On Wednesday, a man with a rifle ambushed Republican members of Congress at a park in Virginia as the lawmakers held a morning baseball practice in preparation for the annual Congressional Baseball Game, which was held yesterday. Five people were wounded, including House Majority Whip Steve Scalise of Louisiana, who was in critical condition at the time of writing. Two Capitol Police officers engaged the gunman in a shootout where he was fatally injured. The gunman, James T. Hodgkinson, seemingly was motivated by political animus – he reportedly asked whether the lawmakers were Democrats or Republicans before the attack. The Washington Post has comprehensive coverage of the incident. Keep reading for more news.
NCCU. The News & Observer reports that one of the Capitol Police officers involved in the shootout with Hodgkinson, David Bailey, is a 2007 graduate of N.C. Central. Bailey was injured during the incident but his injuries are not life threatening and he reportedly is in good condition.
Hodgkinson. As mentioned in the lead, it appears that Hodgkinson’s attack was motivated by political animus. Hodgkinson reportedly volunteered for the presidential campaign of Bernie Sanders and frequently criticized Republicans and President Trump on Facebook. Politicians from both sides of the aisle called for unity in the wake of the attack.
Defendant Grateful to Have Been Shot. The Winston-Salem Journal has an unusual story of a criminal defendant who thanked a Winston-Salem officer for shooting him during a standoff in September of last year. Marshall Alan Wiggins pleaded guilty to assault with a firearm on a law-enforcement officer and a DVPO violation in Forsyth County last week based upon an incident where he pointed a gun at officers during a domestic altercation. Officer A.D. King shot Wiggins during the ordeal. Wiggins, who is now paralyzed, apologized to King and said that he was “10 times a better person” after the incident than he was before.
Cosby. The Associated Press reported Thursday that jurors in Bill Cosby’s sexual assault trial are deadlocked on all charges. The jury has been deliberating for days but the judge ordered them to continue to try to reach a unanimous decision and denied a defense motion for a mistrial.
High Tech Injustice? There’s been recent interest in deploying new technologies in various areas of the criminal justice system. For example, the News Roundup previously has noted (here, here, and here) the increasing use of risk assessment tools in pretrial release decisions. An opinion piece in the New York Times this week says that some uses of new technologies are negatively affecting the fairness of criminal proceedings because courts have shielded proprietary elements of the technologies from defendants as protected trade secrets. The U.S. Supreme Court apparently is considering whether to hear a case, Wisconsin v. Loomis, involving this issue.
When I Paint My Masterpiece. As the nation collectively ponders criminal justice reform, there are some who think that someday everything is going to be different. One of those people is Agnes Gund who recently sold Roy Lichtenstein’s 1962 painting entitled “Masterpiece” for a cool $165 million, and used the proceeds to establish the Art for Justice Fund. The aim of the new fund is to end mass incarceration, according to NBC News.
Protect & Swerve. Big news folks, we’ve got a law enforcement dance-off story this week. Officer Courtney Leaver of the Lincoln, Nebraska, Police Department threw down the gauntlet last week with some solid moves on Twitter and a challenge to the rival Bellevue P.D. to “bring it.” Bellevue responded, but had nothing to bring beyond awkward gyrations. The Grand Island P.D. then got in on the action and were acquitting themselves well until a bike cop showed up. Overall, I’d say Nash County’s Cody Williams doesn’t have much to worry about from the Cornhusker State.
I would think that Fox News would be a far better, and far less liberal left slanted news source than the Washington Post with regard to news about Democrat trying to kill Republicans.
Still think that ‘bi-partisanship’ ‘compromise’ and ‘reaching across the aisle’ with Democrats who are trying to kill you is wise or appropriate?
It’s time you realize that Republicans must UNIFY and bring the “Rule of Law”, responsibility and accountability back to government.
It’s time to deal with these people as the CRIMINALS that they are.
Since the liberals are the underdogs now you are going to see a desperately fervent return to pleas and even outright demands for ‘bipartisanship’, ‘meaningful discussions’ or ‘compromise’ now.
Pleas for a “meaningful discussion” mean nothing here because ALL discussions are meaningful as that is the purpose of discussion….to pass on meaningful knowledge where knowledge is required.
If you mean by meaningful discussion a “compromise” acceding to liberal points of contention then I’m pretty sure that you’re going to be disappointed because we the awakened majority are wise to that liberal tactic.
A demand for a ‘meaningful discussion’ is just another variant of the liberal “compromise” tactic. How often have you heard the Liberal or Democrat plaintive whine that we all should have a meaningful discussion, that we should COMPROMISE, that we should strive to “meet in the middle”?
It’s nothing more than a liberal tactic, a disingenuous ploy that serves the sole purpose of using guilt to you sway you into letting them gain a foothold or ground they don’t currently have on an issue.
Even funnier is the idea that liberals are somehow so much more intelligent or better informed than conservatives. Such arrogance!
The only “compromise” made here is YOU compromising YOUR morals or beliefs out of fear falsely created by the liberal of you appearing to be somehow “uncooperative”.
With regard to politicians it’s a thinly veiled threat of a loss of votes…from Democrats and Liberals that have never voted for Republicans and never intend to ever vote for, or with, Republicans anyway. One wonders why Republican politicians even entertain their rhetoric considering there’s no benefit to doing so anyway.
You “reach across the aisle” and “compromise” by giving 30% on a 100% demand this year, you give another 30% the next year and yet another 30% the next year and then suddenly you have given the liberals everything they wanted in just three years. In just two years if you “meet them halfway” as they so often insist.
Don’t fall for this nonsense. It is perfectly permissible and appropriate to “stand your ground” on many issues. Looking Democrats, or elite Republicans, in the face and flatly stating ‘No!’ is in no way a bad thing or a hurtful action despite what liberals or Democrats try to convince you to believe.
Wrong is wrong and despite the liberal’s nonsense even a “little bit” wrong merged with “right” is STILL WRONG. And liberalism is wrong. The tactics that the liberal is employing against you is called;
“Argument to the Middle” or “Argument of Moderation”: An individual demonstrating this false compromise fallacy implies that the positions being considered represent extremes of a continuum of opinions, and that such extremes are always wrong, and the middle ground is always correct. Commonly executed by liberals and Democrats in the pursuit of nonsensical ideology in an effort to sway the masses with their false perception of “fairness”.
Examples:
★ “Hamas demands death to ALL Jews, Israel obviously rejects the notion, John Kerry recommends that Israel “meet them halfway”.
★ ISIS/Muslims demands the death of all infidels (that means YOU), Obama recommends that Americans compromise with ISIS and Muslims and “meet them halfway”.
★ “Some would say that hydrogen cyanide is a delicious and necessary part of the human diet, but others claim it is a toxic and dangerous substance. The truth must therefore be somewhere in between.”
★ “A 100 ft canyon lies in front of Jack and Jill. Jack wants to build a 100 ft bridge to cross the canyon, but Jill doesn’t want to cross at all. A compromise between the two would be a 50 ft bridge, which would only please Jill.”
★ “Bob says we should buy a computer. Sue says we shouldn’t. Therefore, the best solution is to compromise and buy half a computer.”
★ “Should array indices start at 0 or 1? My compromise of 0.5 was rejected without, I thought, proper consideration.” — Stan Kelly-Bootle
★ “The choice of 48 bytes as the ATM cell payload size, as a compromise between the 64 bytes proposed by parties from the United States and the 32 bytes proposed by European parties; the compromise was made for entirely political reasons, since it did not technically favor either of the parties.”
★ “The fact that one is confronted with an individual who strongly argues that slavery is wrong and another who argues equally strongly that slavery is perfectly legitimate in no way suggests that the truth must be somewhere in the middle.”
All said and done….liberalism is wrong, is a confirmed mental disease, and altogether a “bad” thing to be afflicted with because it leads to bad decision making in life, in community and in politics.
So the next time you hear a liberal confront you with;
“What’s your problem? Don’t you want a meaningful conversation? Why won’t you compromise? We need to meet in the middle! You’re just being stubborn!”
Simply respond back with;
“So if one person argues that slavery is wrong and another argues that slavery is right then you’d say the truth must be somewhere in the middle, that the answer lies in a “compromise?”
Enjoy watching their little liberal heads explode.
All of that from, “The Washington Post has comprehensive coverage of the incident.”?
Well, yes…..I hope it didn’t put too much of a strain on you. I know it’s tough for some of you to digest anything other than short liberal talking points. Just muddle through as best you can sir. I promise that you won’t die from reading some opposing views.