Image 01 Image 03

Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion

/var/www/vhosts/legalinsurrection.com/httpdocs/wp-content/themes/bridge-child/readFeeds.incFALSE

Repeat "Blame Bush" ad infinitum -- it works!...

LATEST NEWS

Welcome to day two of our live coverage of the "loud music" 1st degree murder trial of Michael Dunn in real time. Here are a couple live video feeds, with the smaller, upper-most feed proving the most reliable yesterday. At the bottom of the post is a live Twitter feed with my live tweets and those of others reporting on the trial:

Note: You may reprint this cartoon provided you link back to this source.  To see more Legal Insurrection Branco cartoons, click here. Branco’s page is Cartoonist A.F.Branco...

The key legal narratives of both the State and defense began to emerge this afternoon as the Michael Dunn "loud music" murder trial kicked off with an afternoon launch. Dunn, 47-years-old, is charged with 1st degree murder for the shooting death of 17-year-old Jordan Davis. The State believes Dunn shot Jordan out of anger over Jordan's loud music, whereas Dunn claims he shot in lawful self-defense. Dunn is also charged with attempted murder for shooting the other three young men in the car, Leland Brunson, Tevin Thompson, and Tommie Storns. Finally, he is charged with the offense of firing a gun into an occupied vehicle. The trial started with Judge Russel Healey instructing the jury on their responsibilities in hearing the case, as well as various procedural facets common to any criminal trial.

Assistant State Attorney John Guy Delivers Opening for Prosecution

Following these introductory remarks, the State's opening was presented by Assistant State Attorney John Guy, and delivered in the emotive style so familiar from his performances during the Zimmerman trial. Alas, he chose to speak in such a soft voice that he was essentially inaudible. The use of headphones, however, makes it possible to hear his remarks. Consistent with the state going for 1st degree murder, and barring that 2nd degree murder, Guy emphasized the several concrete steps Dunn had to take in order to bring fire upon the Durango -- open glove compartment, remove pistol, chamber a round, grip the gun with both hands, fire, fire again, fire again, etc. -- all presumably to set the hook for premeditation and first degree murder. In addition, he emphasized Dunn's angry use of deadly force violence in response to being, as Guy put it, merely disrespected, to set the hook for malice necessary for second degree murder.

Attorney Cory Strolla Delivers Opening for the Defense

Defense Attorney Cory Strolla spent roughly twice as much time on his opening remarks, focusing on the three themes beloved by all defense counsel. First, the evidence is weak and contradictory and was collected and evaluated by police and prosecutors in an unprofessional and untrusthworthy manner. Second, if any one of the jurors has not been convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of Dunn's guilt, "stick to your guns" and do not allow yourself to be persuaded by the other jurors -- each of you is bound to make your own decision. And three, if you can hold off coming to a conclusion until we have a chance to present our side of things, you'll see that there are reasonable explanations for our client's conduct on every front.

James Carville has found a new home at FOX News. From FOX News: Veteran Democratic strategist James Carville has been hired as a Fox News contributor. The former Bill Clinton adviser will join the network to provide political commentary. Bill Shine, executive vice president of programming, announced the...

While legislation regarding academic boycotts is stalled in the NY State Assembly after widespread protests, a federal bill has been introduced by House Chief Deputy Whip Peter Roskam (R., Ill.) and Rep. Dan Lipinski (D., Ill.). The bill is embedded at the bottom of this post. Roskam was one of the Congressman behind the Letter signed by 134 Members of the House condeming the anti-Israel boycott by the American Studies Association. The new Bill cuts off funding for institutions of higher education "if the Secretary [of Education] determines that such institution is participating in a boycott of Israeli academic institutions or scholars." "Participation" is defined as:
if the institution, any significant part of the institution, or any organization significantly funded by the institution adopts a policy or resolution, issues a statement, or otherwise formally establishes the restriction of discourse, cooperation, exchange, or any other involvement with academic institutions or scholars on the basis of the connection of such institutions or such scholars to the State of Israel.
My first and quick read is that the Bill, as drafted, is unlikely to accomplish the desired effect. It will make martyrs of the academic boycotters, who are in fact the villains, and amounts to a blunt instrument to deal with a narrow problem. There is no university, that I'm aware of, currently even contemplating an academic boycott of Israel. Also, the definition of "participation" is sufficiently broad that it will ignite serious pushback from universities. The ASA, which had been a pariah, now will be defended by people who are against the academic boycott, but even more against such legislation. I think there are ways to deal with the ASA and related academic boycotts. I'm not sure this Bill is one of those ways, as it puts at risk universities, not the ASA. The story was first reported by Adam Kredo at The Washington Free Beacon:
The “Protect Academic Freedom Act,” jointly filed by House Chief Deputy Whip Peter Roskam (R., Ill.) and Rep. Dan Lipinski (D., Ill.) could serve as a deterrent to other groups considering Israeli boycotts. It would amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 “to prohibit an institution that participates in a boycott of Israeli academic institutions or scholars from being eligible” to receive federal funds, according to text of the legislation. “Attempts to single out Israel for discriminatory boycotts violates the principle of academic freedom guaranteed by the United States,” the bill states.

John Kerry has done a great disservice to the peace process by pumping up the anti-Israel boycott movement far beyond its reality, and doing so in a way that was widely and accurately perceived as a bullying threat to Israel.  Such overhyping only serves to entrench those who think Israel can be pressured into giving up key security considerations. At the Munich Security Conference last week, Kerry said :
I believe that – and you see for Israel there’s an increasing de-legitimization campaign that has been building up. People are very sensitive to it. There are talk of boycotts and other kinds of things. Are we all going to be better with all of that? ... ... not to mention that today’s status quo absolutely, to a certainty, I promise you 100 percent, cannot be maintained. It’s not sustainable. It’s illusionary. There’s a momentary prosperity, there’s a momentary peace. Last year, not one Israeli was killed by a Palestinian from the West Bank. This year, unfortunately, there’s been an uptick in some violence. But the fact is the status quo will change if there is failure. So everybody has a stake in trying to find the pathway to success.
The reaction was furious, and in some cases hyperventilated, because this is not the first time Kerry has held a Palestinian protest  sword over Israel's head.  In November, Kerry warned Israel it faced a Third Intifada:
"The alternative to getting back to the talks is the potential of chaos," Kerry said. "Does Israel want a third intifada?"
This all is diplomatic foolishness. Expressing "concerns" in public has a way of creating its own reality that such expressions in private do not.  Abe Foxman of the ADL was correct in this assessment:
In speaking about the price Israel will pay if the peace talks break down and Israel is blamed, you may have thought you were merely describing reality. But as the key player in the process, the impact of your comments was to create a reality of its own. Describing the potential for expanded boycotts of Israel makes it more, not less, likely that the talks will not succeed; makes it more, not less, likely that Israel will be blamed if the talks fail; and more, not less, likely that boycotts will ensue. Your comments, irrespective of your intentions, will inevitably be seen by Palestinians and anti-Israel activists as an incentive not to reach an agreement; as an indicator that if things fall apart, Israel will be blamed; and as legitimizing boycott activity.
David Horovitz, founder of The Times of Israel and someone I've always viewed as a voice of moderation, calls him The petulant Secretary Kerry:

As we did during the Zimmerman trial, we plan to cover the "loud music" 1st degree murder trial of Michael Dunn in real time. Here are a couple live video feeds, we're not yet sure which will prove more reliable. At the bottom of the post is a live Twitter feed with my live tweets and those of others reporting on the trial:

Note: You may reprint this cartoon provided you link back to this source.  To see more Legal Insurrection Branco cartoons, click here. Branco’s page is Cartoonist A.F.Branco...

The Florida "loud music" murder trial begins at Noon today. As you'll recall, 47-year-old Michael Dunn is charged with 1st degree murder (FL Statute 782.04) in the shooting death of 17-year-old Jordan Davis, and the attempted murder of three of Davis' companions, all of whom were also struck by bullets.  Dunn claims that he fired in self-defense.  The State argues that Dunn killed only because he objected to the youths' loud music. State Attorney Angela Corey (pictured above) will be leading the prosecution in the court room, along with Assistant State Attorney John Guy.  The defense counsel is Attorney Cory Strolla. [caption id="attachment_77831" align="alignnone" width="450"]Attorney Michael Dunn, speaking to defendant Michael Dunn in "loud music" murder trial (Attorney Cory Strolla, speaking to defendant Michael Dunn)[/caption] The jury selection process was completed yesterday, with 16 jurors empaneled.  Although no video or audio was broadcast during voir dire (in sharp contrast to the Zimmerman trial), thanks to the excellent on-location work of journalist Stephanie Brown of WOKV, we enjoy some understand of the jurors' profiles and possible perspectives. Juror J7 Juror J10 Juror J12

An early morning report from Reuters on Thursday indicated that Ukraine’s parliament has agreed to try and work on a joint bill on constitutional amendments. The parties in Ukraine's deadlocked parliament agreed on Thursday to try to draft a joint bill on constitutional amendments that could...

Former American Idol star Clay Aiken has officially announced his bid for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives in the second district of North Carolina. The seat is currently held by Republican Rep. Renee Ellmers.  (Some may remember the videotaped message that Ellmers made in 2010 for readers of Legal Insurrection). In a video posted at his campaign website, Aiken talks about his background outside of just American Idol.  He recounts his personal story of childhood affected by domestic violence, and discusses his time teaching special education students, then going on to work with groups like UNICEF. Aiken claims he realized that people will need to work together to solve our problems. "I'm a Democrat," Aiken said on the video.  "But it was when I was appointed by President Bush to serve on a special presidential commission to address the educational challenges of children with special needs. That was when I first realized that our problems won't be solved by only one party or the other. But instead, it's going to require all of us." And then, Aiken promptly took aim at Ellmers.

Yesterday we covered the CBO Report on loss of labor provided by workers as a result of Obamacare subsidies,  CBO confirms Obamacare subsidies create disincentive to work harder. It's all about how the implicit marginal tax rate -- taxes plus loss of benefits -- creates a disincentive to work hard because for each dollar you earn, you lose a huge percentage, sometimes more than 100%, of that earned dollar through higher taxes and loss of government benefits. It is economically rational, in this circumstance, not to work harder.  It has nothing to do with laziness, but with government creating an incentive not to work. Here's the testimony today from Doug Elmendorf, head of the Congressional Budget Office, via National Review:
“By providing heavily subsidized health insurance to people with very low income, and then withdrawing those subsidies as income rises, the act creates a disincentive for people to work relative to what would have been the case in the absence of that act,” Douglas Elmendorf told the House Budget Committee on Wednesday. “By providing a subsidy, these people are better off, but they do have less of an incentive to work.”
None of this is new. Here's Elmendorf's testimony from February 2011 regarding the same effect, although at that time the projection was only 800,000 jobs: