Image 01 Image 03

Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion

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

LATEST NEWS

We have covered the recent shooting death by police of a handcuffed suspect in Georgia: By now we've all heard expounded the major theme propounded by protesters that a handcuffed suspect could never present a danger of death or grave bodily harm necessary to justify the officer's use of deadly force. Let's bust that myth. On Friday commenter MikeAT, who runs the very interesting blog A Cop's Watch, was kind enough to provide links to a couple of terrible cases in which handcuffed suspects not only presented police officers with death or grave bodily harm, they actually killed them. Both cases referred to by MikeAT are drawn from the web site "Officer Down Memorial Page."

Police Officer Guy P. Gaddis, Houston Police Department

Officer Guy Gaddis
Officer Guy Gaddis [24-years-old] was shot and killed while transporting two handcuffed prisoners to jail. One of the prisoners had managed to conceal a gun and shoot Officer Gaddis twice in the back of the head. The suspect was convicted and sentenced to death. He was subsequently executed on January 22nd, 2014.

Congressman Adam Schiff of California appeared on FOX News Sunday today and said rather plainly that congress has pretty much given up on the rules. Patrick Brennan of National Review has the details:
Dem Congressman: Is Congress Abdicating Its Consitutional War Powers? ‘Absolutely’ Asked this morning by Fox News’s Chris Wallace whether Congress is forfeiting its responsibilities by recessing before voting on whether to authorize a new war in Iraq and Syria, one Democratic congressman was blunt: “Absolutely,” California congressman Adam Schiff said. A member of the House intelligence committee, Schiff argued “the president has said this is a war, this is going to last years, this is quintessentially something that the Constitution empowered only Congress to declare.
Here's the video: Last week, Schiff wrote a piece for Time Magazine on the same subject:

A few weeks ago I wrote a post titled "When can you legally use a gun against an unarmed person?"  That post discussed the self-defense law element of proportionality, with a particular emphasis on disparity of force, to explore (as the title suggests) when a gun could be used against an unlawful attacker even if that attacker was armed with no more than their bare hands. Out of Oregon this past Monday comes a classic real-life example of exactly this scenario, in which one man armed with a .38 pistol shot another, completely unarmed man in the chest, killing him, as reported by local KTVZ News 21.  Although the matter has not yet been adjudicated, no arrests have been made and all witnesses are cooperating with the police investigation.  Further, the Sheriff leading the investigation has made public statements emphasizing the disparity of force between the shooter and the victim, strongly suggesting he considers the use of the gun to be justified.

We have covered the anti-Israel academic boycott movement so many times, the easiest way to come up to speed is to scroll through the American Studies Association Tag starting at the earliest date. The short version is that anti-Zionist, anti-Israel academic activists for years have maneuvered to take over professional organizations in order to bring the war against Israel home to campuses. Their biggest success to date is the ASA, but they continue their efforts elsewhere. The loudest mouths get all the attention, while the majority of people in academia who do not support academic boycotts (of Israel or any other nation) mostly go about their business and watch from the sidelines. There have been strong institutional expressions against academic BDS, most prominently by over 250 university presidents, the American Association of University Professors, and numerous higher education associations. Now, a Petition is circulating that gives individuals on campus an opportunity to go on record against the academic boycott of Israel.   [caption id="attachment_100289" align="alignnone" width="600"]http://facultyforacademicfreedom.org/ (Click on Image to go to Petition page)[/caption] You don't have to be "pro-Israel" to sign.  You only need to be pro-academic freedom, pro-fairness, pro-intellectual honesty, pro-education and pro-peace. The Petition quietly went live online last week, and already has over 500 signatures, including some very prominent academics from a wide variety of academic disciplines: International Petition to Oppose Boycotts of Israel's Academic Institutions, Scholars and Students. Legal Insurrection reader crowdsourcing was critical in responding to the ASA boycott.  We can do it again by spreading the word as to the Petition on Facebook, Twitter and by personal contacts. Here's an excerpt from the Petition:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is worried. For the past year, Republican candidates have been campaigning to take back the Senate under the "Fire Reid" mantra, highlighting Reid's failure to run a cohesive body capable of actually passing legislation. Even now, with less than two months to go until the 2014 midterms, Reid is doing what he can to brush off criticism. Via Politico:
As he’s tightened his grip on the Senate and protected vulnerable Democrats from casting politically tough votes, furious Republicans have made the mantra “fire Reid” a rallying cry and major fundraising push ahead of the midterm elections. But in Reid’s mind, Republicans are training all their fire on a guy most voters barely even know. “I’m meaningless,” Reid, a three-decade Hill veteran and the most powerful Democrat in Congress, told POLITICO Thursday. “People in red states don’t even know who I am.”
I'll give Reid partial credit for this response---it is certain that there are a great deal of people out there who have no idea who Harry Reid is, or that Harry Reid exists at all. But when it comes to political messaging, that doesn't matter.

Everyone suddenly seems to like the idea of having Condoleezza Rice take over leadership of the NFL for some reason. Judy Kurtz of The Hill recently wrote:
Condoleezza Rice: NFL commissioner? Now, some are saying Condoleezza Rice — who expressed an interest in the NFL job before — should replace Goodell. A Tuesday editorial in The Washington Post wrote that the NFL is “an institution in dire need” of Rice’s help, with a blaring headline: “Condi Rice: The one person who could save the NFL.” According to a 2002 story in The New York Times, “[Rice] wants to be commissioner of the National Football League. She is serious. ‘That's absolutely right,' she said, 'though not immediately and not before Paul Tagliabue is ready to step down. I want to say that for the record.’”
While that may seem like a great idea, it could also be a waste of her talent. Shouldn't she aspire to a higher office? Allahpundit of Hot Air knows what I'm talking about:

It started out sounding like a classic racial profiling case. A white man is in a car kissing a black woman. The cops pull up, suspecting it's a case of prostitution. It wasn't. Just a husband and wife having a little fun, until the worst stereotypes of black women infected police minds. The woman was handcuffed, cried. And her wrists were cut by the handcuffs. The couple claimed the police approached only because they were an interracial couple. And it went viral. I remember seeing it at Buzzfeed via Twitter, and thinking: Not good. But then something happened. Neighbors -- the ones who called the police in the first place because of allegedly lewd public exposure -- produced photos that appeared to show the couple doing the nasty in the front seat. In broad daylight. While parked in a visible and trafficked area. TMZ was all over it:

Post-September 11, George W. Bush encouraged Americans to return to normalcy. Go shopping, go to restaurants, don't be afraid. When the dust settled and it became clear that our enemy was al Qaeda, the joke became, "don't let the terrorists win!" Not in the mood to grab a beer? "Don't let the terrorist win!" And so on. When I read this article, "don't let the terrorists win!" seemed an appropriate response. The Washington Post reported:
Busch Gardens — which operates parks in Williamsburg, Va., and Tampa, Fla. — said in a statement that it has stopped using the props during Howl-O-Scream, an event that is already underway at the Virginia park. “Many of the scenes depicted at Busch Gardens’ Howl-O-Scream are graphic in nature, but they are fictional and are not intended to provide commentary on current world events,” Busch Gardens Williamsburg communications manager Kevin Crossett said in a statement. “The props in this year’s event were designed and purchased several months ago. “In light of recent events, some of these props have the unintended consequence of appearing insensitive and are being removed. Busch Gardens apologizes for any offense they may have caused.” Howl-O-Scream is scheduled to open in Florida later this month, according to the park’s Web site.
But it looks like this was all the fault of the Virginia Gazette who posted pics of the exhibit on their front page:

With the midterms approaching and Obama's approval rating in the gutter, vulnerable Democrats are avoiding any discussion of one particular subject. Obama. Colby Itkowitz of the Washington Post has the story:
These days, Democrats aren’t talking much about Obama in congressional speeches When President Obama took office in 2009, congressional Democrats were euphoric. With control of the House, Senate and the White House, and high public approval for their new party standard bearer, Democrats eagerly embraced Obama and all the long-awaited policy initiatives he’d surely help them achieve. In that first month, congressional Democrats mentioned Obama during floor speeches 200 or so more times than Republicans. In the next year and a half, the parties referred to the president at similar rates, sometimes with the Republicans having more to say, other times the Democrats. One can reasonably assume that when the Democrats speak of the president publicly it’s in a favorable way and when Republicans do it’s, well, not quite as glowing. As positive public opinion of Obama began to dip after his first year, the spread between how often Republicans and the Democrats invoked Obama grew wider. Put simply, the Democrats weren’t mentioning Obama by name nearly as much as Republicans.
How could this be?

Two days after the shooting of 29-year-old black man Charles Smith, a wanted felon, by Savannah GA police officer David Jannot, new information is finally being revealed about both men, as reported by WSAV News, an NBC television affiliate in Savannah, GA. Particularly interesting finds by WSAV include Smith's arrest record and his apparent Facebook page.

Smith's Arrests Included Aggravated Assault, Cruelty to Child

It had previously been reported that Smith had served at least three felony sentences. Candid photographs apparently taken in prison reveal extensive tattoos, including one running from shoulder-shoulder under his neck stating "Cut Throat." [caption id="attachment_100196" align="alignnone" width="450"]Charles Smith tattoos in prison Charles Smith, apparently in prison, showing tattoos.[/caption]