Author: Kent Scheidegger

SF Mayor Recovers from Pandemic Wokevid Virus

by · Dec 17, 2021 2:52 pm

Two pandemics swept through America last year and lasted into this year. One, of course, was the virus that causes Covid-19. The other was the Wokevid virus.

Symptoms of Wokevid include (1) believing oneself to be “woke” while actually oblivious to reality and unable to speak correct English; and (2) bizarre delusional beliefs that defy logic, evidence, and common sense. These delusions include beliefs that reduced police presence and minimal punishment of criminals will somehow reduce crime instead of increasing it.

San Francisco Mayor London Breed showed unmistakable symptoms of Wokevid infection last year when she cut $120 million from law enforcement budgets. See this story from KGO. However, this speech Wednesday demonstrates a seemingly complete recovery. Continue reading . . .

Crime and President Biden

by · Dec 15, 2021 11:34 am

The ABC News / Ipsos poll finds that a strong majority of Americans disapprove of President Biden’s handling of crime, 36-61.

But does the President have much to do with crime, really? Isn’t it mostly a state and local matter? Well, it’s complicated. Continue reading . . .

Crime could become hot issue in 2022

by · Nov 29, 2021 10:41 am

Veteran California political commentator Dan Walters has this column at CalMatters with the above title. The summary reads, “Political reaction to a spate of smash-and-grab retail thefts indicates that crime could be a hot button issue in next year’s California elections.” Walters notes:

“The current governor, Gavin Newsom, has largely continued [previous Governor Jerry] Brown’s [soft] policies, unilaterally suspending the execution of murderers and proposing to shut down some prisons. It was a bit odd, therefore, to see Newsom publicly denounce lawbreakers last week after a series of smash-and-grab raids on high-end retail outlets in the San Francisco Bay Area and Southern California.”

In the home stretch, Walters has opened up a lead for understatement of the year 2021. A bit odd? Continue reading . . .

The Ahmaud Arbery Verdicts and the Felony-Murder Rule

by · Nov 24, 2021 2:11 pm

The felony-murder rule, in effect in some form in most states, is the controversial rule that if a person is killed during the commission of certain felonies, all parties to the felony are guilty of murder of that person. The rule can be harsh in some applications, and I agree that some judicious pruning is in order in many jurisdictions, but many critics want to get rid of it altogether.

Here is the WSJ’s report of the today’s verdicts in the Ahmaud Arbery case:

Travis McMichael, 35, chased Mr. Arbery with his father, Gregory McMichael, 65, and William “Roddie” Bryan Jr., 52, in two pickup trucks on Feb. 23, 2020. Travis McMichael shot Mr. Arbery three times with a 12-gauge shotgun, killing him.

Travis McMichael was found guilty on all counts, including one count of malice murder and four counts of felony murder. Gregory McMichael was found guilty of four counts of felony murder and acquitted on a charge of malice murder. Mr. Bryan was convicted on three counts of felony murder and acquitted on malice murder and an additional felony murder charge.

Two of the three would have been acquitted of murder, and convicted only of non-homicide offenses, if Georgia did not have the felony-murder rule. Continue reading . . .

Justice Gorsuch as the “Swing Vote” on Executions?

by · Nov 10, 2021 9:07 am

Yesterday after listening to the oral argument in Ramirez v. Collier, the Supreme Court’s clergy-in-the-execution-chamber case, I noted that the most important question is not whether the State or the murderer wins on the details of this case but whether we are going to have a permanent new layer of litigation further delaying already badly delayed justice in these cases.

Now we have the transcript of the argument and Amy Howe’s characteristically thorough and unbiased report. What the justices said during the argument is interesting, but perhaps more interesting is what one justice did not say. Justice Gorsuch is usually active in argument, but in this case he said zilch. Given that the other justices may very well be divided 4-4, the decision in this case may rest on him. Continue reading . . .