Payson Roundup

Note: Payson Roundup doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy.

1. 27 June 2009 at 2:56 p.m.

   Suggest removal

   Permalink

   Tom_Garrett (Tom Garrett) says…

   It has been reported that the government accidentally posted on the Internet a list of United States government and civilian nuclear facilities and their activities.

   The 266-page document was published May 6, 2009 as a transmission from President Obama to Congress. The list is also going to be provided to the International Atomic Energy Agency. Some of the pages are marked “highly confidential safeguards sensitive.”

   Energy Secretary Steven Chu, questioned about the disclosure at a House hearing, particularly expressed concern about a uranium storage facility at the department's Y-12 facility in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. The facility holds large quantities of highly enriched uranium, which if stolen can be used to make a nuclear weapon.

   “That's of great concern,” said Chu. “We will be looking hard and making sure physical security of [the Y12 site) is sufficient to prevent eco-terrorists and others getting hold of that material.”

   Thank you, Mister President.

   In your next press conference, please explain the meaning of “highly confidential safeguards sensitive.”

2. 29 June 2009 at 12:57 a.m.

   Suggest removal

   Permalink

   fred_franz (frederick franz) says…

   The Energy Secretary says “We will be looking hard and making sure physical security of [the Y12 site) is sufficient to prevent eco-terrorists and others getting hold of that material.” Sure they will be watching the physical security, but what about the Internet security? Do we really have a Department of Homeland Security???? Will the President please explain what they are supposed to be doing???
   -Fred

3. 29 June 2009 at 10 a.m.

   Suggest removal

   Permalink

   DonEvans (don evans) says…

   The only thing that is truly safeguarded and sensitive by this President is the guest list for the July 4th White House Bar-B-Q.

4. 29 June 2009 at 12:18 p.m.

   Suggest removal

   Permalink

   Tom_Garrett (Tom Garrett) says…

   I guess you all know I'm not an Obama basher, but I have to be honest when I say that he is beginning to make me a little nervous, especially in his choice of Janet Napolitano. I watched her in office here, and listened to her state her reasons for many of her decisions, and I have to honestly say that I doubt her ability to run anything in an objective manner.

   Just one example. The state changed the law regarding who has to prove what in a trial where someone pleads self-defense in a murder trail. It is self-evident that the burden of proof in any trial should rest with the prosecution, and in a murder trail it's even more obvious. Forcing some poor guy to prove that he acted in self-defense is an obvious travesty of justice. In many cases it is impossible to prove self-defense, even when the evidence of it is fairly clear.

   Just after the law was passed, with the intent of correcting a genuine wrong, the Harold Fish case was brought up. Here was the classic example of injustice, a hiker who fired on a man with known mental problems, a man who was charging at him yelling that he was going to kill him. Fish, who was hiking the woods and always went armed because of bears and rabid animals, claimed that he first fired into the ground and then shot his attacker when he refused to halt.

   The evidence at the scene supported Fish's version of what happened. The county sheriff's office, after investigating, concluded that no crime had been committed and filed no charges. The county prosecutor office, with no additional evidence, forced a trial. Fish was convicted because he was not allowed to bring into court evidence showing that the man who attacked him had a history of such attacks, as well of severe mental problems.

   Here, then, was a case requiring a retrial under the new law.

   Janet Napolitano vetoed a bill to grant him that trial.

   Now, if she had made that decision on sound legal grounds it might be argued that she did what she believed was correct.

   But she vetoed the bill, giving as her reason the fact that it would open the door for other people to ask for a retrial under similar circumstances.

   That is an impermissible reason for denying a man a retrial. How can she possibly sleep? She denied a man justice, not because he wasn't deserving of it, but because other people might receive the same justice.

   And Obama chose her to run an important arm of the government? What a rotten choice!

5. 30 June 2009 at 8:02 p.m.

   Suggest removal

   Permalink

   Tom_Garrett (Tom Garrett) says…

   I just love it when coincidence happens to put the stamp of approval on something I said!

   Yesterday, at 12:18 PM I put up that last post, the one about Harold Fish.

   The Good Lord loving me as He does, He intervened to put a report on on Channel 12 News at 5:30 today, taken from this article:

   Retrial ordered in fatal shooting of hiker
   by Michael Kiefer - Jun. 30, 2009 03:08 PM
   The Arizona Republic

   The Arizona Court of Appeals on Tuesday threw out a murder conviction of a hiker who claimed self-defense when he shot a man to death on a hiking trail north of Payson in May 2004.

   Harold Fish, 62, was convicted of second-degree murder in June 2006 for shooting Grant Kuenzli, 43, after Kuenzli ran at him waving his arms because Fish had fired a warning shot into the ground to scare away Kuenzli's aggressive dogs. He was sentenced to 10 years in prison.

   But the Court of Appeals sent the case back to Coconino Court Superior Court to be retried because the trial court judge had not given adequate instruction on what constituted self defense. And the panel of appellate judges scolded Coconino County Superior Court Judge Mark Moran for not answering a jury request to define the word “attack.” The panel remarked that the jury may not have understood that someone can commit aggravated assault on another person without actually touching him.

   Fish's contention was that Kuenzli's three dogs ran at him and put him in fear for his safety. He fired a shot into the ground in front of the dogs and scared them away. But then Kuenzli ran at him shouting and waving his arms and refused to stop.

   The panel also noted that the lower court had “sanitized” evidence of prior incidents in which Kuenzli had become enraged and had frightened people during encounters with the dogs. Many times, in criminal trials, such “prior bad acts” are excluded. But in this case, the appellate judges felt it was relevant, especially since there were no witnesses to the event.

   The appeals court also felt that Moran could have allowed the defense to classify dogs as potentially “dangerous instruments,” furthering Fish's self-defense claims.

   Two weeks after Fish's trial began, the Arizona State Legislature rewrote the state's self-defense statutes to force prosecutors to better disprove self-defense claims. And although the Fish case was a catalyst for the law, it could not be applied retroactively. That change in the law, however, coupled with the strong wording of the ruling may factor into whether the Coconino County Attorney decides to retry the case or whether Fish goes free.
   ––––-

   I'll say it again. Janet Reno is a bongo brain! She let an innocent man sit in jail for three years because she didn't want the state to have to defend itself against retrials of men and women who had been unfairly convicted of a crime in a case where they pleaded self-defense and the prosecution did not have to prove its case.