In Reply: Schadenfreudian Perks and Petar Hoistin'

In reply to the following comment at the Lawyers, Guns & Money post "Concerning Brett Kimberlin, Patrick Frey, Aaron Worthing, etc."

"And you know, I’d be a bit more sympathetic to Mr. Walker if he had’t linked to Donald Douglas complaining about this very blog as an example of people who had undergone similar experiences..."

Yeah, that is unfortunate... but even that hasn't been without it's schadenfreudian perks at the hands of several of his fellow rightwing bloggers, once Donalde started likening his trials and tribulations to those of Kimberlin's victims...and came up looking to some of 'em more like Kimberlin than like Aaron.
---
And on that score, I couldn't help but notice how something Aaron recently quoted Kimberlin as saying:

"His false narrative that I framed him is defamatory and inciting extremists to threaten me. He is responsible for their conduct."

sounded all too familiar:

"I banned YOU. But you publicly admitted my wishes were to be disrespected and that you would taunt, harass, and intimidate "whenever and wherever I choose."

And one of those places was my college. YOU had henchmen do it for you so you could claim plausible denial. But the cat's out now. YOU are liable."

(My henchmen contacted Aaron's extremists, and I'm given to understand our minions are all going on a picnic next weekend to trade "does your eeeeevil genius boss suck as much as my eeeeevil genius boss?" war stories.)
---

Sometimes it's better to just let their own petar do the hoistin'...
~~~

Posted June 27, 2012 at 2:41 pm

In Reply: It ain't about left v right... It's about right v wrong. (#Kimberlin, Patterico's Pontifications)

In reply to: Patterico's Pontifications ~ Aaron Walker SWATted
---

"The part that sickens me is that if lefties were getting SWATted, fringe right people would say the same kind of crap. We’ve reached the point where many don’t even see political opponents as people."

Amen, Patterico.

Many folks have talked about these issues for what they are; the badass nasty dangerous tactics of some pretty awful (and likely not quite sane) people, and in the case of Aaron especially, attacks on free speech. (To be honest, I've spent alot more time following and commenting about Aaron's situation because there was a clearly identified villan and the whole thing was much easier to understand. The rest is pretty speculative, with shadowy characters that all sound a little too Truther/Birther conspiratorial to get a handle on...)

For too many others though, the whole thing has become a convenient way to attack the left, which makes it that much harder for libs to stand up for free speech and no threats, SWATting, or lawfare for all. Anon--who writes in an awful familiar tone, btw--is just one example of the kind of attacks we on the left face when talking about this. Anytime folks try to talk about these attacks in a non-partisan way--or God / FSM / heaven forbid, actually say these are NOT left vs right, lib vs con issues--there is some pretty intense pushback, including from some of the more involved players (My most recent run-in was with Lee Stranahan, who jumped into a Twitter conversation stream between Liberty_chick and I, just to assert that we were wrong, and it IS a left vs right issue.)

Partisanship has it's place, but not when people are having armed units sent to their houses and having their free speech rights curtailed. Those who insist on making these attacks on (mostly) rightwing bloggers into examples of just what all eeeeevil commie-nihilist liberal leftists are like... ...Well, all I can say is, you may be helping your cause, but that cause isn't justice for the folks who've been SWATted or sued by these dangerous individuals. Far be it for some crazy lib like me to tell you what to do here... ...but if you're making this a referendum on liberals, instead of a war for free speech and safe congress for all of us, you really ought to rethink what you're doing, and why. (Don't listen to me if you suspect my motives or my sincerity are not up to your exacting standards; instead, listen to the many voices on your own side of the partisan fence preaching from the same gospel as I am. It ain't about left v right... It's about right v wrong.)

~~~

No one, no matter their politics, deserves to have the police sent to their house under false pretenses, period.

No one, no matter their politics, deserves to be threatened with acts of violence to themselves or their families, or acts of vandalism to their property, period.

No one, no matter their politics, deserves to be repeatedly dragged into court under false or frivolous pretenses in an effort to keep them quiet, period. (...though here, I blame the legal system almost as much as the serial litigants themselves. Anti-SLAPP laws and a more informed judiciary would go a long way, here.)

I don't think I could be any more clear as to where I stand, but if I was the slightest bit vague, I'll do what I can to clarify... (FWIW, I got SEK's initial comment, eventually... but it took several readings to figure out his meaning and intent in posting what he did. I have faith that his blog post will be far more clear.)
---

Posted 6/26/2012 @ 1:29 am PP blog time.

In Reply: "Not everyone who is accused of some criminal or civil breach is actually guilty...and for me, that tips the scale in favor of defense attorneys as heroes."

In reply to the following comment at the Allergic to Bull post "Memo to Texas “Civil Rights” Group: Fathers (Allegedly) Defending Their Daughters From Sexual Assault Have Rights, Too"

Thing is, most people aren't defense lawyers. Defense lawyers would be sympathetic to any client, pretty much. You could be the combination of Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pol, and you still get your lawyer providing a zealous defense. It's their job, just a like a sewer pipe does its important but undignified job.

For normal people, the molester is completely unsympathetic. It's hard to see someone that horrible as a person. Saying he got what he deserved isn't the same a approving of the manner of death. If a mafia hitman is gunned down by a rival gang, you could say he got what he deserved, but he still think the rival gang's shooters are criminals.
---

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, Omega, but I don't believe defense lawyers, as a rule, find their clients sympathetic.

Rather, I believe what you say further down, that they have a job to do, unpleasant though it may be, and that they do it, regardless of what they personally believe about their client, either in terms of guilt or innocence or as a person. (I'm sure innocent people can behave like assholes, and guilty folks can be quite charming, apart from their penchant for committing crimes.)

In that regard, I'm torn when it comes to attacking defense attorneys for defending the clients they do...

On one hand, it's hard to understand how anyone could advocate for some kinds of / specific criminals, even for money. Arguing that some overwhelmingly damning piece of evidence cannot be admitted at trial because the police officer failed to say or do some small thing in the course of finding/securing/logging it, thereby letting a clearly guilty man go free, seems like an awful way to make a living, karmically-speaking.

On the other hand, what could be more noble and in keeping with our American values and legal standards than upholding the rights of even the lowliest scumbag? I remember reading an article somewhere (which of course, I cannot find now) that interviewed one of the military lawyers who had been assigned to defend an alleged GITMO terrorist, and how he spoke about the necessity of his doing so in our adversarial legal system. He was clearly honored to've served both his country and the law by doing everything he could to defend his client. Just based on the concept of "innocent until proven guilty," everyone--and maybe even the accused, especially--deserve to have zealous representation, and the people who provide it should be proud of what they do...

(Obviously, I lean one way idealistically, and the other in a more "real world" sense...)

The fact remains though, that not everyone who is accused of some criminal or civil breach is actually guilty... ...and for me, that tips the scale.

...As far as we civilians, though... I do get what you're saying... It's not that I don't understand the folks who whoop and holler and high-five when bad people meet their ends... I just personally find it a little distasteful... (Maybe it has something to do with my religion, or the number of people in my life who've died.)

I don't (or at least, try not to) look down on those who don't see it my way, but by the same token, I doubt I'll be joining them in the celebrations anytime soon...
---
Posted June 25, 2012 2:24 PM and 2:32 PM

In Reply: Grand Juries "Routine" in Homicide Cases

Two comments (an hour or so apart) in reply to Allergic to Bull: Texans Should Be Angry At Lavaca County District Attorney Heather McMinn For Wasting a Citizen’s and Grand Jury’s Time...
---

Reading a bunch of the news stories about the case, I kinda get the feeling that sending the case to a grand jury was just standard procedure. I can't find anyone--not even those who would ostensibly be on the "prosecution" side of this case (law enforcement, the district attorney, ...) who believed the father deserved to be charged or prosecuted. The local news stories and statements by all concerned treat it's going to the grand jury as unremarkable, and just the next (last) step in the process to clear the father of any legal wrongdoing...

While I'm with you on it being a waste of money--and certainly burdensome on the father if he was obligated to pay for a lawyer for this (not to mention other "potential defendants" against whom no one in the law enforcement / legal community believes charges should be filed)--I'm not sure this is a moral or legal injustice, or that the district attorney is personally or professionally at fault, at least based on the way most of the news stories and statements by those involved and those familiar read...

(I submitted comments to a few local news stories asking for clarification on this... I'll comment here again, if I see anything that speaks to the issue one way or the other...)
---
Submitted for moderator approval Posted June 21, 2012 10:20 AM

~~~

Got a reply to my query from a reporter in TX: "in Texas, every case that is ruled a "homicide" -- death by other than natural causes -- is routinely forwarded to a grand jury even when prosecution is unlikely." - Grand Jury: father's action was justified | The Gonzales Cannon
---

Submitted for moderator approval Posted June 21, 2012 11:32 AM

In Reply: Self Defense - Be Skeptical, and Investigate Accordingly

In reply to: Allergic to Bull: Memo to Texas “Civil Rights” Group: Fathers (Allegedly) Defending Their Daughters From Sexual Assault Have Rights, Too
---

Yeah, the civil rights guy's statement went too far over the line.

I mean, I do believe that the see-saw can teeter-totter too far either way in cases where death results from (alleged) self-defense, especially when the dead party is wholly unsympathetic. Some of the whoops and hollers in support of this father come on a bit too strong for my tastes, and make me wonder whether these folks are just itching to dispense a little vigilante justice, and perhaps even hoping to get the chance--though it's far more likely that it's just men "proving" they're "real men." (I'm not one for celebrating death, even of demonstrably evil people. I found a lot of the "bin Laden is dead" hootin' and hollerin' distasteful, too. Obviously, I don't score high with some folks on that "real men" scale.) The father, from what I've read, is remorseful over having killed the guy, in spite of what he'd done to his daughter. Some of the commenters at Allah's post talk about the residual effects of taking a life, even when it's legally justified.

I believe such cases need to be thoroughly investigated, with a little extra bias toward the rights of the guy unable to tell his side of the story, perhaps--I'm not saying the person who did the killing shouldn't be considered innocent until proven guilty or nothin', but I do think there ought to be a healthy dose of skepticism driving law enforcement to be sure that it was self-defense, not a murder dressed up to look like self-defense.

(And let me be clear, here... I'm NOT casting aspersions on the father in THIS PARTICULAR CASE. It sounds to me like he did no more or less than he felt was necessary to defend his daughter, and I fully expect that the investigation--even (especially) my "heightened scrutiny as a result of being skeptical" investigation--will bear that out.)

But I do believe that whenever someone is killed or seriously injured to the point that they cannot tell their side of the story, in a case where the living party asserts self-defense, it is incumbent on law enforcement and the legal system to take extra steps to assure that justice is served.

If ya ask me, a good bit of the uproar over the Trayvon Martin case was sparked by the fact that it didn't look like that investigation was taking place, and the lack of public relations (obviously, the investigation was going on behind the scenes, so the story wasn't as it appeared) allowed both legit and illegit factions to start asking/demanding answers.

Folks who kill and claim self-defense don't need to be charged or arrested straight off--but they do need to be thoroughly questioned and otherwise investigated, and not exonerated by law enforcement officials in the court of public opinion until they are sure no case can or should be made.

In that regard--and with an eye toward the folks who make online comments figuratively high-fiving this father...if not describing exactly what size flaying knife they would've used to peel this guys skin off alive and the like, if it was their daughter--I understand where the human rights guy was coming from. (I get vengeance, especially where one's children are concerned...but that's why we have a theoretically dispassionate law enforcement and legal system, and don't leave the administration of justice to the wronged parties alone.)
---

Submitted for moderator approval Posted June 15, 2012 1:44 PM

In Reply: Those who pay no attention to free speech issues online are disappointing...but not eeeeevil (Popehat, Team Kimberlin)

Revised and extended, in reply to the following comment at the post The Kimberlin Crew Pokes The Bull And Gets The Horns | Popehat:

It isn't, in my mind, so much they they are Democrats therefore that party should denounce them, it is the fact they they have worked for the Democrats.

If R's have to denounce stupid shit said by a guy, he D's should probably be required to denounce actual criminal activity.
---

"If R's have to denounce stupid shit said by a guy, he D's should probably be required to denounce actual criminal activity."

I see where you're coming from... but I'd spend more time questioning the former proposition than pushing a "two wrongs make a right" kinda theory...especially if I was a Republican.

I mean, sure... anyone who actually worked with or funded Kimberlin, et. al. ought to be asked about their collaboration or funding, and given the opportunity to talk about why they chose to work with/fund the guy at the time, and where they stand now, based on the information about the accused parties that is available (as well as the info that isn't). And of course those who're speaking out for (or against) Team Kimberlin ought to be held accountable for whatever they actually do say. But D's (or R's) in general have no obligation to answer for Kimberlin (or for those who're accusing them). All D's (or all R's) are not responsible for what every/any individual D or R says or does...not even if the individual D or R claims to be speaking or acting in the name of all D's or R's or the causes they generally champion.

While I believe everyone ought to speak out against what's going on with Team Kimberlin--and what happened to Aaron Walker in particular (because it's the least convoluted, easiest to understand, and most egregious part of the thing (IMHO), if for no other reason)--I don't blame folks for not doing so, whether because they're frightened of retaliation or because they're just focused elsewhere.

My analogy is to firefighters: Yes, those who intentionally run into burning buildings to save lives are heroes, but I don't believe it follows that everyone who has never run into a burning building deserves to be criticized for not doing so.

In the same way, the people willing to stand up to Kimberlin--especially those willing to do so after being threatened or worse (like Aaron, or this Paul guy from the (currently) most recent Popehat post)--are free speech heroes. But that doesn't mean that folks who have ignored the story, whether intentionally or out of confusion or ignorance, should be slammed as cowards or "in league with the eeeeevil one(s)" for doing so. Not blogging about this story doesn't prove anything...not about anyone individually, and certainly not about any/all demographic group(s) to which they belong.

Coming from the left, I can say for good and certain that the folks intent on making this about attacking all progressives because Kimberlin claims to be one are causing liberals who would otherwise come out against attacks on free speech, intimidation, and lawfare to hold off, lest they be seen as agreeing that liberals in general have something to answer for, here. It's awful hard to align yourself with people who see you as evil incarnate, just because you disagree with 'em, politically...even when it is the right thing to do.
---

Posted Jun 11, 2012 @2:46 am, Popehat blog time.

In Reply: It's OK For People to be COMPLETELY WRONG...and still see them as worthwhile human beings. (Allergic to Bull, Bigotry...or not)

In reply to this most excellent post, which deserves reading in full: Allergic to Bull: On Romney’s Mormonism and Religious Tolerance (Honestly, it doesn't have much to do with Romney or Mormonism, except as inspiration...)
---

Straight on double-plus right, sir...

Many (most?) religions preach and teach that theirs is the one true path to all good things (however they define that), and many go further and say that those who don't follow their particular path will never get there... While it's possible for such beliefs to lead to bigotry--especially when governments or other institutions of power (including certain religious institutions themselves, ironically) get involved--the beliefs themselves are not bigoted.

I have this hippie dippy book called Das Energi, by Paul Williams (whattaya want, I'm a lib) that talks about the ability to discriminate as being key to the ability to see and perceive, and suggests that we draw our lines between people with disappearing ink. See the differences between us (be they religious, political, ethnic/heritage, ...), sure, but don't take them beyond the situations where they actually matter.

There has to come a point where it's ok for other people to be completely wrong about something--because they're not the same religion or denomination as you, or vote for candidates in the other party, or like mushrooms on their pizza--and still treat them as fellow citizens and worthwhile human beings deserving of respect.

(On that other thing... You was robbed and wronged, and I hope you get your rights back very soon. While I have issues with the partisan bent and allegations of collective guilt that some in your corner are trying to put on the thing, I unequivocally support free speech for all, even folks I probably don't much agree with... The best (and only) answer for speech you don't like or agree with is lots more speech... 'nuff said.)
---

Submitted for blog owner approval Posted: June 10, 2012 7:43 AM

In Reply: "It’s about free speech, here and now..."

In reply to Your Free Speech Ends at the Point a Bully Says So | The Moderate Voice
---

“This shouldn’t be a partisan issue.”

Don’t tell me, tell the guy who opined that this Maryland decision has anything to do with “political expression” or “people on the far left,” rather than a legally skilled crazy person who is targeting ANYONE, right or left, who says too much about his sordid past.

It took me awhile to come around to the position that Aaron Walker was being railroaded, precisely because so many people have been making it about “the George Soros / Tides Foundation funded far left hitman” and saying that “there can be no law or justice as long as Eric Holder is running things”.

It’s not about “the Left.” It’s not about the guy’s history as a bomber or any of his convictions from the 80′s and 90′s. It’s about free speech, here and now, and what Kimberlin (and perhaps a few friends, though the evidence of their roles is still a little too vague for me) is doing to silence his critics.
---

Posted MAY 30, 2012 AT 7:15 PM

In Reply: "It wouldn’t surprise me if some of the commenters wrote stuff that could be interpreted as threats, but jailing someone for speech is deeply problematic." (Mahablog, Kimberlin-Walker, Free Speech)

In Reply to the following comment at The Mahablog ~ Brett Whozits Update: Rightie Blogger Arrested:

To outsiders–and probably to this judge–this “let’s all gang up on Kimberlin” coordinated attack made it look like THEY were the aggressors.

It was all speech, though. It wouldn’t surprise me if some of the commenters wrote stuff that could be interpreted as threats, but jailing someone for speech is deeply problematic. - jpe - May 29, 2012 @3:23 pm

I absolutely agree, which is one of the reasons I said I wasn’t sure justice was served, here…

Like others, I have a feeling there are two separate issues though; the peace order, which, if I’m understanding it right, had been in place short-term already, but was made long-term today, and Aaron Walker (Worthing)’s arrest, which may or may not have anything to do with violating the temporary peace order that was already in place, and which, if it does, may include his instigation and participation in the blogburst as a means of harassment. (Other theories / rumors include contempt of court for behavior in the courtroom today, assault, stemming from a previous physical altercation between Walker and Kimberlin (he hit him, or not; he took his iPad and refused to return it until officers showed up;…) There are also questions as to whether Walker’s continued participation in posting about Kimberlin would be a violation of the peace order.

The closest thing I’ve found to anyone speaking for the other side of this thing is the blog and twitter stream of BreitbartUnmasked. I don’t know who it is, though the righties all seem to believe it’s one of the principle players–either Ron Brynaert or Neal Rauhauser--though some even think it’s Brett Kimberlin, himself. Check it out, but since the guy’s anon, take what he offers with as much or little salt or other spices as your taste dictates…

I think at this point just about everyone left and right whose interested in the saga wants mainstream / lamestream media coverage, and law enforcement / legal system action where necessary. (Though, it is a little scary how many rightwing commenters I’ve seen at various blogs today taking about “street justice,” or similar terms… Thankfully, they’re getting slapped down by others at the blogs (mostly), but still…) If Kimberlin, etc. are guilty, I want them to face justice. But if there’s no evidence that they are, or that one or more of their accusers are stretching the truth, I want to know that — and perhaps for them to face justice.

Lastly… Anyone else have an issue viewing The Mahablog on an iPad? When I read the comments, it defaults to–and snaps back to–the top of the comment stream. I finally figured out that I could keep it scrolled to where I wanted by hitting the comment permalink that was as close to where i wanted to be as possible–for example, to write this comment in the box, i hit the permalink of the last comment submitted, and even now keep snapping back to that comment (which luckily, was short, so I can still see the comment box–but it’s something I’d never experienced on another blog…
---

Posted May 29, 2012 @9:10 pm

In Reply: With Friends Like These... (The Mahablog, Kimberlin-Walker)

In reply to The Mahablog ~ Brett Whozits Update: Rightie Blogger Arrested

I don’t know whether or not justice was served, but it is kinda–well, let’s just say ironic–that the judge cited elements of the Rightwing shit-storm against Kimberlin (threats of violence in blog posts and comments in a whole lot of the “blogburst” posts, according to rw theorists) in granting the peace order.

Like I said… To outsiders–and probably to this judge–this “let’s all gang up on Kimberlin” coordinated attack made it look like THEY were the aggressors, not their target(s). They came off looking like a lynch mob out for frontier justice, trying to do the job that law enforcers and the courts refused to do.

And it bit ‘em in the ass.

Kimberlin / Walker Peace Order

“With friends like these,…”
---

May 29, 2012 @1:53 pm