Archive for the ‘Isabella County’ Category

Michigan House of Representatives Votes 68-32 to Ban Texting While Driving

December 15, 2008

Alright, this is somewhat of an old story, but I really wanted to do a post on it, and I got caught up with exams last week:

On December 4th, the Michigan House of Representatives voted on House Bill 5117, A bill to amend 1949 PA 300, entitled “Michigan vehicle code,” (MCL 257.1 to 257.923) by adding section 602b.

The bill was introduced by Steve Bieda (D-Macomb).  Here’s the original version of the bill:

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN ENACT:

SEC. 602B. (1) A PERSON SHALL NOT READ, 1 WRITE, OR SEND A TEXT

2 MESSAGE ON A WIRELESS 2-WAY COMMUNICATION DEVICE, INCLUDING A RADIO

3 TELEPHONE USED IN CELLULAR TELEPHONE SERVICE OR PERSONAL

4 COMMUNICATION SERVICE, WHILE OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE ON A HIGHWAY

5 OR STREET IN THIS STATE.

6 (2) A PERSON WHO VIOLATES THIS SECTION IS RESPONSIBLE FOR A

7 CIVIL INFRACTION.

I like this version of the bill.  It’s quick, and to the point.  Frankly, I think the House butchered this bill (although they did add a couple good clauses).

Here’s the version that was passed by the House (along with my commentary):

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN ENACT:

SEC. 602B. (1) A PERSON SHALL NOT READ, 1 WRITE, OR SEND A TEXT

2 MESSAGE ON A WIRELESS 2-WAY COMMUNICATION DEVICE THAT IS LOCATED IN

3 THE PERSON’S HAND OR IN THE PERSON’S LAP, INCLUDING A WIRELESS

4 TELEPHONE USED IN CELLULAR TELEPHONE SERVICE OR PERSONAL

5 COMMUNICATION SERVICE, WHILE OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE THAT IS

6 MOVING ON A HIGHWAY OR STREET IN THIS STATE. AS USED IN THIS

7 SUBSECTION, A WIRELESS 2-WAY COMMUNICATION DEVICE DOES NOT INCLUDE

8 A GLOBAL POSITIONING OR NAVIGATION SYSTEM THAT IS AFFIXED TO THE

9 MOTOR VEHICLE.

I will say that lines 6b-9 were a good addition.

(2) SUBSECTION (1) DOES NOT APPLY 1 TO AN INDIVIDUAL WHO IS

2 USING A DEVICE DESCRIBED IN SUBSECTION (1) TO DO ANY OF THE

3 FOLLOWING:

4 (A) REPORT A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT, MEDICAL EMERGENCY, OR SERIOUS

5 ROAD HAZARD.

6 (B) REPORT A SITUATION IN WHICH THE PERSON BELIEVES HIS OR HER

7 PERSONAL SAFETY IS IN JEOPARDY.

8 (C) REPORT OR AVERT THE PERPETRATION OR POTENTIAL PERPETRATION

9 OF A CRIMINAL ACT AGAINST THE INDIVIDUAL OR ANOTHER PERSON.

10 (D) CARRY OUT OFFICIAL DUTIES AS A POLICE OFFICER, LAW

11 ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL, MEMBER OF A PAID OR VOLUNTEER FIRE

12 DEPARTMENT, OR OPERATOR OF AN EMERGENCY VEHICLE.

Again, another good provision.

13 (3) ENFORCEMENT OF THIS SECTION BY STATE OR LOCAL LAW

14 ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES SHALL BE ACCOMPLISHED ONLY AS A SECONDARY

15 ACTION WHEN THE OPERATOR OF A MOTOR VEHICLE HAS BEEN DETAINED FOR A

16 SUSPECTED VIOLATION OF ANOTHER SECTION OF THIS ACT.

Here’s where they really butchered it in my opinion.  Making this a secondary offense means that in order to give somebody a ticket for texting, they have to have been pulled over for something else.  I have 2 problems with this: 1) It gives cops a motive to pull somebody over for something that they normally wouldn’t pull somebody over for, so that they can give them a ticket for texting; 2) It should be a primary offense.  While driving to work on Southfield Freeway (M-39) I’ve had several encounters with teenage drivers (mostly girls) texting and coming into my lane.  I did have a guy do the same thing the other day, except that was on Fort Street (M-85), but it was in the 35 MPH area, so it wasn’t quite as dangerous.  How permanent this will be is up for debate.  Originally, Michigan’s Click It or Ticket seat belt law was a secondary offense, but that changed pretty quickly.

17 (4) AN INDIVIDUAL WHO VIOLATES THIS SECTION IS RESPONSIBLE FOR

18 A CIVIL INFRACTION.

Same as the original bill.

19 (5) IF A LOCAL UNIT OF GOVERNMENT ADOPTS AN ORDINANCE

20 SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR TO THIS SECTION, THE ORDINANCE SHALL INCLUDE

21 THE SECONDARY ENFORCEMENT PROVISION IN SUBSECTION (3).

Again, another butchering happened here.  Not only do I disagree with the basic premise of subsection (3), but I disagree with subsection (5) based on the fact that it’s the state government sticking its nose into the business of local municipalities.  If I city wants to make  it a primary offense, good for them.  If they want to keep it a secondary offense, that’s fine too (although I disagree with that decision, they’d have that right).  But to take away municipalities’ rights to make this a primary offense is just wrong.

22 (6) POINTS SHALL NOT BE ASSESSED UNDER SECTION 320A FOR A

23 VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION.

Again, another terrible amendment to the bill.  There’s no reason that people should be texting while driving.  Tack on the additional punishment of points and that will deter people from doing it.

24 Enacting section 1. This amendatory act does not take effect

25 unless House Bill No. 5396 of the 94th Legislature is enacted into

26 law.

Alright, so that’s the bill as passed by the House.  Currently the bill is in the Transportation Committee of the Senate.

I wanted to post a copy of the roll call vote:

Roll Call No. 1003 Yeas—68

Accavitti Dean Johnson Opsommer
Amos Dillon Jones, Rick Pearce
Ball Donigan Jones, Robert Polidori
Bauer Ebli Knollenberg Proos
Bennett Emmons Law, David Rocca
Bieda Espinoza Law, Kathleen Sak
Booher Farrah Leland Schuitmaker
Brown Gaffney Lemmons Scott
Byrnes Gonzales Lindberg Sheltrown
Byrum Green Mayes Simpson
Clack Griffin McDowell Smith, Alma
Clemente Hammel Meadows Smith, Virgil
Condino Hammon Meisner Stahl
Constan Hansen Melton Stakoe
Corriveau Hood Miller Valentine
Coulouris Hopgood Moss Wenke
Cushingberry Horn Nofs Wojno

Nays—32

Acciavatti DeRoche LeBlanc Pastor
Agema Garfield Marleau Pavlov
Angerer Gillard Meekhof Robertson
Brandenburg Hildenbrand Moolenaar Shaffer
Calley Huizenga Moore Sheen
Casperson Hune Nitz Spade
Caswell Jackson Palmer Steil
Caul Lahti Palsrok Walker

In The Chair: Sak

So, it’s pretty apparent that the vote fell mainly along party lines, but there were definitely a good amount of cross-overs (6 Democrats and 21 Republicans).

Representative Caul (R-Isabella) told CM-Life  reporters that he voted against the bill because it was “overstepping the government’s role. … In this case, it’s difficult for enforceability, whether it’s someone using a cell phone or eating a cheeseburger.”

I’m an advocate for personal freedoms (I voted for Proposal 1), but I think allowing texting while driving  goes too far.  Ban it, and enforce that ban.  Hopefully this will pass the Republican-controlled Senate, and with as much Republican support as  this got, I think it will.  I’ve been advocating for a bill like this for a long time, so I’m glad that it’s making some progress.

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican
add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! ::

College Newspaper Labels McCain “Viagra’s Next Spokesman”

November 6, 2008

In an effort to raise awareness ofthis issue, this blog post has also been posted on RightMichigan.com and OutsideLansing.com

Well, my school’s news paper, the Central Michigan Life (Central Michigan University) has sunk to a new low.  In a video article titled “Voters discuss their picks for president,” (the video has since been taken down, but there are still comments at the bottom of the page) they have students saying who they voted for and used that candidate’s logo as the image.  The problem came when Adam Kaminski, the video’s creator, used a logo which read, “Make Me Viagra’s Next Spokesman” on Senator McCain’s logo.

The above video is owned by the Central Michigan Life and has been posted under the Fair Use Clause of the Copyright Act of 1976.

Now, had this have been a joke, I would have no problem with it.  But when it is presented as a serious news story, I find this appalling.  If the video would’ve included, “Allah’s Next Great Prophet” for Senator Obama, I guarantee that people would be outraged.  And they should be!

This case is just a continuing pattern of terrible journalism by the CM-Life.  Let’s ignore the blatant spelling and grammar errors that a spread throughout most every issue, and look at some other cases of poor journalism:

Political columnist hack David Peterson’s article about Proposal 2, the proposal that legalized embryonic stem cell research, where he merely stated that it legalized stem cell research.  There’s a huge difference between legalizing stem cell research (which are already legal) and specifically embryonic stem cell research (which was illegal, up until the passage of the Proposal).

Here’s what Peterson wrote: “I’m sure everyone in the state of Michigan has seen the ads concerning roposal 2, the decision to allow stem cell research within the state of Michigan for the purposes of discovering cures for various diseases, disorders and organ replacement procedures…”

And how many times does he mention the word embryo (or any variation of the word)?  Once.  In the middle of the article.

I wrote the following letter to the editor, in addition to several requests for a printed correction (a request which was never honored):

First, you have a general lack of understanding of Proposal 2. Proposal 2 does not “allow stem cell research within the state of Michigan.” Stem cell research is already allowed. Proposal 2 will allow embryonic stem cell research. That’s a pretty important fact that you managed to leave out. This has been a common “error” that proponents of proposal 2 make. Just because a person opposes embryonic stem cell research does not mean that they oppose stem cell research overall.

I think the students of CMU deserve columnists with better knowledge of the issues than this.

These 2 cases show that the CM-Life is lacking in journalism ethics.  And apparently it’s lacking in editors, and I’m not just talking about editors who should’ve noticed these “mistakes.”  I’m talking about editors who should catch typos like “non threatening life injury” instead of “non life threatening injury,” or the various typos that plague almost every issue of the newspaper.

I hope the editors will honor my request for a correction this time, and if not, I will have lost all respect for the newspaper.  Even my liberal roommate (the other one, not the one that I normally talk about on here) agrees that this went way too far.

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican
add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! ::

Get Out and Vote Today (and Volunteer)!

November 4, 2008

Hey everybody – I just wanted to make sure you remember to get out and vote today.  I also want to make one final plea to voters (especially Michiganders): don’t vote straight ticket.  That is an uneducated vote.  Go out and research ALL of the candidates, and vote for the best one.

Also, to you conservative Michiganders: go out and  volunteer today.  People like Representatives Tim Walberg (MI-7) and Joe Knollenberg (MI-9) need your help.  So help them out – even if it’s only for an hour or 2.  And if you’re up near Mount Pleasant, go help out the Isabella County Republicans – they need it too.  We can’t let people like County Clerk Joyce Swan or Register of Deeds Sharon Brown lose, so please, go help them out if you can.

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican
add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! ::

A Plea to All Michigan Voters (And Any Other Voters, Really)

October 7, 2008

Folks, I’m going to be straight with you here.  I think we all know that it’s going to take a miracle for McCain to win Michigan (I won’t say it’s impossible – I’ve learned my lesson once before).

And I’m still hearing McCain and Republican Party people saying, “We can win Michigan!”  Well, true, we can, but I don’t think we will (I will say that things could change after tonight’s debate – tonight’s debate will be McCain’s best debate).

First, my appeal to Obama supporters (especially those of you who have registered at your college – I know up here at Central Michigan University, around 5,000 students have registered to vote putting their permanent address as Mount Pleasant): Don’t just vote straight party ticket.  I don’t do this, and I’m a hard core Republican.  Either 1) Don’t vote for the races that you don’t know anything about (county races) or 2) Do some research and vote for the best candidate.

I’m not trying to keep you from voting for Obama – I realize that you’ll vote for him.  I don’t like it, but I’ve accepted it.  But people like the Register of Deeds, Sharon Brown, and the County Clerk, Joyce Swan, who have been in office for years, and have perfected the jobs that they do.  Having a bunch of college students (most of whom will leave the county in 4-6 years) elect 2 people who have no clue what they’re doing over 2 competent public servants is WRONG!  But do you know why it might happen?  Because Students for Obama and the College Democrats here at CMU are telling people to vote straight party ticket Democrat.  Now, I’ve gone up and asked the Students for Obama President, Matt Sous, if he’s doing this and he’s told me no.  But I’ve heard him encourage students to vote straight party ticket while he’s getting people registered to vote.  So again, I implore students (all over the state): look into these local races.  Don’t vote straight party ticket (don’t even do it if you’re going to vote for all Democrats – just vote for them individually).

Now, to my Republican friends: I’ve heard people now saying, “Now that McCain’s out, I don’t need to vote.”  HOLD IT!  There’s still races for the House of Representatives, as well as State Senate and House.  There’s races in the counties and in the cities (but like I said before, don’t vote stupid – don’t just vote party – vote candidate).

People like Representative Joe Knollenberg (9th District) still need your votes.  These are still close races.  Go out there and vote for McCain/Palin, even IF we’re going to lose (and again, we may not).  Go out there and VOTE on these other issues.  We also have 2 very important ballot issues.  Don’t give up your right to vote, the right that our troops have died for just because you think that the Presidential candidate that you support might lose!

This election is far from over.  Tonight’s debate (which I will live blog) will probably go well for McCain (he does well in town hall settings), and he could rebound.  Who knows.  I don’t think he’ll win Michigan, but stranger things have happened.

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican
add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! ::

Noose Student at Central Michigan University Will Not Be Charged With Ethnic Intimidation

July 30, 2008

This is breaking news - I just heard about it from the CM-Life.

Isabella County Prosecutor Larry Burdick has said that he will not be pressing charges against the 28-year-old male engineering student who hung a noose in the Industrial Educational Technology Building back in November.  (My previous posts on this subject can be found here, here, here, here, and here).

Burdick released a press release, saying, “I am confident of the work performed by the CMU police, in conjunction with the FBI.  The facts determined due to the joint investigation does not support a charge of ethnic intimidation, and the intent needed for that crime cannot be proven.”  And that’s basically what I said in my retraction to my original statementssaying that he should be charged.  The fact is, even IF he did it in an intimidating way, without a verification for that, Burdick can’t win the case, and if he tried, he’d be a bad prosecutor, in my opinion.

Burdick goes on to say, “The student’s e-mail to the campus newspaper was, in my opinion, both insensitive and demonstrative of a complete lack of knowledge and understanding about the historical significance of the hanging of nooses.  His explanation, however, as to the reason he constructed and hung four nooses last November was corroborated by two of his classmates, which I found to be very credible and forthright concerning the incident.”

Again – that shows that although the student made a very poor/stupid decision, it wasn’t intended to be a threat of force (and even if the student is lying, 2 witnesses would be hard for Burdick to argue against).

Burdick continues, “Because intent lies at the heart of the charge that was under consideration, both we and the FBI felt it important to fully and carefully examine the individual’s personal computer to see if there was anything to suggest his actions were racially motivated. … What happened on campus should not just serve as a badly needed educational experience for one college student, but enlighten all of us as to the detrimental effect of this symbol.”

Again – this was a good call by Burdick.

But now that Burdick has said all of this, this means that CMU cannot release the student’s name (under FERPA, only a person who commits a violent or sexual crime can have his/her name released).  As I said before, if Burdick doesn’t prosecute, as he now has decided not to, I’d wonder what rule CMU used to suspend the student.  The fact that no crime was committed gives the student a possible case against the university to overturn his suspension.  I really can’t give my opinion on this, since I don’t know what the university charged him with.

I would like to take this opportunity to invite the student to do an interview with me.  I have a few questions, some about the incident, but mostly about the aftermath and what will happen here.  So, to the student who hung the noose, if you’re out there reading this, and wouldn’t mind answering a few questions, e-mail me at n.d.inks@gmail.com.

I’ll keep you all updated as this story keeps on developing.

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican
add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! ::

Central Michigan University Impliments a Ban on Professors Running for Public Office, Including Congressional Candidate Gary Peters

May 19, 2008

This is part 2 in a weekly series on the race for Michigan’s 9th Congressional District.  This was supposed to be a post about fundraising, but we’ve had some interesting developments come up in the past week.  Central Michigan University proposed a policy that would go in effect on July 1st, that would require “full-time employees of the university … to either resign or take an unpaid leave of absence when they comply with candidacy filing requirements, 60 days prior to the date set forth for the election relating to the sought-after public office, whichever date is closer to the elections” (source: CM-Life).

The CM-Life reported that this policy was implemented as a result of the Gary Peters issue: “It’s a political year and questions were raised about political candidates (on campus). … That’s when the questions began, in relation to the Gary Peters reaction, but it goes deeper than that.  The university realized the need for a policy.” ~~Steve Smith, Director of Media Relations

There are some exceptions to the new policy:

  • Candidates for unpaid or temporary offices
    • Municipal charter revision commissions
    • Delegate to constitutional conventions
    • Positions on a city or county board where the position is unpaid
  • Candidates for any part-time local offices where the position would not demand work during university-working hours

Smith said that the policy is not final, saying, “We are still waiting on input from the on-campus community.”

Contrary to what I had heard earlier (as I will explain later), the faculty union will be subject to this policy.

Now, I had heard about this policy being in the making back in late April.  I had been told by somebody inside of CMUthat this policy would not apply to faculty who are union members because their contract would have to be reworked through the union, and the union would never let this happen, so instead of fighting with those faculty members, they were just going to leave them exempt.

Dennis Lennox, former Student’s Against Gary Peters spokesman told the  CM-Life, “I think it’s a great proposal that should have been implemented months ago.  This is a victory for students and tax payers who wanted to hold Gary Peters accountable.  It’s a huge vindication.  It’s just unfortunate it took 10 months and a whole host of horrible events for this resolution to occur.”

Now, how does this affect the race for the 9th District?  Well, as I’m sure you all know, Gary Peters obviously falls under this policy.  He will either have to resign or take a leave of absence.

What do I think?  I think the policy is completely stupid, but I think it will stand in court.  From what I’ve seen, since CMU gets federal money, the policy can legally fall as an extension under the Hatch Act of 1939, which has been held up in 2 Supreme Court cases.

Personally, I think this is a violation of free speech.

Ideally, CMU would have a policy that would allow professors to run for office but make sure that no time or resources that belong to CMU are used.

I don’t know if Peters will resign or take a leave of absence, or if he’ll challenge it.  The source that talked to me in late April told me that he/she thought that the ACLU might get involved.  Now that it applies to union faculty members, I think the union will fight back as well, which is a great help for their cause.  They could turn this into quite a battle.  Of course, if they went on strike, I would consider that way over the line and probably add them to my long list of hated unions.

I’ll keep you updated if any more news comes out about the policy.  Next week (maybe), I’ll be talking about fundraising.

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican
add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! ::

Central Michigan Officials Unable to Confirm/Deny Penalty for Noose Student

March 27, 2008

OK, so the Central Michigan Life did a story in response to my recent blog post and I just wanted to keep you updated on the situation.

The CM-Life asked for a statement from the university concerning the leak, and Tony Voisin, Director of Student Life, said, “It would be a problem for that person to be leaking information to the media.”

The CM-Life also talked to Isabella County Prosecutor Larry Burdick who told the Life that the forensic results of some of the evidence have not yet been returned to him, saying, “I realize it is a source of frustration.  It is for me, too.”

A Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) submitted to CMU was denied because the investigation is still ongoing (and I will agree that they probably shouldn’t release anything in an ongoing investigation, although I haven’t found anything in Michigan law that indicates that a crime was committed).

To back up my previous statements that I don’t think that a crime was committed, a comment was left linking to a Connecticut Post article that discusses a law that is currently being proposed in Connecticut that would make hanging nooses a hate crime.  Michigan has hate crime laws similar to Connecticut, which would imply that as of now, hanging nooses is not illegal (not that it’s right – I think it’s terrible, but it’s free speech as long as you aren’t threatening anybody specifically).

I’ll keep you updated as any information comes in, but right now it looks like we’re just waiting for Larry Burdick to reach his decision on whether or not to prosecute.

Done Reporting,

Ranting Republican
add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! ::

Leaked Info: Noose Student at Central Michigan Suspended

March 21, 2008

I received the following information from a source familiar with the circumstances of the hearing and the general hearing process (read here for my previous post on this: https://inkslwc.wordpress.com/2008/03/17/what-ever-happened-to-the-noose-student-at-cmu/):

CMU has kicked the student out until Aug. 1, 2008. The student (a white male senior … not a black guy trying to generate sympathy for “his cause,” as some have suggested)), will take incompletes on his course work and finish them after Aug. 1. He’ll then be allowed to graduate.

At an earlier student disciplinary hearing, the panel wanted to kick him out of school permanently. He appealed that decision, and the appeals panel reduced the penalty.

As you know, the county prosecutor is still weighing whether to bring criminal charges against him. I can’t imagine that he will. Michigan’s ethnic intimidation statute requires that an act be directed at an individual, and, as far as I can see, there was no such thing here. And – unless that intimidation factor is present — it’s not a crime to be a racist or to express racist thoughts.

This really did surprise me. As I indicated in the previous post, it is VERY unlikely that he broke any laws (although what he did was in my eyes wrong – if it wasn’t racist, it was poor judgment in the least, and if it was racist, it’s morally wrong, but legally there’s nothing wrong with being racist).

It wasn’t directed against anybody, and as I pointed out, without a direction of the threat, you can’t prove that there was a threat of FORCE.  For instance, (and this simplifies the situation by taking out the implications of nooses in our society), leaving a baseball bat on a desk isn’t a crime, but going into an NAACP event and yelling racist phrases is a hate crime (I know hate crime isn’t a legal term, but it’s easier than saying U.S. Federal Code, Title …).

So, if this information is true, as I expect it is, I am disappointed in CMU’s decision.  Even further, I’d like to know what they charged him with, because as I said before, if it was a violent crime (which involves even the threat of violence) that they charged him with, they CAN release the information, as is stated in the Family Education Righs and Privacy Act (FERPA), and I may FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) for it (or if someone a little more legally knowledgeable would like to volunteer, it’d be greatly appreciated).

If Isabella County Prosecutor Larry Burdick doesn’t charge him (which I doubt he will if they’ve waited this long), I think that the student should bring this to court.

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican
add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! ::

What Ever Happened to the “Noose Student” at CMU?

March 17, 2008

OK, so the recent controversy with Dennis Lennox has made me wonder, what about the student who hung the nooses?

First, I owe the student somewhat of an apology.  I got caught up in my “A good prosecutor could win that case” syndrome and misinterpreted the law too far.  I claimed that U.S. Federal Code Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 13, § 245 could be interpreted to mean that he should be charged with a hate crime being “something intimidating that interferes with attending a public college, therefore making it a hate crime and thus illegal.”  I was interpreting Clause (b) which states “Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, by force or threat of force willfully injures, intimidates or interferes with, or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with…”

And here’s where I messed up – I did not look up any case law for “force.”  Hanging a noose is not a threat of force.  Is it intimidating?  Yes.  Is it a threat of force?  No.  Also, it was not directed at any particular group of people.  Sure it’s pretty much common knowledge that nooses are a symbol of lynching and racism against African Americans, but you can’t use an assumption as a prosecutor.

The point is, there’s too much “reasonable doubt” that a “good prosecutor” would know that he’d be playing on the emotions of any jury in trying to convict this student.

But wait, there’s more…

According to a CM-Life article, “Because of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act [FERPA], university officials cannot release student records, which include disciplinary matters.  Information about the case – including the student’s name – might only be released if Isabella County Prosecutor Larry Burdick decides there is enough evidence to press charges.”

Here’s an excerpt from FERPA (Title 20, Chapter 31, Subchapter III, Part 4, § 1232g (b) (6)):

(B)Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit an institution of postsecondary education from disclosing the final results of any disciplinary proceeding conducted by such institution against a student who is an alleged perpetrator of any crime of violence (as that term is defined in section 16 of title 18), or a nonforcible sex offense, if the institution determines as a result of that disciplinary proceeding that the student committed a violation of the institution’s rules or policies with respect to such crime or offense.
(C) For the purpose of this paragraph, the final results of any disciplinary proceeding—
  (i) shall include only the name of the student, the violation committed, and any sanction imposed by the institution on that student; and
  (ii) may include the name of any other student, such as a victim or witness, only with the written consent of that other student.

And here’s the definition of “crime of violence (as that term is defined in section 16 of title 18)”:

The term “crime of violence” means—
(a) an offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or prop­erty of another, or
(b) any other offense that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.

So, then if a hate crime was committed (that would mean that my current interpretation of the U.S. Code that discusses hate crimes would be incorrect, and my original interpretation would be correct), then the university would be allowed to release the information.

Dawn Hertz, general counsel for the Michigan Press Association said, “There is someone in Washington [D.C.] who would threaten their federal funding if they released their name.  The university really has to be extremely careful.”

Tony Voisin, director of Student Life, said explained the disciplinary process by saying that anybody who violates the Student Code of Conduct must meet with a Conduct Proceedings Officer, after which, the officers decides if enough evidence exists to discipline the student.  He then went on to explain that hearings only take place when students do not admit guilt, saying, “To date, we’ve had about 10 hearings.  Over the course of the year, we may have 700-plus violations, and only 20 are tried.  We can’t share even the fact that there is a hearing.  The university can’t share those results with anybody other than the student involved.  It’s the business of the student involved and nobody else.”

Dean of Students, Bruce Roscoe told the CM-Life that even releasing the student’s punishment could be a violation of FERPA.

But we just read in FERPA that it’s acceptable to release the students name and punishment if the crime was violent.  The only crime that hanging a noose could be is a hate crime (I know hate crime isn’t a technical term, but it’s quicker than saying the crime established in U.S. Federal Code…).  So, if the student WAS found guilty, then logically, the hearing results could be released.

So, in a normal situation, I would assume based on all of this that the student was found not guilty, and thus the results of the hearing could not be released; however, since I know the history of CMU (specifically the Student Life Department), I’m not going to assume anything.

If anybody does have any information about the case, please let me know.

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican
add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! ::

Central Michigan Life Says That a Student Told Them the Nooses Were a “Halloween Joke”

November 19, 2007

Read here for the story of the nooses if you don’t know what I’m talking about.

I just got the e-mail.  Apparently the student wrote a comment online in response to a CM Life article.  CM Life’s website said the following:

“This is mostly directed at the channel 5 news, and I thank you for not following suit yet. Bias in the news is the very reason I don’t watch it anymore. This would never have happened if I kept up on recent events.

Without ever looking at the facts, everyone just assumes that a hate crime has taken place at CMU. They ignore the fact that nooses were hung on or around Halloween. They pretend that blacks have been singled out by nooses throughout history, when many other races have been hung in larger numbers. They jump on the bandwagon because of the unfortunate incident in Jena where the convenient facts were also printed.

Those nooses were in the classroom for well over a week, and no one cared enough to even take them down. Yet, somebody was offended to the extent that the police and news became involved. Why does it have to be personal? Why can’t you just untie the things and go about your business?

Yes, these words sound cold and heartless at first glance, but truth usually is. The truth is I hung the nooses as a Halloween joke. I did not realize how nooses have been used in the recent past in Columbia and Jena as a “symbol of hate and racism” and did not realize how inappropriate it has become. Honestly, it was more a symbol of “I would rather be hung than do more work on this project” and the people involved took it in that context. If I had been aware of recent events, I would have known better than this.

No, I should not make light of the suffering of a minority. Using the noose as a symbol of racism makes people guilty of the same crime though. Do black people have any more right to be offended by a noose than anybody else? Do the more recent hangings outweigh the centuries of capital punishment? No, I think people are making light of all the hangings that were not racially motivated.

I am considering coming forward in person. I have not decided whether it will help diffuse the situation, or just give a target. I do not want to be made an example of over something I never meant in a harmful way.

To sum things up, people are overreacting badly. I am one of the least prejudiced people you could ever meet. I don’t hate anyone based on race, skin color, or nationality, I simply have a habit of making jokes that are not politically correct. I would like to apologize for my lack of taste, and to everyone who had to waste valuable time investigating the matter. Thank you for your time.

- The hanged man”

Read here for the whole story: http://www.cm-life.com/news/2007/11/19/News/Web-Post.Noose.Was.halloween.Joke-3108978.shtml?reffeature=htmlemailedition

Now, hold on – I thought that you didn’t know the meaning of the joke, but you just said that it was “politically [in]correct”?  That doesn’t make much sense to me.

I think this post is legit – at least in that the poster really is the kid.  My thoughts on his post, BULL CRAP!  Who doesn’t know the meaning of hanging nooses?  The kid racist pig is trying to make himself look good as he came to the police.  I’d like to hear him try to make a logical argument out of this one – in fact, I’m going to try and get that.  I’ll get a comment on the CM Life’s site inviting him to this thread to make a “logical” defense for himself.

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 287 other followers

%d bloggers like this: