DISQUS

Corretion to prior post -- it now appears Cho declined counseling services. Quote from his professor, Lucinda Roy: "I kept saying please go to counseling, I will take you to counseling, because he was so depressed.... I was told [by counseling] that you can't force anybody to go over ... so their hands were tied, too."

Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18155081/

The teacher who was interviewed by CNN and other sources have said that Cho was referred to mental health services and (I believe) that he did go at some point. (She also says she addressed the issue with the administration and that there was not enough in the writings to take any administrative action. She also says she tutored him for a year.)

Without knowing what services Cho undertook and how, there is no way to know if those services failed him. Under existing law, there is no way the two writings posted on AOL, at least, would allow any administrative action beyond the attempts that those in the department apparently undertook. And... in our society, as incredibly tragic as the events and circumstances are, I don't think we want a situation where more compulsory action can be taken based upon troubled writing of this nature.

I face the same thing, albeit next year, and the fears -- irrational though they may be -- are the same.

Thank you as well for the link to the blog -- it's heartbreaking.

Shortly after my wife and I began serious involvement, both of her girls -- then 17 and 16 -- got their learner's permits on the same day and would eventually take their road tests on the same day as well. Mom and I both thought it would be a very step-fatherly like thing for me to be the chief instructor.

Item No. 1: On the first day I took them on the highway, the younger hit a bunch of orange center median marking pylons on the curve just after the tollbooth on NY Thruway Exit 23. Must be a thing about orange pylons...

Item No. 2: On road test day, the older went first. The examiner offered to let me sit in the back seat as long as I was silent. At the end of the first block she ran a stop sign. I sat out the younger's test (after having injured my tongue biting it as the stop sign was run). By the way -- the examiner passed *both* of them!

Lawyers. They'll be ridiculous given the slightest chance.

This is, of course, the same administration that doesn't believe that the writ of habeas corpus is a right of constitutional magnitude.

No, this is worse than Nixon. Nixon broke the law and acted contrary to privact so many times, but usually in the J. Edgar Hoover way (ironically in light of Nixon's private view of Hoover). In other words, he would have done a lot of the things Bush is doing, but he rarely would have publicly acknowledged them, much less actively asked for them to become law. I never thought I'd ever accuse a President of being far more arrogant than Tricky Dick, but this one truly is.

Is this the same concept as Concerta (which I understand is a delayed-release Ritalin)?

In the post you linked, I saw something I didn't realize -- that in clinical trials, they test drugs like this on known adult addicts to see the impact. (Quote: "given intravenously to adults with histories of stimulant abuse.") At first blush I had some concern about that, but the reality probably is that (a) they're already in trouble and (b) there's no alternative way to test the potential problems the drug could cause in the real world. Still, I would hope that they wouldn't pay people who are in recovery to participate in such trials. Active users, I can live with. I would hope that'd be an acceptable pool.

The having meth and a used glass tube on his desk when the DEA arrived was chilling. The incredible arrogance is almost as amazing as the misconduct itself.

However, I found someone even more arrogant... How about a teacher snorting cocaine in front of the class?

Yup. In Lewiston, NY (near Buffalo).

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/usworld/news...

Actually, the judiciary in South Florida is intriguingly diverse, per a discussion I had with a Court clerk in Fort Lauderdale last week. They still have a number of 60s liberals on the bench, as well as a large number of more recently robed neo-cons, and, as you saw if you watched any of the Anna Nicole circus, a few who might be deemed eccentric. (As you might guess, it was crazy down there. Reporters and TV crews all over the place, including one set sleeping in their station van in an IHOP parking lot because -- they said -- they couldn't find a room.)

There are six computers in the house (one per person plus a notebook), all as protected as they can be... and yet two of them have been seriously zapped within the past year. One of them was the PC of the most careful of the kids -- and I still don't know how it got nailed by a very nasty bug. That's the unfortunate reality of the world today -- it can and will eventually happen, even if you are relatively savvy and careful.

Was she perchance thinking that if you tell the kids to *go to* the computer, even to turn it off, you're increasing the risk of exposure of the kids to more?

In any event, the whole thing remains tragically absurd. If the computer you're on gets hijacked by the porn popups from hell that won't stop, the normal, most common reactions are *panic* and *anger*. No way it's realistic to expect instantaneous clear and concise logic followed by instantaneous action -- I guess, unless you're a juror in Norwich.

Maybe he's obstructing *pedestrian* traffic? Hey, it's Miami, so the traffic doesn't necessarily drive on the road anyway. :)

Seriously, whatever the picture shows, of course it's evident between (and upon) the lines that the guy wasn't doing anything other than taking pix that the police ddn't want taken, and they muddled together whatever came rapidly to mind as a rationale. Police who assert power because they must are good cops; those who assert it regularly because they can are another thing entirely.

Our two family court judges do, thank heavens, listen to both sides fairly, and have (at trial and in negotiations) found kids, on at least some occasions, to be more credible than the arresting officer -- particularly where the officer seems to have gotten that ego-driven attitude that I've heard called Blue Fever. That may be rare in this day and age, but thank heaven it's the case in my neck of the woods.

P.S. Having seen the video of a certain superb drummer, people should live in awe of those chops! :)

As you know from the source website, the police claim a very different story, alleging, among other things, obstruction of traffic and a refusal to identify self.

That said, this sure smells like heavy-handed "I'm the boss" police procedures. I've got a case now where a 12 year old is alleged to have obstructed governmental administration by "posturing assertively" towards the police (as it is alleged five others did). Jeez. I don't even know what that means! Making a face? Daring to disagree?

I've only just looked at the barest of information on the Amero case, but what it looks like to me on first blush is
that Ms. Amero rolled legal snake eyes... getting a bad judge, a bad jury, and a prosecution "expert" who seems much
more likely utterly clueless than dishonest.

That said, I can tell you from a recent case of mine how hard it can be to get concepts we think are simple across to the
uninitiated. I had a recent judge-only trial where, through a witness, I had to ensure that the Court understood the basics
of Yahoo chat and webcam transmission. The judge got it -- but the other three lawyers in the case were utterly lost.
These are lawyers I've known for 20 years or more. They are intelligent, educated counsel. However, one has never been
online and dictates his letters, while the other two barely understand E-mail. Keeping that in mind, I think it is not too
hard to see how a jury, particularly one deprived of expert opinion via suppression, could misunderstand the
concepts (legal *and* technical) involved in the case.

It seems that there are some good appellate arguments here. Let's hope that's the case.

I think I will. :)

Of course, I read right over the part about the trooper being at a dinner party. Oops.
The planned meeting, though, was to take place at a local Dodge dealership (before she called it off).
And the kicker, not in the MSNBC story? She taught PE and health class... which in her school meant
she was giving the anti-drug lessons to the kids!(Source:
http://www.wpsdtv.com/news/local/story.aspx?con...)

I can't find the precise statute (the Kentucky Statutes online are rather miserable), but I suspect that the text message being sent from the school by the teacher might well be enough to meet the statute. Traditionally, a conspiracy occurs at the location either end of, e.g.,
a phone call occurs. So I would think it'd be the same with text messages. That said, I'd throw a rather small book at her compared to Dr. guns-for-Vicodin or the ACLU porn-buyer.

The Mississauga school may be within the law but its principal needs to get a life.

And it's quite a joy after -- what is it, *twelve* years since People v. Orenthal James -- to have tripped into the opportunity to read your writing again. (Not only 12 years, but also a divorce, a remarriage, and four stepchildren, including the youngest, who is 13, has ADHD and Asperger's Syndrome, and brings joys I never dreamed of.)