The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Short Circuit: A Roundup of Recent Federal Court Decisions
Zombie jokes, perplexing paths, and a handsy officer.
Please enjoy the latest edition of Short Circuit, a weekly feature written by a bunch of people at the Institute for Justice.
New on the Short Circuit podcast: In which the panel bypasses the merits in recent abortion and gender transitioning cases and instead goes big on Article III standing.
- When you start this D.C. Circuit opinion about a January 6 defendant's sentence, you might think it's about Capitol riots. You will be disappointed (or delighted) to learn that it's actually a grammar lesson, complete with diagramed sentences. Conclusion: This fellow can't be sentenced to both prison and probation for the same petty offense. Dissent: Poppycock! The word "same" at issue in the statute here is an adjective, not a pronoun.
- Vehicle in Hooksett, N.H. is traveling in the right lane and doesn't signal as the 2-lane road turns into a 1-laner. An officer stops vehicle and finds a passenger has outstanding warrants and was carrying a bag of drugs. But wait! The passenger argues state law does not require a signal when lanes merge, only when a vehicle has to change lanes. And this particular road doesn't drop the right lane but just has the lanes equally blend together. District court: Indeed, "the two lanes gradually and almost imperceptibly blend into one lane." First Circuit: The was no reasonable mistake of fact or law. Affirmed and evidence suppressed.
- In which the First Circuit rejects claims that a computer software firm owes a former employee hundreds of thousands of dollars and, synchronally, Judge Selya sees fit to offer us this vocab quiz: quondam, plinth, prophylaxis, gainsay, consentient.
- In 1993, artist Sam Kerson painted two large murals at the University of Vermont Law School, honoring the state's role in the Underground Railroad and the abolition of slavery. But "[t]he Murals have not been without controversy," with some complaining that they depict enslaved African people "in a cartoonish, almost animalistic style." So in 2020 the law school decided to hide the murals behind acoustic paneling. Kerson sues, alleging the permanent concealment violates the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990. Second Circuit: VARA protects against the alteration or destruction of works of art; it doesn't require that art remain on display.
- Circuit split alert! A fractured en banc Sixth Circuit has said it's not a RICO if your economic injuries are derivative of personal injuries, but the en banc Ninth Circuit says it is a RICO. And now a Second Circuit panel weighs in, in a case involving economic injuries to a truck driver who was fired when he failed a drug test after it turned out the CBD gummies he was using were falsely advertised to contain no THC. Their answer? It is a RICO!
- Disappointed after arriving at the Social Security Administration's office in Philadelphia and finding it closed by the pandemic, local man gets into a scrape with two of the security guards. He's convicted of assaulting federal officials. The man: But they were private security guards contracting with the feds. So they're not federal officials. Technically. Third Circuit: "Technically" it is! The man is acquitted.
- Hypothetically speaking, if a coalition of firearms businesses challenged a new New Jersey statute allowing the Attorney General to sue them for activities they claim are protected by federal law, federal judges wouldn't say the businesses lacked standing and their claims weren't ripe via the metaphor "jumped the gun," would they? Well, perhaps in the Third Circuit they would.
- Delaware physician is convicted on 13 counts of unlawfully dispensing opioids. At sentencing, the gov't puts forward a medical expert who reviewed files for 24 of the 1,142 patients to whom the good doctor had prescribed controlled substances in the last two years, concluding that prescriptions for 18 of the patients were illegal. Extrapolating from the sample, prosecutors argued he should be sentenced based on a drug weight of 106,000 kilos. The doctor argues for 7,500 kilos and the court settles on 30,000 kilos, sentencing the doctor to 20 years in prison. Third Circuit: "Though the prosecution bears a heavy burden of proof, we will not let it cut corners." Remanded for resentencing.
- The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires inmates to exhaust an internal grievance process before filing a federal lawsuit against prison officials, but per the Fourth Circuit, that doesn't mean inmates can be forced to "walk … a nonsensical and perplexing path" to achieve said exhaustion. No need to disturb a $700k jury verdict against a Baltimore, Md. warden who (in 2013) was deliberately indifferent to the risk his officers would assault a detainee.
- Numerous Rapides Parish, La. deputies in bulletproof vests arrest man working in his garage at gun point. His crime? They thought a zombie joke he made on Facebook was at their expense. He's charged with "terrorizing." District court: Seems fine. Fifth Circuit: Grant of qualified immunity reversed. And no more relying on dustbinned WWI-era cases used to punish critics of the Wilson Administration. (This is an IJ case.)
- The Dallas County Sheriff's Department provides two days off per week for its officers; men can take weekends, but women cannot. Fifth Circuit (en banc): Which might well be sex discrimination under Title VII. We overturn our precedent saying that Title VII only applies to "ultimate employment decisions," like firing and promotions.
- "[The gov't's] theory is not merely new; it is also wrong." Well, your editors always like reading that. Come for Jefferson Parish, La. seeking mandamus (to prevent a trial against it in one case because it had managed to delay class certification against it in another). Stay for the Fifth Circuit saying "no."
- The demanding standards for bringing constitutional claims against a city often support the old adage that you can't fight city hall. But sometimes you can. For instance, if the mayor and city council direct city workers to enter private property without permission or authority to move a bunch of dirt around (causing flooding and a snake infestation), you can sue the city. So says the Fifth Circuit, reviving a suit against the City of Houston.
- Madisonville, Tex. cop arranges for meth to be planted on his ex-wife, so that he can have her arrested and take custody of the kids. The ex-wife can (and did!) sue the cop. But can she also sue the city because the chief of police failed to supervise the cop and ratified his unlawful actions? The Fifth Circuit (unpublished) says no. While the Madisonville chief of police has the authority to set department policy, he is just a "decisionmaker," not a "policymaker."
- In the latest installment of Nondelegation Doctrine Watch, the Sixth Circuit concludes Congress did not unconstitutionally delegate legislative power to OSHA when it charged the Secretary of Labor with making regulations "reasonably necessary or appropriate to provide safe or healthful employment and places of employment." Dissent: I've looked all over this statute and I don't see an "intelligible principle" anywhere.
- Ohio man serves five years in prison after admitting to accidentally killing his toddler with an ATV. Five years after completing his sentence, he goes to the sheriff's office and confesses to beating the boy to death. Double jeopardy to now charge the man with murder? The Sixth Circuit says no. He pled guilty to child endangerment, which is not the same offense as murder.
- A so-called "breaching" shotgun is great for safely blowing the hinges off doors—but only if its projectile hits the door's hinges directly and not the door itself. During a SWAT training exercise in DuPage County, Ill., trainee's projectile hits door itself, ricochets, and strikes another trainee in the spine, causing grievous injuries. Injured trainee: The shotgun's manufacturer should be liable for failure to warn of the door-breaching gun's wildly dangerous potential when aimed at doors. Jury: Here's $7.5 mil in damages. Seventh Circuit: Affirmed.
- Allegation: During strip search, Ramsey County, Minn. corrections officer grabs detainee's naked penis and gives it a hard squeeze. Officer: How could any officer be expected know this was over the line? Former state prison officials: "As a member of our profession, [he] was unquestionably aware that his conduct was unlawful." Eighth Circuit: Denial of qualified immunity affirmed.
- Ninth Circuit: Immigration Judges and the members of the Board of Immigration Appeals are "inferior officers of the United States" (who can be appointed by an agency head like the Attorney General) and not "principal officers" (who must be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate). So things are fine the way they are. The opinion doesn't tell us what that means for someone in the immigration system named Fortunato de Jesus Amador Duenas, but we suspect he's not happy about it.
- The Tenth Circuit just held that a Colorado group that spends money advocating on issues appearing on the ballot has standing to bring a pre-enforcement First Amendment challenge to the state's disclosure and registration requirements for ballot-issue committees. It's a lucid 28-page ruling that walks through the relevant precedent in some detail, so it's a little weird that the court issued it as an unpublished opinion.
- Countless pages of the federal reporters have been devoted to the titanic struggle between the irresistible force of cities' desire to restrict commercial billboards and the immovable object of the First Amendment's prohibition on regulating signs based on their message. Colorado: What if we just restrict billboards based on whether someone paid to rent them? Tenth Circuit: That's … yeah, that's actually way easier.
- On June 17, 2018, a Seneca airplane took off from Miami Executive Airport. Shortly thereafter, a Cessna radioed the control tower that it was inbound. Air traffic control sees the planes are on a collision course but cannot reach them in time, and 15 seconds later the planes collide in midair, killing all four people aboard. The pilots' estates sue the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, alleging negligence by the air traffic controllers. Eleventh Circuit: It's a tragedy, but it happened outside the airport's airspace, which is also the limit of the air traffic controllers' duty of care.
- Alabama law prohibits providing puberty blockers or cross-sex hormone treatment to minors to treat a discordance between their sex and sense of gender identity. Eleventh Circuit: The use of these medications, let alone for children, is not deeply rooted in our nation's history and tradition, and the law doesn't discriminate based on sex. Accordingly, rational basis review applies, and the preliminary injunction is reversed.
- And in en banc news, the Fifth Circuit will not reconsider its decision turning aside First Amendment retaliation claims brought on behalf of a Mississippi lawyer who told political activists where to find the ailing wife of a U.S. senator in a nursing home. (They snuck in and took a photo of her for an attack ad.) Dissent from denial of review: "Perhaps he shouldn't have provided the information he was asked. But did he deserve to be arrested, prosecuted, and imprisoned? Did he deserve to be humiliated, even driven to suicide—and his family destroyed? It's unfathomable that law enforcement officials would've devoted scarce police resources to pursuing [him], but for one thing: The people in power disliked his political views."
Proponents of certificate of need (CON) laws—which require healthcare providers to prove to the gov't that their services are "needed" before they can open or expand—claim CON laws lower costs, increase access to care, and increase the quality of care. And yet! A new IJ report (co-written with Matthew Mitchell) reviews 128 academic studies of CON laws and finds that overall 89 percent of tests show that CON laws lead to negative or neutral results. These laws are a failed policy that harm patients. Ask the Kentucky CON Task Force to repeal CON laws by submitting a comment by September 1 here.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they 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 for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"Hypothetically speaking, if a coalition of firearms businesses challenged a new New Jersey statute allowing the Attorney General to sue them for activities they claim are protected by federal law, federal judges wouldn't say the businesses lacked standing and their claims weren't ripe via the metaphor "jumped the gun," would they? Well, perhaps in the Third Circuit they would."
So, who volunteers to purposefully violate the law, so they have standing? And why should they have to, if a law is clearly unconstitutional?
Miami Executive Airport is a VFR (visual flight rules) area. Flights are not subject to Air Traffic Control except in certain cases.
Not sure what you mean by "VFR area" but according to the Miami TAC (Terminal Area Chart) both Miami Executive (TMB) and Miami-Opa Locka Executive (OPF) are towered airports with class D control zones overlaid by the class B airspace surrounding Miami International (MIA).
Airport Towers are for the ground control of traffic, not aircraft in the air. The airport can be accessed under Visual Flight Rules under certain conditions. There was no proof that either aircraft was under Federal Aviation Administration control at the time of their collision.
Just to tie this up, Section 3-2-5 of the Aeronautical Information Manual, which addresses operations in Class D airspace, states in subsection (e): "No separation services are provided to VFR aircraft."
Subsection (b)(3) covers arrival/transit requirements, which are minimal: you just need to establish radio contact with ATC and let them know you're entering the controlled airspace, which you can then do as long as they don't explicitly tell you not to. That's what the Cessna was in the process of doing at the time of the crash.
The competition may tighten, but recent evidence indicates the Fifth Circuit is the dumbest, most authoritarian, most obsolete circuit.
I beg to differ.
The Democrat Assistant AG who argued this:
"Melanin endows Blacks with greater mental, physical and spiritual abilities"
Apparently you can be an Affirmative Action african american at Harvard without ever hearing of an IQ test.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F4VqPd-WgAEibV4?format=jpg&name=large
What a Democrat!
"Circuit split alert! A fractured en banc Sixth Circuit has said it's not a RICO if your economic injuries are derivative of personal injuries, but the en banc Ninth Circuit says it is a RICO. And now a Second Circuit panel weighs in, in a case involving economic injuries to a truck driver who was fired when he failed a drug test after it turned out the CBD gummies he was using were falsely advertised to contain no THC. Their answer? It is a RICO!"
Mother of Mercy, is there no end to RICO?
The concept of Rico will never die.
Rico Suave that is...
I was told, by smarmy headgear, that it's never RICO.
I am shocked, shocked, to find that smarmy headgear was full of it.
100,000kg / ~1000 patients = 100 kilos per patient? Wtf
Probably a lot of people using this doctor to score pills, then resell them on the secondary market. With nobody really monitoring the radar, they didn't bother hiding it particularly well.
100 kilos is 10 Million 10 mg pills -- 1 Million if they come in 100 mg and I don't think they do. So we are talking 1-10 Billion pills.
Is that even logistically possible? I believe the pharmacy gets them in bottles of 100 so we are talking 1-10 Million bottles being ordered?!?
I believe that some drug laws base the weight on total combined weight, not just drug weight, so if the actual drug content is 1%, there you go.
Come on now. I won’t expect you to have read ahead in the comments to see my explanation, but use some common sense. Even counting the weight of the inert ingredients in the pills, there’s still no way this guy was prescribing 100 kilos of pills *on average* per patient in a two-year period. It comes out to over quarter pound of pills per patient per day, and that’s assuming that every patient was getting drugs for the entire two-year period. It should be obvious that combined weight is insufficient to explain things.
“Should be obvious” is one of the more obvious ways to say “I’m right and you’re wrong” without doing any actual work.
Yes, I did see your comment below after I wrote mine. Doesn't mean you have the only right answer.
'Should be obvious' is more polite than 'you're a fucking moron if you couldn't work this out'. And you are.
"without doing any actual work"? Hey now, I didn't just say it should be obvious and leave it there. I did the math.
The guidelines say:
So what you said was correct. But when you say "there you go" you make it sound like that explains most of it.
No, he didn't prescribe his patients their weight in drugs. They use a weird conversion formula. 1 gram of oxymorphone counts as 5 kilos of drug weight, for example. 1 gram of LSD counts as 100 kilos. 1 gram of wet peyote, on the other hand, only counts as 0.05 grams. See §2D1.1 of the federal sentencing guidelines and 21 U.S. Code § 841, if you dare.
That actually makes more sense -- I was thinking one gram was one gram, with a thousand in a kilo.
The other thing that I have a problem with here is that this was a CRIMINAL conviction based on a review of professional judgment.
He was exercising *some* judgment in that the undercover attempt failed and that he was kicking people out of the practice. Drug tests are not always accurate and if he was prescribing PRN (as needed) then if the patient didn't take any before the test, then it wouldn't show up in the test.
Grounds to get his license yanked, absolutely. Grounds to send him to prison, I'm not so sure. Exercising abysmally bad judgement doesn't mean that he wasn't exercising any -- and it's the same thing as charging Trump's lawyers for giving unpopular legal advice.
It's like criminally charging a prosecutor when the court overturns a conviction.
The end result of this -- and I think it's the DEA's intent -- is to scare other doctors so that legitimate pain patients aren't given appropriate prescriptions.
To obtain a conviction in this context, the government needs to prove that the defendant knew the prescriptions were not issued for a legitimate medical purpose, and the jury in this case found beyond a reasonable doubt that he did. (All of which is, of course, explained in the opinion.)
Why call these arbitrary units "grams" rather than "drug units" or the like?
I believe the original intent was to convert it to the equivalent amount of marijuana.
The conversion on marihuana is indeed 1-1, so that seems plausible.
A so-called "breaching" shotgun is great for safely blowing the hinges off doors—but only if its projectile hits the door's hinges directly and not the door itself. During a SWAT training exercise in DuPage County, Ill., trainee's projectile hits door itself, ricochets, and strikes another trainee in the spine, causing grievous injuries. Injured trainee: The shotgun's manufacturer should be liable for failure to warn of the door-breaching gun's wildly dangerous potential when aimed at doors. Jury: Here's $7.5 mil in damages. Seventh Circuit: Affirmed.
Kind of surprised the jury let the manufacturer off the hook for defective design and went failure to warn-- the rounds disintegrate on contact with metal, but become a deadly ricochet if they hit wood (or anything not-metal, I guess). This seems like a preposterous risk for functionality that could be replicated with a crowbar. I'm not sure even a warning in the user manual really works here.
This seems like a preposterous risk for functionality that could be replicated with a crowbar.
It’s designed to be FAST. Crowbars take time and require a lot of strength. This takes seconds and grandma could use it.
Breaching rounds have been in use for decades (at least long enough that, in the earliest source I can find, from 2004, there was already a US military "M1030" designation for the rounds, and manufacturers making breaching-specific shotgun designs), so it they were really a "preposterous risk", you'd think they would already been driven out of use.
Ummm, I believe it is a breaching ROUND that is fired from a regular shotgun. Police can sometimes be very reckless with firearms.
For the guy in Ohio who murdered his toddler: He pled guilty to child endangerment as part of a plea deal in which the state dropped a manslaughter charge. He might still get off because of that; according to the ruling, "nothing we have decided here affects whether Soto can obtain any relief available to him under his plea agreement with the State."
I'm not sure a state is allowed say "sure, we'll drop a manslaughter charge if you plead guilty to a lesser charge", have you serve five years in prison for the lesser charge, and then turn around and charge you with murder. It doesn't quite seem fair to the defendant. Even when the defendant is a confessed toddler murderer. Not all cases will be so cut and dried, after all.
All the state has is his confession -- which he can recant -- and a whole lot of evidence supporting the earlier set of purported facts.
I'm sure a good defense attorney could find some rent-a-shrink to testify about how remorse for being responsible for the death of his son caused him to confess to a crime worse than the one he actually committed. Throw in some statistics about false confessions and why cops have to keep secret some specific facts about every crime *because* there are so many false confessions (and if the confessor doesn't know the hidden facts, they can reject it) and you have reasonable doubt and then some.
Can a DA be called as a witness? It'd be great to ask him/her/it why he/she/it offered the deal and why the initial purported facts were believed. "And how do you know he's telling the truth this time?"
I have to say, a guy who spontaneously confessed totally on his own initiative (as opposed to after hours of interrogation) is almost certainly not going to put reasonable doubt in my mind, unless the defense has a whole lot more than a shrink and some statistics.
"Can a DA be called as a witness? It’d be great to ask him/her/it why he/she/it offered the deal and why the initial purported facts were believed. “And how do you know he’s telling the truth this time?”"
Yes, a prosecutor can be called as a witness like any other person, but you're going to have to have something admissible they can testify to. Generally speaking, you can't call a witness to say "that other witness is telling the truth." It's for the jury to decide who they believe. You can call witnesses to testify about facts or expertise to help the jury make that decision -- that's where you get all the "red flag" testimony in child abuse cases, saying "here are things that we look for in determining truthfulness and why they matter." But not just "yup, I believe him." You'd have an endless parade of witnesses on both sides that way, and it wouldn't add a thing to the trial.
When calling a prosecutor, you might also have to deal with attorney work product issues. Subpoenas of prosecutors and their files have regularly been overturned when it goes into matters of their thought processes on dealing with cases because that's the strongest type of attorney work product privilege.
No, a DA cannot be called as a witness to testify as to whether he believes another witness. Where do you come up with these things?
Did you read the next line?
" It’d be great to ask him/her/it why he/she/it offered the deal and why the initial purported facts were believed."
In other words, as to the initial proceeding -- and that would be factual testimony, not opinion. The Sixth Amendment says "to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor" and my reading of that is ANY witness in his favor, which the DA (who prosecuted the initial case) would be.
But again, that’s because you’re an idiot. The right to call witnesses isn’t a right to present inadmissible evidence.
(Nor, of course, would this strategy be likely to redound to the defendant’s benefit even if he were allowed to do it.)
Look, Dr. Ed isn't an idiot just because he doesn't understand the concept of evidence. He also doesn't understand the word "opinion." The things he wants the prosecutor to testify to — that he thought he needed to boldface to emphasize that he's talking about — were absolutely questions of opinion.
The ways Ed is an idiot are what's known as an uncountable infinity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncountable_set
The defense could call the DA if the DA had relevant admissible testimony. But he doesn't. Whether the DA initially believed his story is no more relevant than whether I believed his story. Anything the DA has to say in this context is hearsay. If the DA believed his story because of witness 1 and exhibits A, B, and C, the defense is free to put up witness 1 and exhibits A, B, and C.
Three cases that Eugene had posted about (unless I missed others)? I feel like I didn't get full shock value from this Short Circuit.
Had the 11th Circuit been honestly applying their "history and tradition" test rather than conducting an exercise in legislating from the bench, they'd be forced to conclude that since the first laws prohibiting any kind of drug didn't exist until the late 1800s, no ban on a drug is deeply rooted in our history and tradition, and indeed all evidence suggests the founders would find dictating to people what substances they may or may not consume an intolerable intrusion on liberty.
That would be a great argument if we had an explicit constitutional right to do drugs.
It's more important than that, that's why it was in the Declaration of Independence. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. (Capitalisation corrected, natch.)
Isn't this argument exactly why some people were worried about enumerating a set of rights and therefore insisted on the Ninth Amendment?
The problem with the 9th is that it lacks an articulable principle as to where and how it applies. Eventually someone claims there's an unenumerated right to kill your kid and then the courts decide based on their whims.
"Dissent: Poppycock! The word "same" at issue in the statute here is an adjective, not a pronoun."
If the Republic survives, future generations will look at the Jan 6th proceedings the way we look at things like the 1692 Witchcraft trials and the Dred Scott decision.
This was a technical decision regarding grammar and what a Federal statute actually means -- what sentencing options are available to a court for a specific *category* of crimes. It has absolutely nothing to do with “January 6, 2021, mark[ing] a tragic day in American history" or the defendant having uploaded a 23 minute Youtube video the prior November.
The dissent should read the same way if it were any other "petty offense" -- the specific "petty offense" being irrelevant. Judge Wilkins is entitled to his interpretation of what Section 3561(a)(3) means, but nothing more as the nature of the specific "petty offense" was not before his court in this case.
I think he should be impeached for this -- he's not the worst but bringing in his political views in what literally was a decision regarding English grammar is an indication of his political bias. If the Republic is to survive, we're going to need to impeach about 100 Federal judges for stuff like this.
As to the "violent attack result[ing] in multiple deaths", every one of them was murdered by a police officer -- one shot and the rest beaten to death. The only difference between these deaths and the death of George Floyd is that we didn't respond by burning cities flat, so yes, I think impeachment is warranted.
Judge Wilkins, it should be remembered, was one of the three Obama nominees that Harry Reid got confirmed in 2013 via the so-called "nuclear option" of abolishing the filibuster -- he was only confirmed by a 55-43 vote of the Senate.
They wrote one of the most powerful and devastating plays in the western canon about the Salem Witch Trials. Jan 6th has the potential for an equally immortal comic opera along the Gilbert & Sullivan line. Jerry Springer The Opera type thing.
It just makes sense
To hang Mike Pence
If he don't use his selection
To overturn the election..
If the insurrection section
Showed a little circumspection
They might have protested with reason
Not committed outright treason
And they wouldn't now be languishing in jail (in jail, in jail)
And they wouldn't now be languishing in jail
It just makes sense
For a Fed to bring a gallows
Because only a Fed would think
That a 1" pine board would hold the weight.
ONLY a Federal bureaucrat would be STUPID enough to think that the rickety gallows was anything other than symbolic speech.
I'm not saying it was *appropriate* speech but would you have dared to stand on top of it? Or would you have been bright enough to know that it inevitably would collapse under your weight?
Saying that they were really going to hang Pence from that is asinine.
Only Ashli Babbitt was killed by a police officer, in defense of members of Congress; if he didn't align politically with her, Dr. Ed 2 would believe she got what she should have expected for her lawless behavior (cf. Dr. Ed 2 comments on Heather Heyer). Two Trump supporters died of heart attacks, apparently without coming close to police defending the Capitol. One insurrectionist was trampled by other insurrectionists, but was ultimately found to have died of amphetamine overdose. Other deaths associated with the insurrection were all police, who were not beaten by other police; a number have been designated line of duty deaths, with at least one dying as a direct and sole result of injury sustained defending against the insurrection. That there was less death than one might expect is to the credit of gun laws in Washington, D.C.; some insurrectionists had guns with them, and others had caches of guns nearby, but they did not hesitate to use other weapons.
It is good that Dr. Ed 2 has abandoned his "just warning" and "predicting" dodges, and is finally admitting the side he's on ("we didn't burn cities").
Bullshyte.
The officer died of a STROKE which could just has easily happened had he been on a jogging trail with his wife/girlfriend. As to Ashli Babbitt, look at the WTF! expressions on the three officers behind/beside her, not what they later wrote in their reports but what they were saying with their faces, then. THEY couldn't believe it, and they were cops.
Several other cops committed suicide.
And if the government won't release the bodies for an independent autopsy, don't ask me to believe the government's version of the facts.
And my side didn't burn cities flat -- that's a fact. Twisting it into some sort of a threat of violence is asinine and says more about you than me.
Your vile comments misrepresenting a police officer's celebration of Heather Heyer's death said more than enough about what a contemptible human being you are, Dr. Ed 2.
I was referencing Jeffrey Smith, who suffered a brain injury at the insurrection, inflicted by one of the people you identify with, which led to his suicide nine days later.
Violent political attacks in this country are coming mostly from the right wing, Dr. Ed 2's side.
There were zero guns among rioters at the Capitol. You are lying when you claim otherwise.
Same when you claim they had "caches of guns nearby" - unless you mean across the river, in a different state, about 30 or 40 miles away. Your statement is a complete lie.
And finally, despite your lies, not a single officer died "as a direct and sole result of injury sustained defending against the insurrection". Even ignoring your lie that there was an insurrection, not a single police officer died from injuries or actions taken by the rioters. This is clearly laid out in the autopsy reports.
Unless you want to compound your lies by inventing a conspiracy theory about how the DC government was secretly manipulating evidence to make the J6 rioters look good? Even for you, that would be a particularly stupid claim.
You are strangely ignorant of the results of January 6th trials. Shrieking "lying" and "lies" and "lie" won't change reality, no matter how much you stomp your feet.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/jan-6-rioter-charged-police-carrying-gun-sentenced-7-years-rcna94940
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/january-6-dc-police-jeffrey-smith-riots-suicide/
Lonnie Leroy Coffman and his cache of weapons a half mile from the Capitol? Oath Keepers' massive cache of weapons in Virginia less than 8 miles away?
"The total number of guns in the mob that day will never be known"
Ask yourself why that is. Go on, be curious.
Because many of the insurrectionists were allowed to leave without being arrested, and only apprehended later? Unless they confessed (or boasted about it to people who subsequently turned them in), it can't be known how many of those had guns, as implied by the previous sentence in the quotation. Many Trump supporters declined to be checked for carrying weapons at his rally, and reportedly he wanted them armed because they weren't coming to threaten him.
Perhaps it's also because they declined to use any guns that were present?
So Dr. Ed thinks a judge should be impeached (LOL) for mentioning the actual facts of a criminal defendant's crime before ruling on that defendant's appeal? I wonder if Dr. Ed has ever read a Clarence Thomas opinion on a death penalty appeal.
On a non-capital offense -- i.e. one where execution is not one of the articulated punishments for the offense?
What about a non-Capitol offence?
The levels of legal insight featured at this blog -- top to bottom -- are remarkable.
And, if you are rooting for more mainstream progress that stomps the preferences of right-wingers into irrelevance in modern America, quite comforting.
This guy is not the only one around here whose legal analysis resembles something you might overhear at a QAnon meeting disrupted by bath salt overdoses.
Is Bath Salt still around?
Seriously.
It was a big problem in the '90s but I haven't heard about it in 20 years, probably longer. Memory is that it was Bath Salt that caused people to strip naked when they freaked out, and I haven't heard about that happening recently, either.
"Memory is that it was Bath Salt that caused people to strip naked when they freaked out"
Definitely some other guy you remember that happened to, huh Ed?
More heard about -- didn't know any of them personally, and in one case it involved someone chewing on someone else.
But seriously, the stuff isn't around anymore, is it?
Uhuh, it was that other guy, Ed... No, wait, I mean, someone else not called Ed, right? Definitely some other guy, anyway. Not you. No sir.