Patterico's Pontifications

4/14/2016

Jazz Shaw Misstates Florida Law, Refuses to Correct Error

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:21 am



Jazz Shaw at Hot Air, on the Lewandowski non-filing:

The first factor under consideration was the fact that, in order to prove the charge of battery, there needs to be a convincing case made that there was at least some element of intent to cause harm, no matter how slight. Lewandowski’s attorney had a built-in defense available against that by simply saying that his official duties included keeping people in the scrum from getting too close to, or coming in contact with the candidate. If that required pulling someone away, so be it. It’s not iron clad, but it would introduce doubt into the minds of the jury.

The bolded passage, saying that the Florida battery law requires intent to cause harm, is most assuredly not what the statute says:

The offense of battery occurs when a person:
1. Actually and intentionally touches or strikes another person against the will of the other; or
2. Intentionally causes bodily harm to another person.

“Or.”

Now, I’m no Florida criminal law expert. Perhaps some court in Florida has rewritten the law so that “or” becomes “and.” But a quick search reveals no such decision, and I doubt such a decision exists.

No big deal. Sloppy research and thinking is the hallmark of the Interwebz. Just tell the guy, and he’ll correct it — right?

Wrong. I told Shaw this on Twitter and he refuses to correct. His “explanation” does not address the nature of his error, and makes no sense:

I left out the word “convincing” in my tweet because Twitter has a 140-character limit, and the only way to extract the relevant point from his giant pile of words was to eliminate the ones that had nothing to do with my point.

Evidently, Shaw prefers to let his false characterization of the law stand. I expect better from Hot Air. Perhaps I shouldn’t when Jazz Shaw is the one writing the post.

150 Responses to “Jazz Shaw Misstates Florida Law, Refuses to Correct Error”

  1. Teh Narrative takes many forms, Patterico. I’m sorry that JS is doing this.

    Simon Jester (2708f4)

  2. I don’t get it. Both disjuncts require that the action be taken “intentionally” (third and first words, respectively).
    Jazz Shaw’s response about “convincing” doesn’t address Patterico’s point, but Patterico’s claim that Florida battery law doesn’t require intent looks false to me.

    CayleyGraph (353727)

  3. Jazz is an extremely proud, stubborn older man. Hard for him to admit he’s wrong.

    That said, he normally does good work but his NY biases are showing.

    Lewandowski clearly violated the law. It was also obvious he’d never be prosecuted. Different rules for the elite than the little people.

    njrob (caf399)

  4. Twitter is not capable of communicating complex thoughts and ideas. It’s for emoting … a poor choice for any serious dialogue. Another symptom of the collapse of western civilization.

    BobStewartatHome (7b7fb2)

  5. Cayley,

    Patterico is saying “intent to harm” is not required for battery, not intent as action. Lewandowski clearly had intent to act by moving towards Fields and grabbing her. That shows his intent and fulfills the requirement of the statute.

    njrob (caf399)

  6. Greetings:

    Conjunctions, disjunctions what’s the diff. This is the Age of Emotion, not the Age of Logic.

    11B40 (6abb5c)

  7. There’s general intent and specific intent. General intent is you meant to do what to do what you did. Specific intent is you intended to accomplish some end.

    Murder is a general intent crime. The prosecutor has to prove that you intended to hit that guy on the head with an axe and that he died as a result thereof.

    Attempted murder is a specific intent crime. The prosecutor has to prove that you swung that axe at the guy’s head with the intent to kill him (even though he ducked).

    Free sample. Enroll in my law school for the full three year course.

    nk (dbc370)

  8. The Mr Donald should be charged with “intent to harm” the GOP, and “intent to screw up” the country.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  9. CayleyGraph,

    What njrob said. I never said intent was not required. I said intent to harm is not required.

    njrob,

    When pride and/or stubbornness interfere with one’s willingness or ability to recognize or admit error, they cause loss of credibility.

    I’ll admit I am generally annoyed by Shaw. He has a penchant for taking poorly considered positions and digging in when shown he is wrong. This is not an isolated incident. Recall his inability to process why support for ethanol is not the same as support for ethanol subsidies. He’s a sloppy thinker, which is common, and refuses to admit when he is wrong, which is also common — but it annoys me because Hot Air is my go-to site and sloppy stubborn writers don’t belong there.

    Patterico (7e235b)

  10. He’s also, not coincidentally, the one guy at that site who sometimes defends Trump as being not all that bad.

    Patterico (7e235b)

  11. speaking of laws and such this is charmingly ironic

    However, for the 2016 deadline, the Internal Revenue Service has given taxpayers until April 18 to pay their taxes, but it is not because the due date falls on a weekend – April 15 is a Friday.

    Instead, the IRS is observing a holiday that is usually only observed in Washington, DC. Emancipation Day marks the day that the Compensated Emancipation Act was signed by President Abraham Lincoln and is observed on April 16.

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  12. I never liked anything about “The Moderate Leftist Voice” and never understood Ed Morrissey’s love of that awful website .

    Patterico (7e235b)

  13. Actually and intentionally touches or strikes another person against the will of the other

    Probably the only reason that clause stays on the books is prosecutorial discretion.

    That law was probably intentionally written to include a lot of things in the definition of the crime, so that nothing that they wanted to criminalize would be left out, at the expense of including things nobody really wanted to include, while relying on prosecutorial disretion to prevent injustice. There are other laws written that way.

    Sammy Finkelman (0dadb5)

  14. Patterico,

    With Millard and Rothman among others, Hot Air has had no shortage of poor writers. I occasionally visit the site, but it has lost a lot of its luster since the Facebook changeover. The comments section is useless and Morrissey spends most of his time pimping his book.

    Jazz has a better grasp of the mood of the populace than the other writers there. But as better writers than I have said, “pride cometh before the fall.” It’s the same mistake Trump supporters are making. They refuse to admit their mistakes and then double down on them. Causes others to lose respect for them.

    njrob (caf399)

  15. I also missed his commentary on equating ethanol use and ethanol subsidies.

    njrob (caf399)

  16. CayleyGraph:

    I don’t get it. Both disjuncts require that the action be taken “intentionally” (third and first words, respectively).

    Jazz Shaw’s response about “convincing” doesn’t address Patterico’s point, but Patterico’s claim that Florida battery law doesn’t require intent looks false to me.

    Patterico responded above but allow me to chime in, too. Yes, the Florida law requires intent but that doesn’t mean Lewandowski had to intend to hurt Fields. The statute only requires evidence that Lewandowski intended to touch (grab, restrain, etc.) Fields.

    For instance, what if Lewandowski tripped, stumbled, and grabbed Fields’ arm to keep himself from falling? It would be the same actions as happened in this case but if Lewandowski acted as a reflex and didn’t intend to grab her, then I don’t think it would meet the required statutory level of intent.

    DRJ (15874d)

  17. Jazz focuses on Lewandowski’s motive to protect Trump as a defense, as in defense of others, but I think that cuts both ways. It supports that Lewandowski intended to grab Fields, instead of an accidental touching, while also suggesting the Secret Service was not able to protect Trump from pushy reporters. Neither strike me as helpful for Lewandowski.

    DRJ (15874d)

  18. “I expect better from Hot Air.” First mistake.

    Scott (bebecd)

  19. It’s too bad. Shaw had a good piece yesterday on how some state’s delegate-picking rules are just stupid, and some indeed are.

    Mitch (bfd5cd)

  20. this is just like what happened to trayvon all over again

    hello florida justice much

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  21. One benefit of our extended discussion here about the significance of “intent” (an impossibility on Twitter,) is that a layman (that would be me) can now understand the admonition never to talk to the police. Even if you feel terrible about something that you are (perhaps) responsible for, by declining to discuss it without your lawyer present you can protect yourself from an escalation in the charge. It doesn’t mean you won’t do the right thing to make amends, it just means that you won’t give a two-bit prosecutor, say Mike Nifong, the ammunition to turn a minor event into a catapult for his miserable career.

    BobStewartatHome (7b7fb2)

  22. “I expect better from Hot Air.”

    Then you are bound to be disappointed. I’ve been commenting on the intellectually shabby commentary coming from Hot Air for months.

    ThOR (a52560)

  23. Trump supporters embrace mutually contradictory stories – Lewandowski had to stop her/She lied about being grabbed at all – while calling Fields a liar. I’ve not seen mindless cult of personality like that outside DPRK in decades.

    SPQR (20e9f5)

  24. Hotair …. their mark used to be a clever self deprecating name. Now it’s not deprecating but descriptive and no longer clever.

    SPQR (20e9f5)

  25. One benefit of our extended discussion here about the significance of “intent” (an impossibility on Twitter,) is that a layman (that would be me) can now understand the admonition never to talk to the police. Even if you feel terrible about something that you are (perhaps) responsible for, by declining to discuss it without your lawyer present you can protect yourself from an escalation in the charge. It doesn’t mean you won’t do the right thing to make amends, it just means that you won’t give a two-bit prosecutor, say Mike Nifong, the ammunition to turn a minor event into a catapult for his miserable career.

    BobStewartatHome (7b7fb2) — 4/14/2016 @ 9:00 am

    I definitely agree that twitter isn’t the place to have this conversation (or any).

    But I disagree with the rest. Corey should have been a man and admitted what he did, straight up, and apologized. That would have been the end of it. Instead, he appeared to delight in smearing the woman he roughed up. They went though several rounds of lies, all attempting to harm Field’s life, and now she’s lost her job, moved out of her home (being doxxed), and all because Corey Lewandowski and Donald Trump couldn’t just be men and apologize for what everyone now knows really happened.

    There are situations where you should wait for your lawyer, but in my opinion, petty stuff where you know damn well you did it, is not the time for that.

    And while it’s harder to prove Corey intended to leave those bruises on her arm, we know for certain he intended harm to her by the way he handled every step of this scandal.

    Fortunately, it cost Trump the nomination. He was winning, and now he is losing. Ahead in delegates because of the major split in the race, but behind in who those delegates actually want to nominate, and also not far enough ahead to prevent that conversation from happening. It’s situations like those where a leader would have to rally, and Trump is not that leader. The stuff with Megyn Kelly was bad enough, and the stuff with Heidi Cruz really cemented it, but it’s with Fields that we all say clearly that Trump has no integrity at all and will throw innocent Americans, particularly uppity women, under the bus with great zeal.

    Dustin (2a8be7)

  26. Seems pretty clear that the Florida law requires only intentionally touching someone against her will; intent to cause harm by doing so is not required.

    Doesn’t mean a jury would convict without the intent to cause harm, but they might choose not to convict even if there was. That’s not the point, whatever the jury does. The law says what it says.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  27. Everyone get’s their moneys worth from a free opinion site.

    gbear (35fafe)

  28. The first definition, under which Lewandowki was charged, has always been the definition of battery from the time of King Canute if not earlier. It includes fondling. The defenses are implied or express consent, privilege, justification and exoneration. The practical protection is the requirement of “intent”. If I bump you by accident because I didn’t see you, it may be negligence if you suffer damages but it’s not criminal battery. Do your best to keep your hands to yourself.

    nk (dbc370)

  29. Free sample. Enroll in my law school for the full three year course.

    nk (dbc370) — 4/14/2016 @ 8:01 am

    Will my credits from Trump University be accepted?

    Bill H (dcdd7b)

  30. Ah, thanks for clearing things up.

    This is why I wish English sentences used parentheses in the same manner that mathematical sentences use parentheses.

    CayleyGraph (353727)

  31. OT, but for the longest time (until about 2 years ago), I just assumed “Jazz Shaw” was a black woman.

    I denounce myself.

    Mitch (bfd5cd)

  32. We’ll waive the Frauds class for you, Bill H.

    nk (dbc370)

  33. Credits from Trump University??? I thought the only thing they issued were invoices.

    Ah, nk, if I was to bring in say ten other students, would you cut me a deal on my tuition? Like 40% of their tuition? And if they manage to bring in ten more, would I get a bit of that too, say 10%? And so on?

    I think we can pull the country out of its endemic recession in a matter of months if this works as well as I think it will!

    BobStewartatHome (7b7fb2)

  34. is it November yet?

    redc1c4 (8f379a)

  35. i know right all this bickering is gonna ruin summer

    hopefully someone just gets the right number of them delegates and bam we can all enjoy a little sun surf and sand

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  36. I visit Hot Air from time to time. Not like I used to. And before I click on an article I check to see who authored it. If its Jazz Shaw I generally don’t bother.

    Steve57 (225587)

  37. i hate it when you click on something and it says this is cross-posted from one of those creepy townhall sites

    it feels like trickery

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  38. I like Mr. Shaw and his writing. But he does indeed seem to have an inclination to weigh in on legal matters that he then gets badly wrong. I rarely comment at Hot Air, but I’ve had occasion to leave probably a half-dozen corrections of things he’s written about legal subjects that ranged from quibble-worthy to flat-out wrong. This is an example of “flat-out wrong.”

    Beldar (fa637a)

  39. @ nk (#7): Is Judge Steele an adjutant professor at your law school? I’d audit that class. 😀

    Beldar (fa637a)

  40. The Twitter exchange suggests that Mr. Shaw, attempting to defend his original misstatement about “intent,” skittered off-track into the realm of “persuasion.”

    To anyone who’s participated in the process as an advocate or judge, it seems incredibly obvious that the statute defines the elements of the offense, and will indeed be followed and quoted as part of the court’s charge to the jury (which formal written and oral statement gives each the jury the law, as applicable to each case, that the jury needs to answer questions of disputed fact). Any time a layman starts talking about “elements” of a crime that aren’t found in the underlying criminal statute, he’s already irretrievably off course: With that big a misconception, you can’t reason your way to any meaningful conclusions.

    When corrected by our host’s Tweet — have I mentioned lately that I hate Twitter? — Mr. Shaw perhaps recalled that every criminal defendant has a constitutional presumption of innocence that can only be overcome by proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. And because of that, it’s true that the prosecution bears the burden of persuasion and proof. Every prosecutor must not only bring the jury the evidence of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but persuade the jury to credit — give weight to — that evidence. So yeah: In every criminal prosecution the state has to convince the jury.

    But “convincing the jury” is part of the process of obtaining a conviction, it’s simply not an additional “element” on which proof must be adduced to prove that a crime has been committed. And the obligation to convince the jury with proof beyond a reasonable doubt doesn’t also include an obligation that the prosecution prove additional facts — like an intent to cause harm — beyond those facts required by the statute’s definition of the criminal offense.

    He was wrong about intent, and got wronger in trying to defend his original mistake. Perhaps a collaborator like AllahPundit — who has a first-rate legal mind — can help set him straight and find a way to back down.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  41. Gave up on Jass Shaw and hotair some time ago. Gee, I seem to be dumping alot of Trumpies lately.

    Wyguy (5e063c)

  42. Is Patterico trying to get away from Trump?

    Because the hits keep coming. Yes, even on HotGas:

    http://hotair.com/archives/2016/04/14/trumps-favorite-bible-teaching-an-eye-for-an-eye-of-course/

    JP (bd5dd9)

  43. Everything in the law is ‘convincing.’

    The prosecuting attorney has to be convinced it’s worth the resources to prosecute and it’s likely to end in a conviction/it’s worth it to cost the opponent’s time/some other goal.
    The judge has to be convinced of any number of things along the way.
    If it gets to a jury they have to be convinced.

    It would be nice to imagine that there was something like ‘black letter law’, that something could be so clear that it couldn’t be argued, that it couldn’t be twisted/lied about/persuaded upon. I’m an INTJ as I’m as close to coldly logically judgemental as it gets, but even I recognize the elements of emotion and prejudice in judgement.

    If a robot were prosecuting, defending, judging, and jurying; and they were unable to lie or misrepresent or shade the truth being robots, then lots of things would be open and shut cases.

    luagha (e5bf64)

  44. Hot Air has been circling the bowl for a while. The only remotely interesting writer they have left is Allahpundit.

    radar (177444)

  45. I’ll blog that tonight if Dana doesn’t. I’m less impressed by the fact that his cited passage contradicts Jesus’s teachings than I am by the fact that he so often sounds like a child who has been called on in class and hasn’t done the reading, but is trying to fake his way through it.

    Free video idea: take this response and his word salad on punishing women for abortions, and have kids recite it word for word, looking nervously around the room as they do.

    Done right, that could go viral.

    Patterico (7e235b)

  46. I hope you are not implying that Two Corinthians Trump don’t know exegesis from tumescence.

    JP (bd5dd9)

  47. Child abuse!

    BobStewartatHome (7b7fb2)

  48. The regulator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac said on Thursday it would allow the government-controlled mortgage finance companies to cut loan balances for thousands of U.S. borrowers who owe more than their homes are worth.

    this makes me want to throw up

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  49. “Actually and intentionally touches or strikes another person against the will of the other”

    Everyone who rides the bus should be doing community service hours and every bouncer in prison

    Anyway, when I watched it, I saw what might have been the intentional “touch”, but no one is going to find him guilty for that. I did not see a “strike”, so I’d have to say there was no intent to commit bodily harm.

    File this in the sound and fury signifying nothing category

    steveg (fed1c9)

  50. Winning the semantics war but lost the central argument.

    Anyway, no crime …

    …which was obvious to all except the perpetually aggrieved or politically motivated.

    Rodney King's Spirit (db6706)

  51. i was way out front on this one Mr. Spirit

    it can be lonely being me sometimes

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  52. #51, No Happy, plenty of folks were right along with you.

    The fact people kept going on and on after that Video surfaced really said it all to me.

    Lost a bit of respect for folks who STILL insisted some crime was done to the Lady.

    If you are going to insist on crimes, go to Trump’s tax avoidance and his bribes.

    Rodney King's Spirit (db6706)

  53. “Actually and intentionally touches or strikes another person against the will of the other”

    Everyone who rides the bus should be doing community service hours and every bouncer in prison

    Anyway, when I watched it, I saw what might have been the intentional “touch”, but no one is going to find him guilty for that. I did not see a “strike”, so I’d have to say there was no intent to commit bodily harm.

    File this in the sound and fury signifying nothing category

    steveg (fed1c9)

    You don’t intentionally grab others on the bus. That’s ‘accidental’, the opposite of intentional.

    He grabbed her and he had no business doing so. If you do that to women on the bus you’ll lose some teeth pretty quickly. You have no basis to say he didn’t intend to harm her. Based on the bruises he left I think that’s probably untrue. And based on the lying Corey did about this matter, the Trump campaign acted in bad faith. If they lie about this they are lying about other things too. That’s why this doesn’t signify nothing, and actually was the beginning of the end of the Trump campaign. How many races has Trump lost since then? How many delegates have said they will reject him? A lot of both!

    Dustin (2a8be7)

  54. Anyway, no crime …

    …which was obvious to all except the perpetually aggrieved or politically motivated.

    Rodney King’s Spirit (db6706)

    Nope, cops said probable cause there was a crime. Prosecutors have a higher standard and decided not to go to trial over something minor.

    But the cops thing it’s more likely than not he committed a crime. And I think every honest person agrees with that. You’ve been very angry to see this brought up, but it’s pretty basic. A reporter asks a question you don’t like, say ‘no comment’, don’t bruise her up.

    Lost a bit of respect for folks who STILL insisted some crime was done to the Lady.

    Time to try decaf. Maybe get your blood pressure checked.

    Trump continues to handle this issue so badly it’s cost him dearly when all he had to do was not lie about it, apologize, and stop being intimidated any time a woman aspires for more than a modelling career.

    Dustin (2a8be7)

  55. I’ve been riding the NYC subways and buses for a long time, and nobody has ever intentionally grabbed me.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  56. Jazz Shaw has always been a fumblebuffin. Even the majority of regulars at Hot Air have declared him, time and again, to be outside his John Brown mind.

    John Hitchcock (ebc02c)

  57. There was clearly intent to separate the crazy woman from Trump.

    These Nevertrump people are such sniveling crybabies. It’s really pathetic.

    jcurtis (deff4c)

  58. Who cares, Patterico. You nevertrumpers are in damage control mode given how far you went out on a limb for this nothing burger. It’s a disgrace.

    Of course, battery is a very easy to satisfy charge. DA admitted the case does not satisfy the ethical requirements for proceeding with the charge. I’ll also gloat a bit and note that I was 100% correct (that is, defense of others or implied consent given custom of jostling close to presidential candidate should mean the charges should be dropped), even though resident legal expert “Beldar” wrongly asserted the elements of the offense are the end of the matter.

    Old Reader (08f24c)

  59. The legal ladnscape was obvious from the get go, even for those of us who don’t practice criminal law (unless your name is Beldar).

    Look, battery technically occurs any time somebody touches another without their consent. It’s a ridiculously broad crime that requires CONTEXT to make reasonable in practice. In legal terms, this means if you engage in an activity that contact is expected, you impliedly consent to that contact. For example, if you choose to play tackle football with some buddies, you can’t sue or bring charges against a buddy that tackles you. In the context of this case, the argument would be that if you touch and get very close to a presidential candidate, you impliedly consent to this type of contact since it is likely to occur.

    Second, there are affirmative defenses of battery. This is what the DA seemed to focus on–defense of others. Fields was told to leave area. Left, then came right back in when SS turned his back. Fields was motioned by SS. Fields even touched Trump. Given these circumstances, it is not unreasonable to use force to place Fields outside the SS buffer which she had breached–in violation to SS orders (this is on tape at TMZ).

    Finally, this is not an example of pros. discretion. The DA stated he could not meet the ethical/legal requirements for proceeding with the case.

    Old Reader (08f24c)

  60. I can’t wait to see all the arguments about what Jesus said…
    Most evangelicals that are tied up in Trump evil clutches already know the guy hasn’t spent more than an hour of his life reading the Bible.
    God help us if we have Hillary and Trump out there trying to outJesus each other

    steveg (fed1c9)

  61. Mr. Trump is not very fired up with the old time religion

    he’s a very chill bro really

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  62. Happy is right.

    Trump is just chill bro who digs Christians, where as Cruz thought it was wise to speak at this event. What do you think is more electable?

    Old Reader (08f24c)

  63. That’s lame.
    Cruz is not responsible for what someone else says over the course of an event.

    steveg (fed1c9)

  64. Old Art Deco, go pleasure yourself with a pair of Trump’s cast-off undies.

    nk (dbc370)

  65. Hillary has spoken in places where people worship the planet

    steveg (fed1c9)

  66. Steveg, maybe it’s not fair, but I think Cruz’s own remarks followed that insane speech, so I’m not sure how he can distance himself from it very effectively. I would not participate in a conference where that sort of insanity was happening, and if I had already committed, I would be certain to publicly disavow those insane remarks in my own speech.

    Yes, but keep on believing the polls that Cruz will beat Hillary. If he is the eventual nominee, Cruz is going to be destroyed by the MSM for this and other wacky religious stuff.

    Old Reader (08f24c)

  67. Old Art Deco, you’re not even sure how to take a suppository, so let Cruz and Cruz’s real supporters worry about things like that. You worry about those brown people fixing to steal your bottle-cap collection.

    nk (dbc370)

  68. Old Reader…fear not! Cruz will save us from the scourge of the sex toys which probably include Trump’s undies.

    spokanebob (2d1655)

  69. There was clearly intent to separate the crazy woman from Trump.

    These Nevertrump people are such sniveling crybabies. It’s really pathetic.

    jcurtis (deff4c) — 4/14/2016 @ 2:25 pm

    Oh, we’re crybabies now. OK that’s persuasive.

    I thought the story was that he never touched her. Or was it that they just bumped. Now he intentionally grabbed her to separate her from Trump because she is crazy (also I thought he said he didn’t know her). Funny how one side’s story stays the same, and the other side’s story is constantly evolving based on what the lie has to work with.

    It’s particularly sad that you feel the need to smear Fields as crazy. She did nothing to bring this about. I guess one man’s sense of integrity is another man’s crybaby or something.

    Dustin (2a8be7)

  70. Only for Trump-frumps.

    nk (dbc370)

  71. You worry about those brown people fixing to steal your bottle-cap collection.

    Again you find the need to use “RACIST!” as you’re default argument. Are you really sure you’re not a leftist in disguise? I mean, Old Reader wasn’t even talking about race. Maybe he’s worried about those damn homos in his daughter’s restroom. Or those Jooows stealing his money. Why limit his bigotry to just brown people, nk?

    Hoagie ™ (e4fcd6)

  72. I don’t like Old Art Deco.
    He’s a smarmy jerk.
    Very smarmy.
    So smarmy he smarms when he sleeps.

    nk (dbc370)

  73. As for “homo”, I heard that there’s a guy in a red wig and a sequined cocktail dress hanging around the Manhole on Halsted and Cornelia and telling everybody to call him Melania. I’m not saying it’s Old Art Deco and I’m not saying that it’s not. But Enquiring minds want to know.

    nk (dbc370)

  74. Old Liar is lying again. Boldly. Obama-esque kinds of brazen lies.

    JD (34f761)

  75. Trump World is always changing their story.
    First, Corey had never touched the woman—she was making it up.
    Then, it became a story that he had to intervene because Michelle Fields might have had a weapon!!!111!!!!

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  76. Here’s you “ladies” getting what feminism begat:

    https://youtu.be/2nvnFpbMfMQ

    Hoagie ™ (e4fcd6)

  77. nothing else of import is happening, one recalls the summer of condit and shark attacks,

    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-attacks-nuclear-idUSKCN0XB0OY?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews&rpc=69

    narciso (732bc0)

  78. Care to point out these bold lies? Nothing? That’s what I thought.

    Old Reader (08f24c)

  79. I don’t understand the thought behind this post. Clearly the Jazz Shaw guy was referring to what it takes to win a case, not the technical requirements to charge someone. I think the distinction is easy to grasp.

    Mark Johnson (758e29)

  80. @ Mark Johnson (#80), who wrote, “Clearly the Jazz Shaw guy was referring to what it takes to win a case, not the technical requirements to charge someone.”

    Yes, but he was still wrong.

    To win the case, the prosecutor need not prove intent to harm. If, for example, the defense lawyer started trying to tell the jury during closing argument that, “You folks should acquit Mr. Lewandowski because there’s no proof he intended to harm Ms. Fields,” the prosecutor would and could object, and the trial judge would and could scold the defense lawyer for misstating the law, and the trial judge would and could turn to the jury and repeat the portion of the charge identifying the elements that the jury would have to conclude have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. He’d remind them that they’re duty-bound not to consider anything else, nor to take the law into their own hands by adding to or subtracting from what he (the trial judge) has told them.

    If our host or I made this kind of mistake in our day-jobs, in other words, we’d have egg all over our faces. I don’t much fault Mr. Shaw for not knowing this stuff to begin with, but I do think he’s being very foolish in rejecting an appropriate and material correction.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  81. Dustin

    We will have to agree to disagree because I think Fields is being a crybaby.
    Presidential candidate reporting is a contact sport men have played for years.
    To me, she should have worn it as a badge of honor and gotten more out of it career-wise.
    Right now she is probably angling for a mid six figure settlement for bruises incurred during a “game”.
    She wants to play, but when she gets into the asses and elbows, she cries and shows two minor league owwies. I can get bruises like that from taking too much advil and moving firewood.
    All that proved to me was she had two small bruises, from what no one knows, and no one knows if she naturally bruises easily, if she did anything else

    steveg (fed1c9)

  82. Old Liar – the part about the Secret Service is a complete asspull. Nothing more. Pick a story. Either he didn’t do it. Or he did because the Secret Service was incapable of keeping a pen bomb away from Trump. He grabbed her. Or he did not. Originally the Trumpkins claim was that nothing happened, and the Secret Service had no notice of an incident. Now you come along and asspull their warning a tiny little reporter girl away. You all have told so many lies you can’t keep them straight, and when called out on it, simply move on to the next one.

    JD (34f761)

  83. Since when did being in the press become a contact sport? I think that those around her initially overplayed their hand, but the abject BS that followed from the Trumpkins has been extraordinary.

    JD (34f761)

  84. Steveg,

    Nonsense! Every last word you wrote was utter nonsense. You lose an “e”. Now, you get Rspect, maybe.

    John Hitchcock (ebc02c)

  85. Beldar – intent to grab is all they would have to show, correct?

    JD (34f761)

  86. Steveg,

    The notion that politics is a “contact” sport is proverbial—not literal.
    Men do not grab women in a professional environment, nor on the subway, nor at the supermarket.
    By the same token, you wouldn’t turn a blind eye to a pro football player grabbing a female reporter in a post-game interview, simply because football is a “contact” sport, right?

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  87. @ JD (#86): Yes:

    Section 784.03 Battery; felony battery.—

    (1)(a) The offense of battery occurs when a person:

    1. Actually and intentionally touches or strikes another person against the will of the other; or

    2. Intentionally causes bodily harm to another person.

    That’s a disjunctive, so the prosecution would have needed to prove only that Lewandowski actually and intentionally touched or struck Fields against her will. It’s the touching that had to be intentional for purposes of subsection 784.03(1)(a)(1).

    Beldar (fa637a)

  88. “Beldar – intent to grab is all they would have to show, correct?”

    JD (34f761)

    Man… I would be a 39-time loser spending one long stretch after another… Hold on, BREAKING! George Pataki has just endorsed John Kasich! This changes everything!!!!!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  89. It’s really not that complicated if a simpleton like me can understand it.

    JD (38f19f)

  90. “Old Reader…fear not! Cruz will save us from the scourge of the sex toys which probably include Trump’s undies.”

    spokanebob (2d1655) — 4/14/2016 @ 4:00 pm

    Dildos… running all around Bob’s brain.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  91. I think Shaw just wanted to say “motive”. Were he and I the only ones who saw that speeding car that was abut to hit Fields just before Lewandowski pulled her out of its path?

    Motive is not a legal requirement. An express motive can be a useful piece of evidence but it’s not indispensable in that regard either. Just as criminal intent can be inferred by the conduct of the defendant and its consequences so can motive. A drive by shooter who fires five shots into a tavern killing one of the employees is not going to be assumed, let alone presumed, to have done it with an innocent intent or a good motive.

    nk (dbc370)

  92. Beldar,

    Time to add Wyoming to the Trump dumped list. He sure knows how to quit early. The Indiana GOP is rolling out the steamroller for Trump as well. He will have some first vote delegates from Indiana – if they don’t oversleep or get haircuts during the first vote. There will be nothing for round two though.

    Rick Ballard (a55d80)

  93. ISIS is blowing stuff up, setting people on fire, and cutting people’s heads off. China is expanding its domain in the South China Seas. North Korea is chattering on about nukes. Russia is diving its jets at our ships. Barack admits that Iran is not complying with that most wonderful agreement from last summer. The Mexican drug cartels are slaughtering people who look at them funny in the street. The United States’ biggest coal company just filed for bankruptcy. The conservative lion (Scalia) on the Supreme Court dropped dead of a heart attack a couple months ago.

    All this, and Trump World is talking about sex toys and the fact that Heidi Cruz works for Goldman Sachs.

    Serious times call for serious Presidents.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  94. Rick – those state are rigged and he might sue them.

    JD (38f19f)

  95. I love the “unlucky shot” defense. “How could I have hit that man in the head from a hundred and fifty feet away with a pistol? I’m not that good a shot. It was just an accident. I was only shooting in the air.” It wins … never.

    nk (dbc370)

  96. Old Natural Born Citizen Of Ontario is a liar. And a smarmy jerk. With extra smarm.

    nk (dbc370)

  97. Old Liar doesn’t understand this simple concept, Beldar. He could only aspire to be a simpleton.

    JD (38f19f)

  98. It’s bizarre to watch the Cult of Personality excuse Trump’s lies.

    SPQR (a3a747)

  99. Steveg, maybe it’s not fair, but I think Cruz’s own remarks followed that insane speech, so I’m not sure how he can distance himself from it very effectively.

    More lies.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  100. 52. Lost a bit of respect for folks who STILL insisted some crime was done to the Lady.

    Rodney King’s Spirit (db6706) — 4/14/2016 @ 2:05 pm

    Our bad, RKS. We deserved to lose your respect because, dammit, we can read.

    The offense of battery occurs when a person:
    1. Actually and intentionally touches or strikes another person against the will of the other; or
    2. Intentionally causes bodily harm to another person.

    And we have eyes to see and ears to listen with.

    On a later thread we have a nineteen minute video of the State’s Attorney’s press conference.

    https://patterico.com/2016/04/14/press-conference-by-states-attorney-rejecting-lewandowski-case-weak/

    You don’t have to watch it for very long to establish a simple fact. As the State’s Attorney describes the timeline of events he asserts that Lewandowski did intentionally grab Field’s arm; that there is no reasonable doubt that he grabbed her arm and pulled her back (2:00-2:23 on the video).

    So, what do we have? We have no reasonable doubt that Lewandowski’s actions were a text book example of simple battery as defined by Florida law. Silly us for thinking some crime had been committed just because the State’s Attorney described video evidence clearly showing beyond a reasonable doubt a crime being committed before declining to prosecute said crime.

    Steve57 (225587)

  101. 62. Happy is right.

    Trump is just chill bro who digs Christians, where as Cruz thought it was wise to speak at this event. What do you think is more electable?

    Old Reader (08f24c) — 4/14/2016 @ 3:20 pm

    Is there anything you say or link to that isn’t a lie?

    RWW News: Kevin Swanson Says The Bible Requires The Death Penalty For Homosexuality

    Yeah, no. That’s a lie. He says both the Old and New Testaments say that homosexuality is a sin worthy of death. And in fact, he’s right. That’s what the Bible says.

    Levitcus 20:13

    “‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

    Romans 1 1:26-32

    26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

    28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

    At what point does this guy say that therefore God requires us to institute the death penalty to punish these sins? In fact, where in the New Testament does it say that Christians are even allowed to punish sins that are “worthy of death” in God’s stead? And if the Old Testament, the Torah, requires the death penalty for homosexuality, how come homosexuals aren’t executed in Israel? Why isn’t the Chief Rabbinate of Israel at least calling for the execution of homosexuals if that’s what the Torah requires?

    The fact is these aren’t marching orders for Christians or Jews. You chose to link to a video, of all the videos on Youtube, that lies and says these verses are somehow a Biblical command to institute the death penalty for homosexuals to smear Cruz. That makes it your lie.

    Who is more electable? I’d say Cruz. Because he and his supporters aren’t lying about and smearing 70% of the American public who say they are Christian,

    And Cruz and his supporters aren’t advocating actual violence. Trump and his minions are.

    http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2016/04/12/state-police-reviewing-alleged-threats-against-indiana-delegates-critical-trump/82947728/

    Electability advantage, Cruz. The Trumpkins believe in their messiah just as much as Christians do in theirs. One day soon a Trumpkin will go beyond email and telephone death threats answer the coll of Trump’s henchmen to attack those who are “stealing” Trump’s nomination. Secure in the knowledge their messiah The Donald will pay their legal expenses as promised.

    So on the one hand we’ll have the Trump campaign unleashing “Days of Rage” this summer and his supporters getting frog-marched to jail, and you’ll have a video of a guy not advocating the death penalty for gays followed by Cruz saying nothing remotely controversial.

    Steve57 (225587)

  102. What the guy in the video means when he talks about sin “worthy of death:”

    Romans 6:23

    23For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

    As any Christian would know, but brain dead leftist atheists would not, the reference to death has nothing at all to do with lethal injection, the electric chair, a firing squad, etc., etc.

    Steve57 (225587)

  103. Milhouse, I call BS. You’ve never witnessed someone (or been that someone) who needs to exit the bus/elevator/subway and there are people blocking the way to the door? In all your “years” all people just magically part so exits are easy and/or people just miss their exit so as not to touch anyone else? Really? You expect us to believe that load? Quit trying to prop up this lying attention whore’s story just because you imagine that it is helping your own favorite candidate.

    prowlerguy (fa36d8)

  104. Funny how Steve57 posts a dated article outlining lurid allegations, only to “forget” to show what the actual investigation proved.

    http://www.theindychannel.com/news/local-news/indiana-gop-delegates-say-trump-supporters-issuing-threats

    Advantage Trump. Yet again, Cruz supporters whimper and cry like little children, while lying non-stop, and get slapped down by reality. More accusations, more exonerations for Trump. America doesn’t want a thin-skinned crybaby who goes running to the teacher every time some doesn’t pick them for kickball. And America does not want Cruz, overwhelmingly. Except for those political elites and corrupt GOP hacks(I repeat myself) who love the status quo and don’t give a darn about what the voters say.

    prowlerguy (fa36d8)

  105. “his supporters getting frog-marched to jail”

    This caught my eye. I remember vividly how leftist were screaming daily for this very event, only their targets were GWB and Donald Rumsfeld.

    First Cruz’s supporters adopt Alinsy tactics, then they mimic SJW in creating or faking confrontations and crying to authorities over them. Now the fantasizing about the arrest of their enemies. You guys would right in on the campus at Berkeley or Oberlin.

    prowlerguy (fa36d8)

  106. @Beldar (81) (cool) I disagree.

    You are hung up on a technical requirement while I understood Shaw to be referring to what is generally needed to convince a jury to convict.

    mark johnson (5bf714)

  107. Who is more electable? I’d say Cruz.

    the Ted n Heidi 700 Club Show isn’t a hit with viewers end of story

    Teddy-pie’s trend is down down down

    at end of March he was at 35%

    then 31%

    31%

    29%

    27%

    yes. TWENTY SEVEN PERCENT

    at this point in the race srsly?

    Yes.

    harvardtrash ted is a loser.

    happyfeet (831175)

  108. Shall we talk polls? Again?

    Simon Jester (78ebb2)

  109. the only polls that matter are the ones what support my point of view

    happyfeet (831175)

  110. http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2016-04-14/ap-interview-palin-warns-gop-leaders-on-nominee

    I remember when she was the darling of what appears to be the Cruzer crowd. If HappyFeet’s nemesis and Trump can make happy why can’t the Cruzer-Trumpkin crowd?

    spokanebob (1aaf2a)

  111. This caught my eye. I remember vividly how leftist were screaming daily for this very event, only their targets were GWB and Donald Rumsfeld.

    First Cruz’s supporters adopt Alinsy tactics, then they mimic SJW in creating or faking confrontations and crying to authorities over them. Now the fantasizing about the arrest of their enemies. You guys would right in on the campus at Berkeley or Oberlin.

    prowlerguy (fa36d8) — 4/15/2016 @ 5:50 am

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  112. I have friends of decades whose kids and wives have sat on my lap who are Trump supporters. We’ll stay friends. They’re more important to me than Cruz and I am confident that I’m more important to them than Trump, and considering that most of our other mutual friends are Hillary supporters ….

    nk (dbc370)

  113. Prowlerguy put his finger on it. It’s as if they take on the worst aspects of the deplorable behavior of their candidate, then magnify, as if the exposure will make the bad character traits more palatable.

    Worse than that, they call the resulting mess “conservatism”.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  114. and the lion shall lie down with the lamb and they will share tasty fish tacos with loads of fresh avocado, and together they will make America great again

    so it is written

    happyfeet (831175)

  115. Trump is a cultural icon and touchstone, hearkening back to a time when the country wasn’t factioned off in a thousand digital directions.

    He’ll unite the country in a way few people could at this time.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  116. Donald Trump has very high negative ratings, especially among women, men, people, and voters.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  117. i love how he’s so fantastic

    happyfeet (831175)

  118. I have even heard that two of his own kids will not be voting for him in the New York primary, CS.

    nk (dbc370)

  119. 114 – LMAO

    spokanebob (e86321)

  120. nk, I also heard the rumor that Eric and Ivanka Trump failed to properly register to vote for Big Daddy in the NY GOP primary, but I bet that’s just a rumor started by the Alinskyite Social Justice Warriors who support Cruz.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  121. papertiger’s right about Trump uniting the country.
    Everyone’s against him.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  122. I have even heard that two of his own kids will not be voting for him in the New York primary, CS.

    nk (dbc370) — 4/15/2016 @ 6:54 am

    You talking about Cruz?

    I imagine two of Hillary’s kids ended up on the cutting room floor.
    But the survivor will probably vote. Maybe.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  123. The lion will lay down with the lamb as our entertaining friend Mr happyfeet says, but then the lion will divorce the lamb for a younger, hotter lamb who escaped from a flock in Slovenia. And that lamb will be professionally photographed while laying down. And then some vulture named Liz Mair will distribute photos of the Slovenian lamb, and then friends of the lion will become upset and say that Heidi Cruz could never get a job being photographed while laying down—she could only get hired by Goldman Sachs due to her two master’s degrees in business/economics! Loser! Sad!

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  124. Trumpkins talking about someone other than Trump being a whiny crybaby b@tch is hysterical.

    JD (38f19f)

  125. One word description of Heidi and the Cruz family on the talk show circuit.

    Unctuous.
    fulsome, oily, smarmy; insincerely, self-servingly, or smugly agreeable or earnest; characterized by excessive piousness or moralistic fervor, especially in an affected manner; excessively smooth, suave, or smug.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  126. and considering that most of our other mutual friends are Hillary supporters

    People like that deserve the most scrutiny, puzzlement and exasperation—if not outright disdain.

    They’re the reason I can’t currently get so worked up about the bad aspects of the Republican candidates and the quirks (and failings) of their supporters when something like Hillary and her fans are floating around out there.

    At least the former group taps into the notion of “Make America Great Again,” while the latter crowd relates to “Goddamn America.”

    Mark (16bc93)

  127. Oh, I have a one word description of Mr. Trump at any of his functions.

    And huge majorities of the American public agree with me.

    So yuge, it would make your head spin. So many people agree with me, you will get tired of people agreeing with me. But that’s not going to stop how much people agree with me.

    Simon Jester (2708f4)

  128. What’s funny is Ted thinks he’s going to do well in the delegates for hire, free agent phase of the election.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  129. Donald Trump can’t even unite his own children to vote for him. Sad!

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  130. Unctuous. Painfully so. Hard to watch. Quick! Reach for the remote, unctuousness.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  131. Interesting that Donald Trump hasn’t brow beaten his children into being the perfect accessories in service to his ambition.

    Not saying anything about Cruz, or their parenting style.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  132. Much.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  133. And if the Old Testament, the Torah, requires the death penalty for homosexuality, how come homosexuals aren’t executed in Israel? Why isn’t the Chief Rabbinate of Israel at least calling for the execution of homosexuals if that’s what the Torah requires?

    The greater point you’re making is correct, but this is not a good argument for it. Israel is a secular state, where teh law takes absolutely no notice of what the Torah may or may not require. The Chief Rabbinate is an institution within the state that is permanently on the defensive against a political and legal system that is largely hostile to religion; its job is to provide religious services for those who want them, not to intrude on those who aren’t interested. Even if the chief rabbis privately believed that the Knesset ought to ban homosexual relations and make them a capital crime, they would never dare say so in public.

    But this doesn’t affect your greater point, which is that Swanson was not calling for anything, let alone for executions. He was reading the Bible, and not injecting his own views at all. His only point was that reading the Bible cannot be a crime; that we can’t allow the Bible to be banned.

    So even if Cruz had been aware of this speech it should not have deterred him from appearing at the same event. But of course there’s no reason for him to have been aware of it, so the question doesn’t even arise.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  134. And Cruz and his supporters aren’t advocating actual violence. Trump and his minions are.

    Funny how Steve57 posts a dated article outlining lurid allegations, only to “forget” to show what the actual investigation proved.

    Funny how prowlerguy thinks his link somehow contradicts the allegations at Steve57’s link, or renders them either dated or lurid. In fact his own link confirms exactly what the first link says, and Steve57’s accurate characterization of what Trump and his minions are doing. It was clear from the first link that none of these messages were criminal offenses, and Steve57 did not claim that they were. That doesn’t change the fact that they are blatant attempts to intimidate delegates into supporting Trump.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  135. What’s funny is Ted thinks he’s going to do well in the delegates for hire, free agent phase of the election.

    Honest delegates, who tend to be Cruz supporters, are not for hire. Trumpkins, OTOH, are certainly for hire, that’s the real reason they’re with Trump. Cruz will do well once delegates are free to vote as they truly believe. Trump’s only hope and plan is to force delegates to vote against their consciences; funny how he thinks that is fair and just, while letting them vote their consciences is cheating.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  136. Honest delegates, who tend to be Cruz supporters, are not for hire.

    Yeah they are. America is a free enterprise zone on it’s best days. Ideally always.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  137. Milhouaw @133, not that I’m an expert on it by any means but I’ve read a bit about the development of the Mishnah and the restrictions it placed on the imposition of the death penalty. Essentially, the bulk of the Mishnaic tradition concerning the death penalty was developed after it was of no practical significance; the Romans forbade the Sanhedrin from imposing the death penalty during their occupation. The power to impose the the death penalty was reserved to Roman authorities.

    While earlier material, when the Sanhedrin did have the power to impose the death penalty, is certainly included the upshot is that the Mishnah treats the subject of the death penalty in an entirely theoretical way. Later developers of the Mishnah seem relieved by that fact. It was later authorities who made statements such as a Sanhedrin that imposed the death penalty once every seven years was bloodthirsty, and then even later Rabbis would up the ante to even once every seventy years. Those statements, and the restrictions on when the death penalty could be imposed; i.e. there had to be two witnesses to not only the actual act or crime, those witnesses had to testify they warned the miscreant ahead of time that he would be executed if he went through with his plans, the miscreant would have had to acknowledge the warnings and express willingness to go ahead anyway, shows more than a little unease with the death penalty, wouldn’t you say? Basically once it became illegal for the Sanhedrin to impose the death penalty, as the Rabbis developed their theories on the imposition it became impossible.

    It simply could not have been how the Sanhedrin did business when it did have the power over life and death because it’s inconceivable that there could ever be a death penalty case that could meet the above standards. Who murders someone in front of two witnesses, let alone leaves them alive if they were present were the witnesses stupid enough to engage the murderer in conversation so they could testify against the killer later?

    I figure the odds are even less that there would ever be an act of gay sex that could meet this bar for the imposition of the death penalty. Not that there would never be two witnesses to the act; let’s face it, at a swinger’s party there are a lot more than two witnesses to a lot of sex. But I don’t think the kind of people who’d be citing the Torah and warning people they’ll be executed if they go through with their plans get invited to many sex parties, gay or straight.

    What the Chief Rabbis of Israel believe in their heart of hearts I have no way to say. But it seems to me if they were trained in the Mishnaic tradition they’re probably relieved they do live in a secular state where it’s not their call.

    I have read statements by other chief Rabbis on homosexuality and they seem much like Swanson’s. That it’s a sin according to the Torah. They never call to kill gays, though. They don’t even call to “excommunicate” gays from the Jewish community (I don’t know if they used that word or it was just a bad translation into English). Even these mild statements will cause a backlash from even supposedly Orthodox communities.

    http://www.jpost.com/Jewish-World/Jewish-News/Amsterdam-chief-rabbi-suspended-for-gay-stance

    AMSTERDAM – The Orthodox Jewish community of Amsterdam suspended its US-born chief rabbi on Tuesday for cosigning a declaration which said homosexuality was a “treatable” inclination.

    Rabbi Aryeh Ralbag told The Jerusalem Post on Wednesday that he found it “scandalous that a chief rabbi cannot state the Torah viewpoint for his community without being penalized.”

    “…If one wants to live a Torah life, then one can change it. That is what the declaration was about.”

    …“Christian as well as Jewish religious leaders have expressed their position on this issue. It is their task to do so.”

    …Esther Voet, former editor-in-chief of Dutch Jewish weekly Nieuw Israëlietisch Weekblad, supported the decision to relieve Ralbag of his duties.

    “I think it’s the only right position because the policies of Rabbi Ralbag have come repeatedly under scrutiny for a while now.”

    …“The Dutch Jewish neshama [soul] is unique. We have special rules, like waiting only one hour before eating meat and dairy. We need a chief rabbi who is aware of our traditions and that’s something you cannot fly in two times a year,” she said.

    This was a few years back, but it struck me funny so I remembered it. I love the shocked Dutch reaction to a Rabbi who dares, DARES, to side with the Torah instead of the special Dutch rules. Ms. Voet thinks, like Old Reader, that the Rabbi is expressing some personal opinion. It’s a fact that the Torah, the Christian Old Testament, and the Christian New Testament, declare homosexuality a sin. This isn’t the Rabbi’s “policy.” My reaction was, “Gee, honey, next time pick a chief Rabbi who isn’t Jewish.”

    But, relevant to this discussion, is that Rabbi Ralberg stuck to his guns. He rightly observes that it’s a religious leader’s task, Christian or Jewish, to tell people things that they may not want to hear. It seems to me that if the Torah required a death penalty for homosexuality he would say so. But I’ve never heard a chief Rabbi say so, although I’ve heard them say things along the same lines as Rabbi Ralberg that have elicited howls of protest from nominally Orthodox communities who apparently don’t want to hear the Orthodox view on the matter.

    I wouldn’t expect, Milhouse, that you would have any familiarity with Christian doctrine, but if by chance you’re at all acquainted with the Parable of the Ten Minas in the Gospel of Luke it is the King who will judge and punish sin upon His return. It’s not for Christians to act in His stead. That would be a sin in its own right. So Swanson couldn’t be calling for the death penalty for homosexuality.

    Steve57 (225587)

  138. omg with all the homosexuality

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  139. Sorry for mangling your name, Milhouse. My laptop is infected with malware and I really need to take it to a pro to get everything cleaned out.

    Steve57 (225587)

  140. Steve57, my point is that Israeli policy is not a guide to what Judaism actually requires, and nor are the chief rabbis’ statements. Israel’s legal establishment is militantly secular, and the chief rabbis are functionaries and diplomats, not spiritual leaders. They are constrained in what they can say by civil service regulations and the dictatorial “legal advisors”, and by the need to stay in the relative good graces of the Haaretz editorial board.

    As for what Judaism actually says on the matter, I would say that what you consider late developments were in fact how it always ran. Yes, it would be unusual that someone would commit a crime after having been warned by witnesses; it would only happen if the crime were a deliberate act of defiance and rebellion, not simply a crime of passion.

    You (in common with a lot of people) have misunderstood the import of the statement that a court that has to execute someone once in seven years is a “killer court”. It’s not a statement against the death penalty, but a rebuke to a judiciary that has been so lax in its duty to foster a law-abiding society that a capital could occur on its watch within seven years of the last one. If they’d enforced lesser laws properly, and put the fear of God into the people’s hearts, they wouldn’t now find themselves having to execute someone. If capital crimes happen less often than once in seven years, well, that’s unavoidable; human nature being what it is they’re going to happen once in a while no matter what you do.

    Also bear in mind that this isn’t one capital crime per seven years in the whole nation; it’s one per seven years within the jurisdiction of any one court, and every major town or city had one (Deut 16:18). And populations weren’t what they are now.

    If you’re wondering how crime could be prevented if capital punishment was so hard to impose, the answer is that the power to imprison incorrigible or dangerous criminals in terrible conditions that they were unlikely to survive, and there was also the king’s justice, that was not constrained by the same rules. (Laws of Murderers and the Preservation of Life, 4:11)

    None of which is relevant to Swanson or Cruz. Swanson’s speech was (1) about the freedom to read the Bible as it written; and (2) not even on the same day as Cruz’s speech.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  141. Oh, and your malware also mangled Rabbi Ralbag’s name 🙂

    Milhouse (87c499)

  142. No, my malware didn’t do that. It’s just that my malware mangles so much of what I type it’s impossible to stay on top of all the errors. Whether the errors are my fault or Skynet’s.

    Steve57 (225587)

  143. Milhouse, what appears to be a link @141, Laws of Murderers and the Preservation of Life, 4:11, doesn’t work.

    As for the rest, I’m sure there’s quite a bit I’m misunderstanding (although some of what you believe I may misunderstand actually doesn’t conflict with my understanding). The point I apparently was unsuccessful in making was that even if Orthodox Rabbis were given an entirely free hand to do whatever they believe the Torah demands of them, I just don’t see the promiscuous use of the death penalty as a result.

    Steve57 (225587)

  144. Funniest TV clip I’ve seen today: John Kasich, at a rally in Buffalo, where T.R. was sworn in after learning of McKinley’s death:

    Teddy Roosevelt rode into this town and rode into Washington and he said, “You get with me!” Teddy was — was like me! I mean, I mean I’m like Teddy, you know? We just raise hell and shake everything up!

    Yes, that’s what the public is hungering for: John Kasich, because he’s just the man to raise hell and shake everything up. (Without offending anyone, of course.)

    Beldar (fa637a)

  145. Sorry, this is the link, but I only add it for completeness, since it’s not translated.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  146. even if Orthodox Rabbis were given an entirely free hand to do whatever they believe the Torah demands of them, I just don’t see the promiscuous use of the death penalty as a result.

    Oh, of course not. My only objection was to your use of the current state of Israeli law as proof of this.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  147. 147. My only objection was to your use of the current state of Israeli law as proof of this.

    Milhouse (87c499) — 4/15/2016 @ 4:22 pm

    That really wasn’t where I was going with it. Sorry for the confusion.

    Steve57 (225587)

  148. @ mark johnson (#106): Yup, that’s a fair cop, guv, you got me dead bang to rights. The fact that we tend to get hung up on “technical requirements” is one of the things that makes lawyers so very much fun, right? 😉

    Seriously, though, about half of the national disconnect in this argument has nothing at all to do with Donald Trump, Corey Lewandowski, or Michelle Fields. Rather, it’s from people saying, “What?!? That’s all that’s required to make out the crime of battery? How can that be? I go through worse than that every day!”

    Criminal battery has a civil tort equivalent that also omits any intent-to-harm requirement (i.e., that is satisfied just by showing an unconsenting touching). Almost all law schools teach torts as one of their entry-level subjects in the first semester of the first year. In every first-year torts class, this same conversation takes place among the astonished students: “What?!? That’s all that’s required …,” etc.

    Yes, we’re all of us at constant daily risk of being adjudged guilty of the tort of civil battery or the misdemeanor crime of simple battery. Long before the final exam, all the law students come to accept that, and to deal with it, professionally and intellectually. Finding out that you’ve been a “tortfeasor” without ever knowing it is sort of like finding out that all your life, you’ve been writing prose without ever intending that.

    Beldar (fa637a)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1246 secs.