Dzhokhar Tsarnaev: Crime & Punishment

Introduction

Boston Marathon bomber, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev (age 21), was sentenced to death on May 15, 2015. This inspires several reactions from me, which I'll open with the two quotes below.


Two Quotes

I recently posted these comments on-line.

QUOTE:

If DT finds Jesus* and accepts Him as his Savior, then when he dies, he'll be admitted to heaven. That's the Christian view. The Buddhist view is that he'll suffer exactly as each of his victims did over the appropriate number of reincarnations. And saying magical words like "Jesus forgive me" won't cut it. Same as what is happening to Hitler - he killed 6 million Jews, he'll be murdered 6 million times [for those crimes].

The hard part of the Buddhist view: There is no such thing as an innocent victim. DT's victims, even those most innocent in this life, paid the price for sins committed in past lives. As a result, their karmic burdens will be that much lighter in their future lives.

[finds Jesus* - yes, I know DT is a Muslim]

:UNQUOTE.


QUOTE:

So that's it, eh? Killing DT will bring back his victims? Or somehow cause missing limbs to reappear? Or give "justice" to those wronged? Face it: When most people say they want to see the cause of justice served, what they really want is revenge. The death penalty is barbaric and lessens our own nobility in its continued practice. If you really want justice, don't worry: DT will pay the karmic price for what he did. Putting him in jail for life serves [only] the [practical] purpose of keeping him from doing any more harm to society[, but in no way represents suitable punishment].

:UNQUOTE.


A Fair Trial?

First of all, it won't matter if Tsarnaev didn't get a fair trial. No judge is going to admit that and order a new trial. That's just not going to happen. Any appellate judge would be thinking, "Why order a new trial? Since the case against Tsarnaev was so strong, any new trial would also produce guilty verdicts."

Now that I got that out of the way, I'll say: This young man did not get a fair trial. DT's defense argued that the trial should be moved to Washington, DC - that holding it in Boston would be prejudicial to their client. I have to agree with the defense on this one, as this is a no-brainer. The judge had no defensible reason for insisting the trial be held in Boston. Of course, the fact that there weren't any Blacks on the jury was probably very much to his liking. He simply acted on the basis of imperial judicial prerogative.

Then there's the issue of jury selection. If someone said they opposed the death penalty, then they were automatically excluded from the jury. It would have taken only one juror opposing the death penalty for that option to fail - life imprisonment being the default option. The general population of Boston opposes the death penalty.* So to insist that only the minority who support that option could sit on this jury denies the majority. Why does the state get to make this decision? Many people oppose the death penalty for religious reasons, especially in very Catholic Boston.

Since the First Amendment bars the favoring of one religious view over another, Catholics in this case were discriminated against. In fact, if I were a Catholic about to be so disenfranchised, I would have sued for the right to be empanelled on this jury.

Citizens of the USA pride themselves on having a sense of fair play. However, outside observers would have to shake their heads in disapproval when our hypocrisy raises its ugly head as it has in this case.


The Death Penalty vs. The "Death" Penalty

The death penalty simply refers to executing a prisoner. The "death" penalty refers to the psychological death brought about by prolonged time spent behind bars in solitary confinement.

If Tsarnaev had been sentenced to life imprisonment, he most assuredly would have ended up in solitary to ensure his own safety against the wrath of the general prison population. It's about time we abolished solitary confinement, instead recognizing it for what it is - torture. While it might be unwise, in cases like Tsarnaev's, to enable direct contact with other prisoners, there's no reason why some type of indirect contact (e.g, by using a fence in the exercise area) couldn't be allowed.

Access to the internet and books should also be allowed. As for communication with the outside world (via the internet or written letters), DT should be permitted as is his due under the free speech provisions of the First Amendment. However, should he even once engage in prohibited speech on the internet, his access would be reduced to "read only."

As long as the condemned is in our care, we should make some respectable effort toward his personal development. Who knows? Maybe, in some way or another, he will find salvation, if not necessarily through Jesus. Even so, sad to say, there will always be those who will refuse to forgive and will insist on continued punishment.

As for the death penalty: it should be abolished, as it has been in the European Union. However, I don't believe execution is unconstitutional, though it is a bad idea that shines an embarrassing light on our baser nature. It also doesn't do much for our collective karma.

There are USA Christian conservatives who champion capital punishment, citing "an eye for an eye." These are the same people who also preach the sanctity of life when arguing against abortion. But their sin is even greater than such hypocrisy. For once a person is executed, he has no more chance to repent and accept Jesus (or Anything or Anybody else) as Savior. However, a life sentence would give the condemned as many chances as a natural lifespan could confer.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Steven Searle, just another member of

The Virtual Samgha of the Lotus and

Former Candidate for USA President (in 2008 & 2012)

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Footnote:

opposes the death penalty.* -

QUOTE:

BOSTON — Despite this city’s immersion in a trial that is replaying the horrific details of the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing, the vast majority of Bostonians say in a new poll that if Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the admitted bomber, is found guilty, he should be sent to prison for life and not condemned to death.

:UNQUOTE [by Katharine Q. Seelye, March 23, 2015]

source:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/24/us/most-boston-residents-prefer-life-term-over-death-penalty-in-marathon-case-poll-shows.html?_r=0

Tubes that belch fire

"They're nothing more than tubes that belch fire. How impressive could this possibly be?"

That's what my guru said, when I tried to boast of our grand technology. And why not, for instance, boast about our space program, in which my wife plays a prominent role? She's been with NASA for 20 years and is obviously proud of what she and her teams have accomplished.

As for me? I have been house husband for our three children, working only sporadically as a web designer over the last ten years. After our kids got older, I found I had more time on my hands, so I got involved with Buddhism. Meditation came naturally to me, but I wondered if I would ever actually attain any indisputable degree of enlightenment. Or was all my study and effort to prove only interesting but useless?

After my guru had taken me on a trip to a galaxy far, far away, however, my doubts gave way to exhilaration. Especially since that round trip had taken far less than an hour without using any kind of spacecraft. Equally impressive: How I was, from that galaxy, able to see inside one of our space probes which had recently landed on Mars?

* * * * * * *

My galactic trip took place the same evening I shamelessly tried to bait my teacher. He always seemed so genuinely and deeply tranquil as if nothing could bother him at all. And that bothered me! After his weekly meditation class ended and all of the other students went home, I lingered to talk to him. One of the items I brought up was our life span - which in the United States rarely exceeds 100 years.

"Teacher, 100 years sounds like a lot - especially when compared to life in other countries here on earth. But Buddhist scripture speaks of distant lands in which the average life span consists of billions of years."

"Then you also know that an average life span of less than 100 years, within any given realm, is considered to be a sign of the extremely negative karma shared by all its citizens."

"I don't get it. In those other lands where life lasts so long, why doesn't scripture boast of the wondrous technology such beings surely must have developed? I mean, look at our country. We're able to travel to other planets using vehicles unimaginable 100 years ago."

And that's when my teacher said, "They're nothing more than tubes that belch fire. How impressive could this possibly be?"

Then I thought of my wife, who had worked so long and hard to help bring these "belchers," step by step, into existence. I thought of the great minds that had solved so many difficult problems to get us to where we are today. Then I asked, "What would you consider to be impressive?"

He smiled and said, "The important question is, what would you consider to be impressive? I assure you: Anything you might consider to be impressive, I would regard as commonplace."

When he saw my confusion, he said, "Take my hand and I will show you." This I did and within a few minutes, which felt like an eternity, we had levitated a foot or so above the floor. I felt like a ship which had lost its anchor and was desperate for security. I said, "Wow," and my teacher said, "Relax and tell me, do you find this to be impressive?"

"Without a doubt." And then we started to rise toward the ceiling and I worried about bumping my head. "Stand up straight, you've nothing to fear."

Just as my head was about to hit the ceiling, we accelerated to a point high above the earth where there aren't any clouds, it's cold, and the air is too thin to breathe. But the view is spectacular. I didn't feel the cold and I didn't feel short of breath. When my teacher told me to stop breathing because my current body didn't really need air or even food for that matter, I did so without feeling the panic of an asphyxiated man.

"How's this for impressive?"

"Not too shabby," I joked.

"How about this?"

As soon as the hissing sound of his "this" had faded, I found myself - still holding his hand - standing on the moon looking "down" on earth. I didn't feel any panic because there seemed to be a transmittable tranquility that passed from his hand, soothing my entire body.

"You see, it's possible to travel quickly and distantly without the use of any kind of fire-belchers."

"What if I wanted to bring stuff with me, more than I could possibly carry? Wouldn't I need a ship for that?"

"In your current form, you wouldn't need anything. But if you want to indulge, just conjure up what you wish."

"You mean, like magic?"

"There is no such thing as magic. When people call something 'magical,' that's simply because they don't understand the forces that bring that something into being. Go ahead, try to conjure up some kind of dwelling on yonder plain."

So I focused, trying to envision a tree house complete with a tree. And there it appeared - and then disappeared just as quickly when I decided I'd seen enough and wished it gone.

"And now for yet another step on your journey." We disappeared from the moon's surface and, in the twinkling of an eye, found ourselves well within the galaxy BDF-3299. That's about 13 billion light-years from earth. Again, I felt no need to breathe, and didn't feel intense heat. I should have felt the latter, since we were both in the dead center of a blazing star!

My teacher said, "Now, look carefully at Mars, specifically inside the probe your wife's team recently landed there. And memorize all that you notice. Later, run this information, much of which is highly classified, by your wife and see how she reacts."

"But Mars is so far away, and you want me to look inside this probe?"

"Don't worry, with the kind of vision attained by highly skilled practitioners, they can see without being hindered by distance, darkness - or even an over-abundance of light - or obstructions. Go ahead, look. And memorize everything."

I this from a 13 billion light-year distance. Having completed my inventory, I soon found myself - still hand-in-hand with my guru - standing just outside our Martian probe. And just as quickly, back where we had started this journey - feet planted firmly on the floor of his studio.

* * * * * * * * *

I told my wife what I had seen inside the probe and asked her to compare my information to her records. I didn't, however, tell her how I had acquired my knowledge. I lied, saying I had read the minds of members of her team, while scrupulously avoiding her own mind. Before I ran any of this by my wife, I swore her to secrecy. Needless to say, she looked stunned, barely managing to ask how I had acquired this ability.

I told her that I wasn't really sure I myself had this ability. That perhaps my guru had temporarily shared his own ability with me - to give me a taste of what was really impressive but would soon come to be felt by me as commonplace. I shared with her one of the lessons I'd learned, "Technology isn't as important as compassion, and patiently and consistently practicing the teachings. And when a person reaches ever higher levels of development, to avoid the trap of arrogance."

My wife decided to engage in Buddhist practice, asking me if I would recommend my guru. I laughed and said, "Sure. Some gurus are better than others - and this one ranks pretty high up there." So she joined me in practicing with my teacher, though neither of us breathed a word of what we knew. Not to our teacher, or the other students, or to anybody else for that matter. We didn't even discuss it between ourselves.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Steven Searle, just another member of

The Virtual Samgha of the Lotus and

Former Candidate for President of the USA (in 2008 & 2012)

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

A bat, a kitten, and my guilt

Today, I'm going to share with you how I (and an accomplice) murdered a bat about 14 years ago - poor, tiny little thing. Then there's the kitten I tried to smother 38 years ago - without an accomplice. Then I conclude by asking for your help in my quest for atonement.

I entitle these three sections as follows:

• The bat

• The kitten

• My atonement

The bat

Around 2001, I was living in a 3-bedroom flat with my roommate, a fellow Buddhist. We'd lived together for 3 years, without any kind of physical relationship. On a warm spring evening, she was working in the third bedroom, which she used as an office. Then she knocked on my door and said something was in her office. So I followed her and saw what she was pointing at - a small bat hanging upside down near the top of her window.

I kept an eye on it as she went upstairs to alert the landlords - an ancient couple who'd owned and lived in this two-flat since 1947. They had worked for the archdiocese for decades until they retired. So there we were: four religious people in one room, staring up at a bat and wondering what to do. I came up with the idea of using a colander as a kind of butterfly net to snare our unwelcome guest.

The two women left the room as the old man climbed up on a chair to shoo the bat in my direction. Sure enough, it started flying around the room, looking especially large because of my fear. It wasn't long before I trapped it, sliding a piece of cardboard over the top to prevent escape. I wasn't sure what we should do next, but the old woman said we couldn't release it outside because it would only come back. I assumed she was talking about some kind of homing instinct.

So the old man and I took the imprisoned bat down to the basement. There was a sink near the washing machine. We let the water run from its faucet so it would run through the colander, which I was holding. The idea was to drown the bat. I don't know which of the two of us came up with this idea, though I hope it wasn't me. It sounds too horrible even now, decades later, as I type this confession. I remember the poor bat screeching for its very life as the water cascaded through its cage. And yet, that wasn't enough to stop me from doing this evil deed.

For good measure, I totally immersed the bat, still imprisoned but now totally silent, under the water which had by this time more than half-filled the sink.

I held the colander in place for what seemed like an eternity. Maybe I was afraid the poor animal wouldn't be dead and would try to attack us once released. Within a few minutes, I brought the drowned bat up to the surface and laid it out on the counter top. Tears started to fill my eyes - it looked so small and helpless and beautiful, its black fur glistening from its soaking. The old man scooped it up and took it outside to the alley, when a garbage can of a coffin waited for it.

I didn't ask, but I'm sure the old man made sure the lid was secured so the bat wouldn't have been able to make its way back into his building - assuming it would have somehow come back to life.


The kitten

This sad mark on my karma began when one of my roommates brought a kitten home. There were four of us young men in our early 20's, all Buddhists, sharing this apartment. We got along reasonably well until the most recent addition to our household brought a kitten to live with us. I was highly pissed that he didn't ask any of us, in advance, if this fifth roommate would be welcome. Some people don't like cats and others are allergic to them. Some would insist that the owner swear up and down to take care of their pet - you know, like regularly cleaning out its litter box.

My irritation grew when I was home alone standing in front of a window, gazing mindlessly at the street below, when this kitten ran up behind me, took a flying leap, and dug its claws into my calf - clinging for dear life. I shook it loose, my anger at the owner spiking. Thinking about it now, I guess it's true what they say: "Animals know." The kitten probably picked up on my anti-cat (or anti-cat owner) attitude.

Not long after this incident, all four of us moved out - me being the first to go. A few weeks later, I returned to pick up a small item I'd forgotten. All of my roommates' belongings were gone - except for the kitten. It walked up to me slowly - limping and obviously starving, not having been fed for days or a week or... The owner had abandoned it in the locked apartment, not even having had the decency to set it free.

This is what I wish I would have done: After petting it and saying a few reassuring words, then going to a nearby store to buy a can of cat food and a bowl for water.

But, to my very great shame, I didn't do that. I thought to put it out of its misery by grabbing a plastic bag and putting the poor creature into it to suffocate. Kitten surprised me by putting up a heroic struggle. So I let it out of the bag and left. To this day, I can't say why I tried to kill a poor, defenseless animal. Maybe it had to do with a whole bunch of negative emotions that welled up having to do with why I had recently quit the Buddhist group of which I had been a member for two-and-a-half years. Many of my experiences with that group had been bitter - or at least bittersweet. Maybe that's why I took it out on this poor kitten.

Still, no excuse.

I later told an old friend what I did, trying to put positive spin by saying I at least let it live - hoping the owner would come back for his pet. My friend said, "Since your lease is up now, the building super will have inspected the apartment by now. As soon as he saw the cat, he'd have taken it to the basement to throw into the furnace. Supers hate cats."


My atonement

I am currently working on the form my atonement should take, and how you might be able to help. My idea is to, somehow, work out a way that financial contributions could be directed to a friend of mine in Minnesota who runs a shelter for cats. There are technical reasons why she can't use Pay Pal or any other type of on-line method, which I'll explain in a future post. I will entitle that piece "My Atonement" and link it to this post.

Hopefully, I'll post "My Atonement" within the next few weeks.

My friend lives in a small house in a rural community - alone, except for the 30 cats she's rescued over the last few years. I try to help her care for her fur babies as best I can, but as a retiree I'm on a fixed income. Still, when I was paid a one-time windfall of $12,000 by my employer of 31 years, I farmed it out to her over the last two years as expenses started to mount to care for her cats.

If I can help care for these cats, including veterinary care, I hope that will lessen my karmic retribution. With that goal in mind, I stopped eating meat over a year ago. And I pray for the bat, the kitten, and any others - including people - I've abused in any way.

 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Steven Searle, just another member of
The Virtual Samgha of the Lotus and
Former Candidate for USA President (in 2008 & 2012)

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Adolfo Davis' Resentencing Travesty

Introduction

Today, I will address issues involved in the case of Adolfo Davis, who was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. He was sentenced when he was 14 years old, but had a recent resentencing hearing before a judge. His crime? "Participating" in a double-murder, though his original trial failed to prove he was one of the gunmen.

The resentencing judge reaffirmed the original sentence. However, I think Mr. Davis has grounds for a lawsuit(s) based on:

• the original decision to try him as an adult, even though he was only 14 years old;

• failure of the most recent judge to take into account the debilitating effects caused by the denial of his rights under the Eighth Amendment over a period of 25 years.

My analysis of one article

I'm going to quote from a May 4, 2015 article by Don Babwin of the Associated Press. I will insert my comments in indented form under each pertinent paragraph. This link will take you to Babwin's article in its entirety:

http://www.bnd.com/news/state/illinois/article20197371.html


QUOTE:

An Illinois judge on Monday resentenced a convicted killer to the same life term without the possibility of parole that he received at age 14, saying he had grown from a boy who took part in a double murder into a dangerous and violent adult.

Adolfo Davis, 38, is the first Cook County inmate sentenced as a minor to life without parole to be re-sentenced since the U.S. Supreme Court outlawed mandatory life terms for juveniles in 2012.

     Such sentences were deemed by the Court to be a violation of Eighth
     Amendment rights barring cruel and unusual punishment.

...Davis was convicted in a 1990 gang-related double murder on Chicago's South Side.

"The defendant's acts showed an aggression and callous disregard for human life far beyond his tender age of 14," Petrone said during the televised hearing. "The defendant was not merely ... a lookout, he was a willing shooter."

     The "fact" that Davis was "a willing shooter" was not determined at
     Davis' original trial. In fact, there was evidence to the contrary, though
     Petrone decided to label Davis as one of the trigger men.

The judge said years of vicious attacks and threats to the lives of fellow inmates, guards and a prison warden, and Davis' continued involvement in gang activity and drug dealing added up to clear evidence that the sentence he received as a teenager "is necessary to deter others (and) is necessary to protect the public from harm."

     The judge didn't say anything about any obligation society had to
     rehabilitate Davis, who had a challenging upbringing to say the least,
     according to DCFS records. If that obligation had been honored, then
     the public would have been reasonably protected from harm. As for
     Davis' years of "vicious attacks...[and] continued involvement," these
     could have been attributed to failure of the system to make any attempt
     to rehabilitate this inmate.

     Not to mention: Who could blame Davis for lashing out after having
     been denied any hope for parole? How would you feel, Judge Petrone,
     were you in his shoes?

[Petrone] said Davis has repeatedly shown himself to be so dangerous that for more than four years, he was housed at a now-shuttered prison reserved for the what Davis called the "worst of the worst."

     That prison is the infamous Tamms, in which Davis was placed at the
     age of 21. Davis became the "worst of the worst" due to the neglect
     of the state to make any attempt at his rehabilitation. Not to mention,
     having been "raised" by older, vicious criminals since he was
     incarcerated at the age of 14 - some parenting!

...

In overturning mandatory life terms for minors, the Supreme Court pointed to brain research that shows juveniles do not always have the ability to resist peer pressure. Petrone said that Davis both planned and carried out the slayings, but that he was "not a child who was misled."

     Petone also questioned that "brain research" saying, "More research
     need(s) to be done to take this field beyond speculation." However,
     the US Supreme Court was satisfied that the current body of research
     was sufficiently convincing - in the case upon which Davis' resentencing
     was based.

...

...Illinois is one of ten states that are applying the new sentencing rules retroactively. Four other states have declined to apply the Supreme Court's ruling retroactively...

That issue could be decided later this year, when the U.S. Supreme Court hears an appeal in a case out of Louisiana.

     Wait a minute. After the Supreme Court ruled that mandatory life
     sentences for juveniles is unconstitutional, how do any of the states
     get to claim exemptions? Maybe those states are (in effect) claiming
     that those juveniles were sentenced at a time before the High Court
     claimed unconstitutionality, and therefore the original sentences can't
     be challenged.

     To which I would ask: "Why not try to right a wrong?" Then there's
     this: Suppose a man committed an act that was legal when he committed
     it, should he be charged under any new standard deeming that act illegal?
     And suppose he committed an act that was illegal when he committed it
     but had never been charged because he had managed to elude the
     authorities - could he be charged after the Court changes its mind,
     deciding this act is no longer illegal?

:UNQUOTE.


On to another article, this one by Linda Paul which appears on the WBEZ website. I'm only quoting from three paragraphs of this very good article (as updated on 5-4-15), my comments appearing in indented form under each pertinent paragraph:

This link will take you to Paul's article in its entirety:

http://www.wbez.org/news/judge-resentences-adolfo-davis-life-prison-111863


QUOTE:

The legal event that probably most contributed to Davis’ life without parole sentence was a proceeding called a transfer hearing. Should Adolfo Davis be tried in juvenile court where he could get a sentence of only a few years? Would that be enough time for him to turn his life around? Or should he be tried in adult court?

     A juvenile, which is what Davis was undeniably at the time, should be
     tried as an juvenile. This is where the state fails in its responsibilities -
     to both juvenile offenders and the public. The state only recognizes two
     categories - juvenile and adult. Davis should have been tried as a juvenile,
     though sentencing provisions should have been in place that would have
     kept him in state custody for more than "a few years."

     It takes more than "a few years" to heal someone as badly damaged as
     was Davis. Unless, that is, the state simply doesn't care about making any
     realistic efforts at rehabilitation.

At the transfer hearing Adolfo Davis’ probation officer testified, saying he favored Davis going into the adult system. He described him as “a very sick child.” He testified that in his opinion a few years in juvenile prison would not be sufficient to handle the severity of his problems.

     This probation officer sounds like a real piece of work. He admits that
     Davis was "a very sick child," and yet concludes (see next paragraph)
     that the "adult system" would be appropriate for this "child."

The probation officer said he believed there would be facilities in the adult system that could offer treatment and rehabilitation to Adolfo Davis. And he saw that as important because he saw Davis as not only a threat to the public, but also a threat to himself.

     So, "the probation officer...believed there would be facilities in the
     adult system?" Why would the "adult system" have any programs for
     the "treatment and rehabilitation" of a "very sick child?" Unless this
     is just something probation officers say in order to permanently exile
     the very young to a life behind bars.

:UNQUOTE.


End Comments

There are a lot of voters who believe criminals like Adolfo Davis shouldn't be coddled. Their attitude is, "Lock 'em up and throw away the key." They also think, "It would cost too much money to create a more perfect system - money which the financially-strapped state of Illinois doesn't have." To those voters, I would say, "Fine. But next time you read about a gangbanger sneaking up behind a cop and shooting him in the head, just realize there are karmic reasons for such acts. And those reasons have an awful lot to do with your attitude toward the weakest and most vulnerable of society's members - its abused juveniles."

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Steven Searle, just another member of

The Virtual Samgha of the Lotus and

Former Candidate for USA President (in 2008 & 2012)

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Cop acquittal in Chicago

Introduction

Today's essay centers around white Chicago police Detective Dante Servin, who killed an innocent, unarmed 22-year-old black woman at 1 a.m. on March 21, 2012. His recently-concluded trial, in which he was acquitted, might seem like just another example of cops getting away with murder. But my perusal of various sources, and the issues they raised in my own mind, make this case far more interesting.

I will address the issues of:

• Double jeopardy

• Prosecutorial misconduct

• Inability to appeal Judge Porter's decision

• The Ninth Amendment's rights concerning justice and self-defense

So, exactly what happened on the morning of the shooting?

According to an account in the Nov. 26, 2013 issue of the Chicago Tribune:

[NOTE: I highlight selected parts below and, in brackets, make comments]:


QUOTE:

The detective was off duty and driving home just before midnight when he heard a large and loud crowd at Douglas Park near 15th Place, Assistant State's Attorney William Delaney said in court. At home a few minutes later, he called 911 to complain, telling the dispatcher, "I'm afraid that something bad is going to happen."

["driving home" in his own car, not in any kind of police vehicle]

["I'm afraid that something bad is going to happen.": And an hour later, Dante gets in his car and confronts four noisy people within sight of his own home. Even though he said he was "afraid that something bad is going to happen [at the nearby park]." Why didn't Dante simply call for some beat cops to take care of this noisy nuisance? How is it that an $87,000 per year detective decides to handle this - alone! - near his own home? Since this group of four was walking (see next paragraph), why confront them at all? Since they were walking, they would have been out of his earshot soon enough anyway.

As things turned out, now the whole world can figure out where this detective lives!]

About 1 a.m., Servin told authorities, he left his home to get a burger, carrying an unregistered 9 mm Glock on his right hip, prosecutors said. He saw a group of four people — including Boyd — as they walked after a night hanging out and drinking at the park to buy cigarettes.

["carrying an unregistered 9 mm Glock": All of the articles I've read mentioned "unregistered," but none of them mentioned that police officers are exempt from the requirements of Chicago's gun registration law.]

Servin drove south in an alley just west of Albany Avenue toward 15th Place, approaching the mouth of the alley just as the group was coming by. Through his open driver's side window, Servin told two men in the group that no one would call police if they stayed in the park and were quiet but that "people lived here."

["approaching the mouth of the alley": This indicates that the four were not in the alley, but other accounts state they were.]

["Servin told two men in the group": But Servin did not identify himself as a police office when initially addressing these two men. He did so, according to another article, just before he opened fire because he thought one of the two men had a gun.]

:UNQUOTE.

Dante Servin was acquitted, but that does not mean he was innocent. Because of his actions, the City of Chicago settled a wrongful death law suit with Boyd's family in March of 2013. Even though Servin will most likely be allowed to resume his role as detective, I wonder how many of his superiors are thinking, "This POS cost us $4.5 million dollars."


Other articles of interest

According to this article:

QUOTE:

[Assistant State's Attorney Maria Burnett] also noted that Servin had worked roughly 18 hours on March 20 as an election judge. Servin told Burnett over the course of her investigation, she said, that he'd been heading out to get a burger when he dragged his trash outside and spotted Boyd and Cross.

[and]

Servin told Burnett, meanwhile, that he may have been shot, she said. The officer claimed he heard a gunshot and felt "something" on the back of his head before he began to shoot, Burnett testified.

[source:
https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20150416/north-lawndale/trial-for-detective-who-shot-unarmed-woman-continues-thursday ]


:UNQUOTE.

So Servin "worked roughly 18 hours...as an election judge." So what? How does this irrelevant statement work its way into the proceedings? Was Burnett trying to lay groundwork for a defense that this detective was so tired, he should be excused for his poor judgement?

Maybe Servin heard something that sounded like a gunshot, but as for feeling "something" on the back of his head? Sounds like a lie to me, unless this officer is so skittish that he feels phantom pains when in a stressful situation - especially since he was exhausted after working as an election judge.

From the Chicago Tribune on April 21, 2015:

QUOTE:

[In acquitting Servin] Judge Dennis Porter ruled that prosecutors failed to prove that Dante Servin acted recklessly, saying that Illinois courts have consistently held that any time an individual points a gun at an intended victim and shoots, it is an intentional act, not a reckless one. He all but said prosecutors should have charged Servin with murder, not involuntary manslaughter.

Servin cannot be retried on a murder charge because of double-jeopardy protections...

:UNQUOTE [article by Steve Schmadeke and Jeremy Gorner].

So there we have it: Servin did not act recklessly by firing five shots, while seated in his car, over his left shoulder in the general direction of these four people who, according to some accounts, were in a darkened alley. Servin didn't point "a gun at an intended victim," he pointed it at a group using a technique called spray and pray. His intention was to lash out, holding the entire group responsible by firing away, hoping for the best. Maybe he was afraid that one of the others or all of them had guns. [Sorry, but being "afraid" of a possibility isn't the same as seeing a real gun to which self-defense would be appropriate.]

That hardly sounds like "intention" to kill the one man who Servin said had a gun but who, as it turned out, didn't. Instead, he only had a cell phone in hand. Charges against the "gunman" Antonio Cross were dropped in March of 2013.

Questions for the judge: How could the defendant be charged with murder for killing someone he didn't intend to kill? Doesn't intent factor into a murder charge? If the charge had been murder, would you have decided that Boyd was merely collateral damage and not the intended victim? And for that reason, acquit Servin? Without "intent," we have no crime.


Related Issues

As for double-jeopardy:

The Fifth Amendment says in part:  "...nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb...".  The words "same offense" don't seem to apply, since the first offense which was tried was manslaughter and the second (to be tried?) was murder. The Amendment does not say, "...nor shall any person be subject for any crime to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb by relabeling that crime..."

Also of interest is the term "life or limb." Having been charged with manslaughter, Servin wasn't in any danger of being put in "jeopardy of [his] life." The penalty for this lesser crime did not include either the death penalty or life imprisonment. So later being charged with murder would put him - for the first time - in jeopardy of his life, since that offense carries a possible life sentence. I read, interestingly enough, that the term "life or limb" is taken by the courts to refer to (even non-lethal) punishment in general.

Frankly, I don't see why the judge couldn't have found Servin guilty of murder, even though he had only been charged with manslaughter. I also don't see why this judge's decision can't be appealed. If the judge made a mistake by claiming the charge of manslaughter was inappropriate, then are we to believe that an appellate court wouldn't be allowed to rule on this determination? If the prosecution made a mistake or intentionally undercharged the defendant knowing the judge would acquit, then why aren't we looking at a charge of prosecutorial misconduct?

The Ninth Amendment:

The US Constitution's Ninth Amendment reads as follows:  "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Don't we have the right of self-defense? Even though that's not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, no one's going to argue that we have no such right. In like manner, one such non-enumerated right must be that the cause of justice be served. Rekia Boyd's family deserves justice. It is a travesty that some lapdog judge feels he must find a way to let a guilty man go free, thereby denying that justice.

As for wrongful death:

Why did the city so quickly decide to pay $4.5 million to settle the Boyd family's wrongful death law suit? Note the part I yellowed in the following quote:

QUOTE:

Defining Wrongful Death in Illinois

740 Illinois Compiled Statutes 180 says, "Whenever the death of a person shall be caused by wrongful act, neglect or default, and the act, neglect or default is such as would, if death had not ensued, have entitled the party injured to maintain an action and recover damages," the person or entity that caused the death can be held liable in a wrongful death lawsuit.

[source:
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/wrongful-death-lawsuits-illinois.html ]

:UNQUOTE.

Rekia Boyd's death was not caused by a wrongful act - remember, the detective was acquitted. Therefore, there was no wrongful death. Does our city government have a burning desire to throw money away for no good reason?

And, lastly, we have this quote from an article by Eric Zorn that shoots a hole in the judge's reasoning:

QUOTE:

Others have blasted [Cook County State's Attorney Anita] Alvarez for not recognizing that "Illinois courts have consistently held that when the defendant intends to fire a gun, points it in the general direction of his or her intended victim, and shoots, such conduct is not merely reckless and does not warrant an involuntary manslaughter instruction," to quote from a passage of Porter's ruling that cited previous opinions.

But Illinois courts have not "consistently held" this.

[Zorn's reasoning, as detailed in this link, is persuasive]:

[source:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/zorn/ct-anita-alvarez-dante-servin-manslaughter-murder-chicago-perspec-0426-jm-20150424-column.html ]

:UNQUOTE.


Conclusion

It seems our legal system - either Judge Porter or Alvarez's office - bowed down to the largest street gang in Chicago - the Chicago Police Department.  CPD's motto should read: "We serve and protect - our own. Everyone else can just buzz off."

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Steven Searle, just another member of

the Virtual Samgha of the Lotus and

Former Candidate for USA President (in 2008 & 2012)

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Chicago's Cardinal Francis George: Good Riddance

Introduction

We're not supposed to speak ill of the dead. But I will do so in the case of Chicago's Cardinal Francis George, who passed away on April 17, 2015.  I'll start with a definition of "good riddance."  Definition #1 from the Urban Dictionary*:

"A welcome relief from someone or something undesirable or unwanted."

Just to be clear, it was a welcome relief to me that we have one less cardinal in our midst. Sure, the Catholic Church will continue to appoint replacements of those who pass away. But for at least one blessed moment, we'll have one less. Especially one who is considered a noteworthy intellect. I would add to that: "...a noteworthy intellect who operated well within a closed system." And isn't that what the world of faith is all about? [NOTE: There are exceptions, one of which I'll describe below.]


In the newspaper

In the April 21 edition of the Chicago Tribune** appear two statements concerning the cardinal (which are followed by my comments):

     As often as he could, he invited groups of parish priests in for
     Sunday supper. He encouraged them to bring up any issue on
     their minds. The only subjects off the table were abortion and
     women's ordination.

     "Of course, we don't know what happens to us after we die,"
     he said not many months ago when his battle with cancer was
     clearly lost.

As for that first statement: Why take anything off the table, especially women's ordination? As for abortion, this should have been discussed if only to brainstorm on ways to fight against it in the courts. Same for the issue of gay marriage, assuming that subject was off the table as well (perhaps Woodward forgot to include that subject among the other two he cited.) These two links connect to my essays on abortion and gay marriage:

http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2011/01/are-unborn-citizens.html

http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2014/07/reflections-on-gay-marriage.html

As for the cardinal's second statement, which I'll recap:  "Of course, we don't know what happens to us after we die." I didn't know it was in fashion for princes of the church to lapse into agnosticism when death stares them in the face.


My view of Catholicism

Many people had become Catholics because their parents inherited that faith and passed it down to them. Then there are those who converted simply because some long-dead king from their country of origin adopted that faith, so therefore all of his subjects converted. Too bad about that last (which is really just a subset of the opening sentence of this paragraph) - we tend to obey long-dead kings far too long.  Then there are untold millions of poor souls who had been converted by missionaries, who in turn were backed up by armies.

In other words - too many had become Catholics for bad reasons. I'll go so far as to say, "No one with a functioning brain that they use with an open mind could possibly embrace Catholicism." I'll extend that to include all of the other branches of the Abrahamic faiths as well. As for other faiths? I can only speak about Buddhism due to my 24 years of religious practice in that tradition.

Now I'll return to the passage of a cardinal and the man who was a cardinal.

A cardinal is a prince of the church, and as such shares responsibility for its evils as well as its good works. The evils far outweigh the good works, as evidenced (for example) in an excellent, very readable, well-researched book by Helen Ellerbe called The Dark Side of Christian History (1995). This link will direct you to a complete, free, on-line version of this book in pdf format:

http://ethosworld.com/library/Ellerbe-The-Dark-Side-of-Christian-History-%281995%29.pdf

As for the man, it is possible for a man to perform good works, even while being a member of a group that - overall - does great harm and had done so for centuries. Such a man - unless he's is total denial - must be aware on some level of the evils committed in the name of his faith. But he probably rationalizes these evils as things that should be swept under the rug in the name of the greater good. After all, if taken in full at face value, the Church's lay believers would become disillusioned to the point of abandoning the Church. Then what? Anarchy would ensue, threatening the stability and sense of community that institution provides.

However, I've noticed that people who too easily sweep things under the rug in one realm of their lives end up doing so in other realms as well. For instance, a man who beats his wife "believes" he has good reason for doing so. Worse than that? His wife also comes to believe in the validity of his "reasons." Given this, Cardinal Francis George and all of the other cardinals are engaged in an enterprise that severely compromises the spiritual growth of their congregations. And that is perhaps the greatest evil of all.


What the world of faith is all about

This is how I ended the Introduction to this essay:

     I would add to that: "...a noteworthy intellect that operated
     well within a closed system." And isn't that what the world
     of faith is all about? [NOTE: There are exceptions, one of
     which I'll describe below.]

Once a person accepts God as a savior, he becomes immersed in a closed system. Once a person accepts Buddha as a teacher, he becomes immersed in an open system.  One has to accept God without any expectation of proof.  One can accept Buddha, acquiring proof of the veracity of his teachings as a consequence of practice. He ends up knowing that Buddha is not a god and that even the untold trillions of gods in the universe aspire to become one of the fully enlightened trillions of buddhas.

If one practices the Lotus Sutra, one comes to realize that it would make equal sense to believe in either of these two statements:

• The universe was created by a God, who Himself was not created since God always was and always will be.

• The universe doesn't require something to have created it, since the universe always was and always will be; things within the universe are born, live, and die but the universe itself was never born and will never die. Why should it?

No one who believes in the first statement will ever meet God - at least not in this lifetime.

Anyone who practices the Lotus Sutra will acquire the knowledge of the second statement, without having to first believe. This is called attaining the wisdom that comes of itself - Buddha wisdom.

I myself was introduced to Buddhist practice 40 years ago. Prior to that, I was an agnostic. Friends introduced me to Buddhism, saying, "You don't have to believe, you just have to practice. Belief will come as a result of your practice, which includes meditation." Even though I am no longer with the particular Buddhist sect I had joined in the early 70's, my practice guided me down the path I'm currently on. And that is as a practitioner without a congregation - a solitary practitioner. But that's alright - since the Lotus Sutra mentions that as an acceptable form of practice.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Steven Searle, just another member of

The Virtual Samgha of the Lotus and

Former Candidate for USA President (in 2008 & 2012)

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Footnotes:

*
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=good+riddance

**
RE: The article written by Kenneth L. Woodward, "Chicago's accidental archbishop," Chicago Tribune, April 21, 2015.

Moses's little penis

Introduction

Did Moses have a little penis? Or were there other reasons for the sexual hang-up concerning nakedness which has plagued believers over the millennia? These are some of the questions I will explore today.

According to Jewish tradition, Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible. This is a view embraced by many Christians as well, though there are advocates who attribute authorship to multiple sources. For the purpose of today's post, I will assume that Moses wrote these books.


About the Tree of Life

God didn't say anything about the fruit of the Tree of Life. He only said, in Genesis Chapter 2 (see Footnote 1):

     16 And HaShem G-d commanded the man, saying: 'Of every tree of
     the garden thou mayest freely eat;
     17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not
     eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.'

When Eve was tempted by the serpent, she was directed to eat of the Tree of Knowledge. When she expressed her fear of dying as a consequence, the serpent didn't really answer that. Eve would have been better off by first eating the fruit of the Tree of Life (which was not prohibited by God) and then eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. That first fruit would have granted her immortality; the second, knowledge.

Apparently, God thought better of it and decided to deny to Adam and Eve access to the Tree of Life, per these two verses in Chapter 3 of Genesis:

     23 Therefore HaShem G-d sent him forth from the garden of Eden,
     to till the ground from whence he was taken.
     24 So He drove out the man; and He placed at the east of the garden
     of Eden the cherubim, and the flaming sword which turned every way,
     to keep the way to the tree of life.

Verse 17, above, presents another problem: When Eve ate the forbidden fruit, she didn't die "in the day that thou eatest thereof." Was this God's first lie or did He simply change His mind?


As for being ashamed of nakedness

Genesis, Chapter 2, ends with this line (verse 25):  "And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed."

However, the very next chapter has this line (verse 10):

     And he [Adam] said: 'I heard Thy voice in the garden, and I was
     afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.'

As for verse 25, why should Adam and Eve have been ashamed? They had later eaten of the Tree of Knowledge, which then made them ashamed. Why would mere possession of the Knowledge of Good and Evil induce shame? Answer: Because God had willed that it be so - that knowing should cause shame.

A better explanation can be had by considering that Moses had written Genesis. And that the shame that nudity "should" cause had nothing to do with knowledge or of God's will. It was Moses's own insecurity that made him write these words about nudity causing shame. And maybe that insecurity had everything to do with Moses having a little penis. History down to our own age is filled with men having small penises who felt they had to overcompensate. It's too bad that Moses had to deal with his own shortcomings, as it were, by pretending he had written words coming from God Himself.

As for verse 10, it would have made more sense that Adam would have been afraid because he had done something God had forbidden. But to be afraid "because I was naked?" Maybe Moses hid himself from God because he feared castration at the hands of the Almighty for having disobeyed Him. It's not unusual for sons to have a fear of castration at the hands of a father much bigger and stronger than they - a father who would understand all too well these words spoken by the Lord: "I am an angry and jealous God."

Also, a man stripped naked can be afraid because he is vulnerable to other men who would be able to more easily attack his most sensitive part.


Diogenes and the Zo'é People

Diogenes of Sinope (412BC - 323BC) was reputed to have masturbated and engaged in other sexual acts in public. Perhaps he had not read Genesis and was, therefore, ignorant of the "fact" that he should have been ashamed of such exposure.

In our modern age, the Zo'é people of Brazil (all 256 of them, as of 2010) present an interesting case about a tribe unaware that they should be ashamed of their nakedness. They had been cut off from civilization (and I use that term very loosely) until about 80 years ago. They wear no clothes and it's not unusual for their women to have as many as five husbands. I saw footage of them interacting with photographer Sebastiao Salgado in the recently-released film "Salt of the Earth." They seemed genuinely happy. Perhaps that's because they either hadn't been exposed to Genesis or, wisely, had rejected it as too far-fetched.

As I read more and more of the words of Genesis, I had been tempted to conclude, "You can't make this kind of stuff up." But then I realized, "Oh, yes you can." I'm just surprised at how this ill-conceived piece of literature had been so successfully foisted on us for so long.

Won't wonders ever cease? Perhaps they won't but one can only hope that they will be better rendered in writing by future charlatans.

                                                    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Steven Searle, just another member of the
Virtual Samgha of the Lotus and
Former Candidate for USA President (in 2008 & 2012)

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Footnote 1:

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Bible/Genesistoc.html