone looking at that history has to take the rough with the smooth.
Seriously, you can be glad of the Northern victory - you can even think of Sherman as a good general and an OK guy under the circumstances - without partaking of the viciousness of the War Nerd.
It is extremely petty. Neo-confederates are foolish, but harmless and there is no reason to celebrate the deaths of people merely because they hold views that are morally repugnant.
The War Nerd is always vicious and mean-spirited - it's his schtick and it's what makes him entertaining.
I agree he's mean and nasty, but he's frequently right, his points are well founded, and I learn a lot when I read him.
False equivalence alert! CSA =/= indians
The Just War Doctrine is evil and should be repudiated.
Ah, Ms. Rand, so glad you could come!
This is what proper thinking on foreign affairs looks like.
I didn't read all of it but the problem is that it relies on politicians and bureaucrats to not be able to make the right decisions.
They first have to be able to recognize the difference between the right (a small group of options) and wrong (a much larger group of options) decisions and then act.
All of this in a highly charged political atmosphere infused with cronyism and special interests that does lend itself to a proper sifting of evidence and exploration of alternatives.
Sherman could. America was much more cronyistic in WW2 and Truman recognized nuking Japan was the right thing. Give Total War a chance.
Damn!
to not be able
I understood what you meant.
Most of that was an excellent read. Sherman was one of America's best and we need him today to destroy America's enemies. His successes are a repudiation of the nonsense about either 'winning hearts and minds' and 'blowback'.
Do you agree with the guy who said "war is all hell"?
Yes...isn't that what I just said?
His successes are a repudiation of the nonsense about either 'winning hearts and minds' and 'blowback'.
Jimmy Carter.
?
He's from Georgia.
Ah.
We can also thank Sherman for Woodrow Wilson, Lyndon Johnson, Al Gore and both Clintons.
If the argument that using war to end slavery is made doesn't
this have to be addressed as well?
30,000 missing emails from IRS' Lerner recovered
... five months after they were deemed lost forever.
There's that "deemed" thing again.
They're all about her efforts to get a litter of kittens adopted.
I deem thy scandal a fraud!
Chow fun or chow mein? I'm a chow fun guy myself. I like the house special (beef, chicken, shrimp and BBQ pork) plus extra mushrooms.
If Reason can retread threads I can start a mostly non-confrontational topic discussion. Take that Cosmos!
Box wine!!!
If you're serious though, I got a cast iron wok that's amazing. You have to heat it on high for about 20 minutes, but it gets the job done. The only way it's gonna happen on an american stove.
I have electric. If I move to a gas place I'll look into getting a wok adapter like this thing . For now I'm content to let the Happy Chinese Gardeners and Lucky Moonshiners do the cooking for me.
The wok ring does nothing for BTUs. That's why you need a cast iron pre-heated.
So you're saying my wok ring won't allow me to keep it up?
Warrren drops the mike and strides off stage.
Stephen Colbert attempts to mock libertarians & Free State Project:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87SOcULQGCE
warning- category 5 smug
No thanks. It's a beautiful day.
I got 2 minutes in. It's the smug, and I couldn't hear over the audience Bahhhing
I have a difficult time understanding the appeal of that show. I suppose it's because I'm not a prog and I have a sense of humor.
But I repeat myself.
Colbert was great on "Strangers With Candy". I wished he'd stayed with that.
I thought The Colbert Report was funny in its beginning.
Hmm, where do I know this troll from?
Palestinian state is a 'fantasy', says son of Hamas founder
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new.....under.html
When will Israel do the right thing and terminate this failed experiment?
What would be the process?
Tanks, destruction of Hamas and the PLO, full citizenship sans voting rights and right of return for non-criminal Palestinians (both of them), annexation of the liberated territories much like the Golan Heights were annexed, allow small clan-based emirates to secede IFF they respect individual rights and don't get all terroristy.
"destruction of Hamas and the PA" -what I meant, but destroying the PLO is also good.
Can Israel pull that off given the resources they have?
The only way one might destroy Hamas would be to deport the Palestinians somewhere where they are out of rocket range of Israel.
I don't see why that's necessary. Israel already has lots of Arabs in Israel proper with full citizenship. Crush the enemy and shock the people into compliance with liberty.
When "libertarians" support Israel it shows how they put tribal interests ahead of their "values"(not that their values are worth defending). If Israel was not a tribal nation, "libertarians" would compare it to apartheid:
http://www.theguardian.com/wor.....on-release
Solid scare quotes around libertarians and values - really solid argument right there.
I do agree that the Israeli government frequently behaves abhorrently and shouldn't get a pass the way they often seem to. However, it seems to me that pretty much everyone is a total hypocrite when it comes to Israel, not just libertarians.
Leftists, for example, consistently treat Palestine as if the people there are just a put upon minority who would be peaceful were it not for Israel. In reality, the Palestinians would do what all the other Arab states have done in modern times - they'd outlaw homosexuality, murder adulteresses, and treat religious minorities like dirt.
There is no real good guy here and it's absurd to behave as if leftists supporting a homophobic, patriarchal, violent Palestine are any less hypocritical than libertarians supporting Israel.
Also, in Cyto's case, he's an objectivist. They tend to be more pro-war, so there's really no contradiction in Cytotoxic's views on this issue.
In reality, the Palestinians would do what all the other Arab states have done in modern times - they'd outlaw homosexuality, murder adulteresses, and treat religious minorities like dirt.
Yeah, and you still think America and other White countries need to let even more of them immigrate. Not hypocritical I guess, you've never claimed to like America.
I should have seen this coming, so I guess it's better late than never:
Shut the fuck up, American.
There is no real good guy here
This is moral relativist garbage. Israel is the good guy; they have always been the victim. Supporting Israel is THE libertarian position.
he's an objectivist. They tend to be more pro-war
This is also horseshit and demonstrates a total lack of understanding of Objectivism or peace. Please read:
"JUST WAR THEORY" VS. AMERICAN SELF-DEFENSE
You didn't address the link I provided. But I can guess what you'd say "they're worse."
http://memegenerator.net/instance/56479909
Crush the enemy and shock the people into compliance with liberty.
Just when you think it can't get more stupid, Cytotoxic delivers the derp.
Stop whining about being wrong. I am right, end of story.
You didn't address the link I provided.
It was so...small I didn't feel the need. What happened to that man is bad but doesn't diminish Israel's moral superiority anymore than a bucket of water would cool the sun.
Most "Finns" long ago abandoned belief in the religion of Moses, but not in it's central premise, that Finnish people are morally superior to the hated goyim. They will always be "victims"
http://electronicintifada.net/.....k=RdwP71a2
Is this what you are advocating?
Yes.
What about the children of the Palestinians in the West Bank. Will a child born in 2020 to Palestinian parents be allowed to vote?
Perhaps. STFU Merican.
Do you read Tom Kratman?
I wouldn't say I'm a fan (though I learn from reading from his POV) but he seems like he's right up your alley.
His latest: http://www.everyjoe.com/2014/1.....ames-fail/
Interesting.
I like Kratman's writing, but you would never mistake the man for a libertarian - even a little.
He's not a supporter of the drug war, and he's pro-gun. So there's a couple of checkmarks in that column.
His finds fault with libertarians on three issues (from one of his blog posts)
Paraphrasing since I'm not going to look for the particular column right now.
1. What would be a libertarian policy about controlling the outbreak of a major infectious disease.
2. What would libertarians do about external enemies?
3. What would libertarians do about internal enemies.
Now the last two have been thoroughly answered numerous times by numerous people and as for the first he didn't provide any examples of government doing well. This recent Ebola thing should make one very nervous about a bureaucratic response.
So is there a government reaction that worked well enough to where a property rights/ private courts response could not do better? I don't know (though I suspect not)and he has not written any more on it that I've noticed.
So I'm thinking he's generally for freedom, doesn't care about what you do privately, thinks markets are the best way for resources to be allocated and so forth.
So a hard-edged conservative who views libertarians as wishful thinkers. I'll take that over some lefty puke any day.
Why? I saw nothing overly offensive.
Not in that article, but if you read his novels (starting with A Desert Called Peace) it is pretty clear. That said, he might not like libertarians but he despises progressives - so he definitely has that going for him.
They are despicable.
I've not read his fiction yet and I'm not going to pay full price or .01 cent + 3.99 shipping in order to start reading his stuff. I've been scanning the shelves of thrift stores and used book stores but I've not yet found any of his books which is odd.
Either he's not selling enough in my area to where his books start populating the used shelves or people are holding on to them.
As I understand these cases these guys are in danger of going to prison for 25 yrs to life not for shooting someone, not for ordering someone to be shot, but because they know the killers and said sympathetic things about their criminal acts.
Why I could stretch that just a tiny bit and send everyone in these threads to the electric chair. Huh, come to think of it, nearly any person anywhere would be subject to a conviction of one kind or another.
This is horseshit and the prosecutor should resign. Today.
I think the old saw about prosecutors, grand juries and ham sandwiches needs to be updated to something like,
I could get an indictment of a ham sandwich that was nothing more than a few breadcrumbs and a whiff of ham scent.
Which raises an interesting question =
How many crimes are committed in the average* rap song?
Test yourself here: Count the crimes!
(*to be fair, this is above average rap)
Indict a nigga based on actual facts relating to his purported crime- not on his interpretative poetry set to lyric.
I listen to thousands of crimes committed weekly in song. And I work on my massive deck drunk as fuck accordingly here in the wood and. enjoy. it. all...
Guess I'm just not a goddamn compliant little fuck in the prosecutorial hood. I'd likely take a pair of pliers to that sensitive locale right under the frontish tip of their fucking glans and then jump off the roof... well. now.
"MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM! Agile's been drinking/sniffing/shooting again!!!"
And yet Nickelback roams free, perpetuating crimes every time their music is played.
1) RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACIST
2) Cruel
I started with my online business I earn $58 every 15 minutes. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don't check it out.
??????? http://www.walletwiki.com
Start working from home! Great job for students, stay-at-home moms or anyone needing an extra income... You only need a computer and a reliable internet connection... Make $90 hourly and up to $12000 a month by following link at the bottom and signing up... You can have your first check by the end of this week
Check Freely ?.. w?w?w.p?a?y?f?l?a?m?e?.c?o?m?
I started with my online business I earn $58 every 15 minutes. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don't check it out.
??????? http://www.payflame.com
????????? ONLINE JOBS ??????????
You make $27 per hour good for you! I make up to $85 per hour working from home. My story is that I quit working at shop rite to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $45 per hour to $85 per hour heres a good example of what I'm doing more detail here....
????????? http://www.jobsfish.com
"Prosecutors' use of rap videos and lyrics as evidence is chilling artistic speech." Is this a joke or something? Does Detrick actually believe that this case is going to "chill artistic speech" (so that's what they call this stuff). Yeah, right, I can just see some rap composer toning down his lyrics calling for murder and mayhem because of this, especially since he's planning on killing somebody next week.LOL
And Detrick is also claiming that such evidence, apparently because it is "artistic speech" , should not or can not be used in a court of law. Horrible logic. Sorry Detrick, but the courts, not you, determine what's admissible and what's not. THank God.
Zombie thread! Shoot it! Shoot it!
Remove the head or destroy the brain.
That's doesn't work on Marvel zombies.
They didn't then, and they still won't no matter how many times you repost the article.
All the scotus greasy, wrinkly bastards can suck my cock dry if they rule against free speech. Afterwards I will impale all their cum-drowned and filled carcasses on teapots made by Paul Revere and then fling this revolting mess of shit into the starry voids around this fucking lame marble so other planets can learn NOT to fuck with liberty-lovin' humanity.
Know who else's initials were AC?
Adolph Chitler?
This guy?
Ashton Carter?
Wow, looks like the admins finally rebooted somebody's server - ladies and gentlemen, we have *coherency*.
Glad to see you found your way back from your last trip. I can see you're not staying long. Good show man.
Lot of A's I seem to hold deep feelings for...
🙂
You have to wonder - if lyrics can be taken as true threats, then what about, like, every other form of entertainment?
How come people aren't being indicted for 'Hostel' or 'Saw'?
You are under arrest for the future murder of someone. We don't know who, but your intent to murder is clear.
Um, it said right there that he was pretty specific on who he imagined killing, and how.
So we're still not getting the difference between making a speech act criminal (bad, almost always 1A violation) and simply allowing speech acts to be admitted as relevant evidence when they are relevant evidence (not seeing a libertarian dog in that fight but relevant evidence seems good to me, yeah?)?
Yeah, I'm surprised at the number of people who have missed this distinction, including the author of the article who is either confused or (something else).
The guy was not denied speech, nor was he convicted for his speech. It was used in evidence along with everything else that was considered.
I know it's dumb to talk about a crime after you commit it. That's how most people get caught.
But being prosecuted for talking about a crime that you never intended on committing?
Murk em all.
Black rap artists aren't the only ones who're targeted for this. Prosecutors use the same tactic even if you're white and middle-class or above. If they can prove that you run around in Ts that say "Body-piercing by Smith & Wesson" or have a yard sign that says, "Trespassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot again," they'll use it to the max. In my experience, jurors?irrespective of age, race or status?will consider this to be an expression of intent, and artistic expression or freedom of speech be damned. The presence or absence of this type of evidence may even make the difference in whether you go to trial in the first place. Any attorney or responsible self-defense instructor will warn you of this. Piss and moan all you like about the unfairness of it, but if you value your freedom and financial well-being, don't ignore the advice.
Rappers are idiots and so are the people who listen to that garbage.
http://www.Way-Anon.tk
my best friend's mother-in-law makes $68 /hour on the computer . She has been fired for 10 months but last month her payment was $15958 just working on the computer for a few hours. view it now.......
?????http://www.netjob70.com