|
Ron's Rants
Wednesday 08-20-2008 9:30am CT
We won't get fooled again (or will we?)--Once again, the City of Minneapolis is playing the taxpayers for suckers. This time the embarrassment arises out of a situation where Minneapolis' finest either did, or didn't do something wrong. In August of 2004, the coppers, including officer Victor Mills, were called to a loud party and a scuffle broke out. Before the dust settled, one Joel Mattos Ramos was arrested. Officers at the scene said Ramos struggled when they put him in the squad, but apparently a video taken at the scene showed no such thing. Near the squad, Mills hit Ramos in the mouth with an open hand. According to the police, this was to keep Ramos from spitting on another officer. The video of this was released to the media and then-Chief Bill McManus publicly stated that Mills had acted improperly.
No criminal charges were ever brought against Mills and an internal affairs unit found he hadn't used unnecessary force. Mills, for his part, sued the City, claiming McManus defamed him. In November of 2006, the City Council approved a $25,000 settlement. But the story doesn't end there.
Now, years later, it appears the same City Council is poised to pay a $26,000 settlement to Ramos for permanent injury caused by (yeah, you guessed it) Mills. In other words, in the politically correct City of Lakes, everybody (except the poor taxpayers) gets paid in this shameful episode.
Now I'm not, thank goodness, a resident of Minneapolis but if I were I'd be asking the Mayor and the round-heeled City Council two simple questions: First, if Mills' actions weren't wrong, why are you going to pay Ramos $26,000? And, if they were, why pay Mills $25,000 in the first place? The bottom line is that the Minneapolis City fathers are playing it both ways and once again, you, the taxpayers, are going to be taking it in the shorts.
A very bad precedent--Jose Luis Nazario, a highly decorated Marine, is set to go on trial shortly in federal court for crimes which allegedly took place in, of all places--Fallujah, Iraq! The story is long and complicated but basically, the manslaughter charges Nazario faces arise out of an incident in 2004 where federal authorities claim Nazario assisted in killing unarmed civilians. At the time, Nazario was on active duty in the United States Marines and thus under military jurisdiction. For reasons not entirely clear, the incident was not pursued until after Nazario left the military. Interestingly, upon his return to the U.S. in 2005, he was honored for bravery and given a plaque with a "V" for valor.
Now, years later, federal authorities, under an obscure new law (designed to permit domestic assault prosecution by Americans in foreign countries) are prepared to prosecute a former American G.I. for actions while he was on active military duty in a war zone. Now I'm all for personal responsibility, but I also believe that bad cases make for bad law. Here, if Nazario was guilty of manslaughter while on active duty, he should have been court martialed. Historically, for obvious reasons, that's been the way these types of cases have been handled. The military had its opportunity to get a crack at Nazario. For whatever reason, they dropped the ball. But it's bad precedent, in my humble opinion, to now, years later in civilian court, with a civilian jury, put a guy on trial for actions he allegedly took while on active duty. To further support my argument, it's worth noting that no bodies have ever been found, no names of the alleged victims exist and authorities aren't even sure of the address of the site of the alleged crimes. Moreover, the key eyewitnesses against Nazario are refusing to testify since they themselves face court martial.
This case, if there was one, should have been handled by the military. It's a truly bad idea to bring charges in civilian court against men/women who allegedly commit war crimes on active duty. Isn't that why we have a Military Code of Justice?
Photo Gallery -- Menards
Tuesday 08-12-2008 4:19pm CT
Ron's Rants
Monday 08-04-2008 9:18am CT
2001 Anthrax Attacks Solved-Or Are They?-Major news outlets are reporting that government investigators are certain Army research scientist Bruce Ivins was the perpetrator of the terrifying anthrax attacks in 2001. Unfortunately, we will never get Ivins' side of the story since he committed suicide last Tuesday, just as federal officials were preparing to indicit him for the murder of five people who died from anthrax poisoning. This rather odd set of circumstances arises from one of the largest investigations in U.S. history. The investigation has been, at best, a fiasco. For example, the prime suspect, Army scientist Steven Hatfill, was hounded for years by authorities only to be dismissed as a suspect (and paid $5 million in taxpayers' dollars for the harassment).
Additionally, details are emerging that a social worker testified at a hearing seeking a protection order against the late Ivins that he "actually attempted to murder several other people..." The social worker further testified that, Ivins is "a revenge killer...[and] has been diagnosed by several top psychiatrists as a sociopathic, homicidal killer."
Sorry, I'm too cynical to accept the government's story without getting a couple questions answered first:
1. In late July, at a time the FBI was moving in on Ivins, if authorities knew he was the prime suspect in the anthrax case, knew he was a revenge killer, knew he was a sociopathic, homicidal killer and further knew he had actually attempted to murder several other people, why wasn't he in custody rather than at his home, where he could take his own life?
2. If authorities knew that Ivins, "As far back as the year 2000...has actually attempted to murder several...people, either through poisoning...or when he feels slighted [and] he plots and actually tries to carry out revenge killing," why wasn't he charged with attempted murder?
I'm not a conspiracy nut, but this all seems a bit convenient. One of the largest investigations in history comes up empty-handed for years and then, voila, the case is solved (and closed) immediately after the bad guy kills himself. A guy, I might add, who never should have been on the street, free to kill himself. Before I accept the government's story, at a minimum, questions need to be answered. Unfortunately, I'm not at all convinced they will be. 45 years after JFK was killed, the majority of Americans believe there was a conspiracy. Now is the time for the government to address the questions raised in the Anthrax case.
Ron's Rants
Monday 08-04-2008 7:52am CT
Are you convinced Ivins is Guilty?
Ron's Rants
Saturday 07-26-2008 8:40am CT
Earl Gray, Aaron Foster's attorney (see above description of the case) will be joing us live this during this afternoon's show.
Ron's Rants
Thursday 07-24-2008 11:13am CT
Minneapolis to pay $2M to Black Police Officers--According to reports, the City is poised to pay out huge damages to settle a discrimination suit filed by black officers of the Minneapolis Police Department. The suit alleges a long history of discrimination against black officers of the Department. Reportedly, the five officers met with the Civil Rights department last September to voice their concerns. Interestingly, according to the StarTribune, the suit alleges that the director of the Department, Michael Jordan, "dismissed the allegations and later publicly said they were 'disgruntled cops near the end of their careers.'" Jordan, also an African-American, denies ever making that statement. Among other serious allegations of the suit are claims the current chief, Tim Dolan, helped institutionalize the discrimination. The bottom line is that with this kind of money being talked about, the City obviously feels there's merit to the case. So, as usual the taxpayers will be left holding the bag (although, of course, it will be the plaintiffs holding the bag of cash). Will the public get an explanation for the following questions:
1.--Why wasn't the case settled in the beginning for far less money?
2.--If City officials feel the case was without merit, as they implied in the beginning, why is it being settled now?
3.--Will Rybak have the cojones to discipline the Chief, or anyone else, involved in the alleged discrimination (the betting here is no)?
So, either the City is slated to pay a boatload of money to settle a case it believes is bogus, or, they're going to pay millions for discrimination that should never have occurred in the first place. Either way, as usual, the taxpayers take it in the shorts!
I'm hoping to have Michael Jordan as a guest on this Saturday's show. Stay tuned!
27-year-old Murder case ends in Acquittal--According to reports, a packed courtroom was shocked to hear that defendant Aaron Foster was acquitted in the shooting death of his girlfriend, Barbara Winn, who died in 1981 of gunshot wounds after a struggle in her Maplewood town home. The case was political from top to bottom: A lot of bad blood (no pun intended) in the case with Foster being a close personal friend of former St. Paul Police Chief Bill Finney with Finney's political rival, Ramsey County Sheriff Bob Fletcher, being responsible for reopening the 27-year-old case. Evidence revealed plenty of domestic abuse by Foster, but it apparently wasn't enough to overcome the huge hurdles faced by the prosecution in going forward with a case this old. For starters, the medical examiners couldn't rule out either accident or suicide. This was particularly problematical since Foster maintained all along that Winn had shot herself. Additionally, other important evidence had disappeared over the years or been suppressed by the Court, leaving the prosecutors with insurmountable problems. The family and friends of Winn reportedly left the Courtroom certain that a guilty man had beat the rap while defense attorney Earl Gray noted that after 27 years, Foster finally got his day in court. The real question of course is this: Was justice done? The Answer: Sort of, but this case should either have been brought or ruled out years ago before evidence disappeared and memories faded.
I'm hoping to have Earl Gray on the Show this Saturday to talk about the case.
Ron's Rants
Tuesday 07-08-2008 10:45pm CT
Guest you won't want to miss this Saturday--Charla Muller, author of, "365 Nights: A Memoir of Intimacy" will be a guest on "Holding Court" this Saturday. This is the book--and the author-- everyone's talking about. The true story centers on Muller's gift to her husband of 365 straight nights of sex. Trust me, you won't want to miss hearing her story. So join in the fun this Saturday starting at noon.
Ron's Rants
Monday 07-07-2008 9:02am CT
Golf Carts/DWI/Homicide--The airways are buzzing this morning about the rather bizarre case of the man being held on suspicion of driving a golf cart while intoxicated and Criminal Vehicular Homicide. Everybody's got an opinion (this is, after all, talk radio) on the case even though we know almost nothing of the facts. The case is very unusual for two reasons: First, we don't see golf cart operators charged with DWI very often and it's even more unusual when a fatality arises from a golf cart mishap. All we know for sure is that the decedent, Randy Dean Ronquist, was a friend of the driver, and that he fell from the rear of the cart following a 4th of July fireworks show. Ronquist was one of four men riding in the cart. He and another friend were apparently standing on the back of the cart while the driver and another man were seated in front. Rice County authorities offered few details of the accident, but noted that while aggressive driving didn't appear to a factor, all the men had been drinking. It's also unclear what role, if any, speed may have played in the accident. At this point the authorities haven't released any test results indicating the driver's blood alcohol level. And finally, we have no indication that the driver was operating the golf cart in a negligent fashion. So, we're left with more questions than answers. But let's at least be clear about the what the law requires before a person in this situation is guilty of either DWI OR Criminal Vehicular Homicide.
1. Can you get a DWI for driving a golf cart under the influence? Yes. The law makes it a crime to drive a motorized vehicle under the influence. A golf cart is a motorized vehicle.
2. What level of alcohol is required to be guilty of DWI or Criminal Vehicular Homicide? Operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level of .08 or greater is illegal. However, if a person is under that level but operating a motor vehicle under the influence, that too is illegal.
3. If a person is operating a motor vehicle under the influence and a person hanging on to a golf cart falls off and dies, is the driver automatically guilty of Criminal Vehicular Homicide? No. The driver must, in some way, be operating the vehicle in a negligent fashion.
The bottom line in the Rice County case is that we shouldn't jump to conclusions until the authorities release more information. I suspect very shortly we'll learn the driver's blood alcohol level and get more information (if there is any) about the driver's negligence. Until that occurs, let's not prejudge the case.
911 Tape of Joe Horn shooting 2 robbers
Saturday 07-05-2008 12:05pm CT
Joe Horn was cleared of any charges for shooting two people who were bulglarizing his neighbors house. Read the story here.
 Click Here to listen to the entire 911 call (contains language) Ron's Rants
Thursday 06-26-2008 11:24am CT
Gun, Guns, Guns--All you worriers can breathe a big sigh of relief (and yes, I'm talking to you, Chris Baker) now that the Supreme Court, in a hotly contested 5-4 decision, has issued its landmark 2d Amendment ruling. As predicted in this spot yesterday, the High Court made clear that keeping a handgun is an individual constitutional right and not a collective right. So, does that end the story? Not by a long shot (no pun intended). Again as I predicted yesterday (a round of applause, please), the right is not absolute and, like many other Constitutional rights, it may be regulated. So, the fight continues and will, in my opinion, be fought for years on the issue of which regulations are constitutional and which are not. What we know for sure is this: The Washington D.C. regulations were unconstitutional and the right to possess a handgun is guaranteed under the 2d Amendment. And the rest, as they say, is up for grabs. So, stay tuned.
|
© 2008