Yes - Fear The Grandmothers!
This week, PBU has chosen a topic which is a little small on the grand scheme of things but highlights an important message. We must concern ourselves with prosecuting to the fullest extent those senior citizens that insist on protesting and/or carrying knitting needles on board aircraft. *snicker*
I abbreviated the article for those readers with a short attention span that like blogs to only be three paragraphs long. If you want to read it in full, please follow this link.
Rosemarie Jackowski, 68, is appealing before the Vermont Supreme Court her conviction for disorderly conduct at an anti-war protest on March 20, 2003, at the Four Corners (a jury found the 4-feet, 10-inch grandmother guilty last year of intending to block traffic and annoy drivers). Saltonstall, her lawyer, said Judge Suntag made a mistake by telling jurors that if they found that Jackowski knew she would block traffic, then she intended to block traffic. "Intending for something to happen and knowing something will happen are two different things," said Saltonstall. Saltonstall argued that even if Jackowski stopped the flow of traffic, she didn't intend that to happen. In the same way, when the government drops bombs in Iraq, it does not intend for Iraqi civilians to die, but it knows that will happen, he said. But McManus, who prosecuted Jackowski, said the two need not be separated. My addition: this guy will never be hired as a spin doctor for Bush - loser
Police asked Jackowski, one of 12 protesters, to leave the street. McManus said that when Jackowski refused to move from the intersection, she showed that she intended to block traffic and knowingly annoy drivers. Jackowski had only a single goal in mind. "Her full focus was on the death of innocent Iraqi children," said Saltonstall. The protest sign carried by Jackowski, she and her lawyer say, clearly showed that. That sign, though shown to the jury during the trial, was not provided as evidence for the jury to more thoroughly review later. McManus said he never wanted the jury to view the sign, which included a photograph of an Iraqi child, because it would arouse the jury's passions. "A picture of a dying baby on a gurney is only intended to inflame the jury," said McManus.
FYI: the maximum penalty for disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor, is two months in jail and a $500 fine. The local Reparative Board, however, typically requires defendants to perform community service. Jackowski stated that she would refuse to perform community service, preferring to go to jail instead saying, "The reason is, how can you do that if you're in a state of resistance to the government?" Saltonstall said based on his experience, it will be six to 12 months before the Supreme Court decides the appeal.
Mmm, 6-12 months to figure out if we should send a 68 year old woman to jail for two months because she slowed up traffic in some town in Vermont protesting the deaths of innocent children directly caused by our government's warmongering ways. Okay... I'll bite, what else is on the docket? Oh wait, I know. There is that case of the 79 year old man with prescription pot who is being tried for possession with the intent to sell as his teenage grandson asked about that possibility in a public restaurant and a nosey-uberchristian-right-wing-it's-none-of-my-business-but-I-will-butt-in-anyway decided to take that overheard comment to the cops which then got totally misrepresented and misquoted when they took her statement (totally made that up - but could happen).
I abbreviated the article for those readers with a short attention span that like blogs to only be three paragraphs long. If you want to read it in full, please follow this link.
Rosemarie Jackowski, 68, is appealing before the Vermont Supreme Court her conviction for disorderly conduct at an anti-war protest on March 20, 2003, at the Four Corners (a jury found the 4-feet, 10-inch grandmother guilty last year of intending to block traffic and annoy drivers). Saltonstall, her lawyer, said Judge Suntag made a mistake by telling jurors that if they found that Jackowski knew she would block traffic, then she intended to block traffic. "Intending for something to happen and knowing something will happen are two different things," said Saltonstall. Saltonstall argued that even if Jackowski stopped the flow of traffic, she didn't intend that to happen. In the same way, when the government drops bombs in Iraq, it does not intend for Iraqi civilians to die, but it knows that will happen, he said. But McManus, who prosecuted Jackowski, said the two need not be separated. My addition: this guy will never be hired as a spin doctor for Bush - loser
Police asked Jackowski, one of 12 protesters, to leave the street. McManus said that when Jackowski refused to move from the intersection, she showed that she intended to block traffic and knowingly annoy drivers. Jackowski had only a single goal in mind. "Her full focus was on the death of innocent Iraqi children," said Saltonstall. The protest sign carried by Jackowski, she and her lawyer say, clearly showed that. That sign, though shown to the jury during the trial, was not provided as evidence for the jury to more thoroughly review later. McManus said he never wanted the jury to view the sign, which included a photograph of an Iraqi child, because it would arouse the jury's passions. "A picture of a dying baby on a gurney is only intended to inflame the jury," said McManus.
FYI: the maximum penalty for disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor, is two months in jail and a $500 fine. The local Reparative Board, however, typically requires defendants to perform community service. Jackowski stated that she would refuse to perform community service, preferring to go to jail instead saying, "The reason is, how can you do that if you're in a state of resistance to the government?" Saltonstall said based on his experience, it will be six to 12 months before the Supreme Court decides the appeal.
Mmm, 6-12 months to figure out if we should send a 68 year old woman to jail for two months because she slowed up traffic in some town in Vermont protesting the deaths of innocent children directly caused by our government's warmongering ways. Okay... I'll bite, what else is on the docket? Oh wait, I know. There is that case of the 79 year old man with prescription pot who is being tried for possession with the intent to sell as his teenage grandson asked about that possibility in a public restaurant and a nosey-uberchristian-right-wing-it's-none-of-my-business-but-I-will-butt-in-anyway decided to take that overheard comment to the cops which then got totally misrepresented and misquoted when they took her statement (totally made that up - but could happen).
0 Comments:
Post a Comment