... It's the nature of headlines... and of news media.

And the fact of the matter is that on this forum when Iive put articles and links that point to or talk about good news, it ia extremely rare that there is a comment beyond my first posting of such an item.

So apparently it's human nature, as well as the nature of headlines and the media. People don't give a crap about good news or about talking about it.

RB

Sounds like Cawood wasn't ready to proceed and couldn't get a continuance so he did the next best thing. The fact that this guy hasn't been disbarred already is amazing.

Just curious WC, your headline seems to indicate that maybe you think Cawood shouldn't have been charged. Is that the case?

.. and he hasn't told me :-)

Anybody's guess.

RB

"Is the choke hold that one officer has on Mr. Cawood legal?"

1. That is not a choke hold (not in any of the photos I saw).
2. Choke holds are legal in certain circumstances.
3. The Sheriff's Dept has had very recent training on choke holds and are current on their training.

"If Mr. Patton went through the metal detector was he single out for “special treatment"

1. It is not evident from the photos that he did go through.
2. I have been there a large number of times when people went through the metal detector and still had to be wanded or searched.
3. It is not unusual for this to happen.
4. The deputy touching his elbow was probably for him to get his arms in a position suitable for more effective wanding (I've seen this happen many times, and nobody else gets their bowels in an uproar when it happens - nobody but the team of Patton/Cawood.) I've seen this deputy's technique for this time and time again, and there is nothing inappropriate about it.
5. All that notwithstanding, Patton has a history of weapons carry, so an increased index of suspicion was appropriate.

Mr Cawood's behavior is a disgrace to himself, the human race, and any bar of which he might be a member. Yet the bar polices itself. They will - or will not do - whatever they feel is appropriate within the bounds of what their bylaws and rules of conduct allow or demand.

It doesn't take an IQ much higher than that of pond scum to figure that, given all the pre-courthouse appearance efforts that were made (photos at the law office, outside the courthouse, etc), there were plans for public displays of whatever.

Evidence? Res ipsa loquitur.

RB

100% on the money.

RB