Tuesday, July 24, 2012


QUICK TUESDAY UPDATE: Both South Florida and DOM cover the Gene Stearns win in the 11th circuit for Bank Atlantic. DOM argues before the 11th Circuit in Miami this week. Perhaps today? 

The NCAA slapped Penn State hard yesterday. It will be 2022 before the football program full recovers from the penalties. But to take away all the football victories since 1998 seems ridiculous, since it punishes players who had nothing to do with Paterno's malfeasance.  As we all know in Florida, "willful blindness" is not a defense. 

LESS IS MORE? Only if you're from another planet or are a Republican. 
Scenario: Its August 28th, 2012. A strange looking man is lurking outside the convention center in Tampa. It's 96 degrees and yet the man is wearing a long rain coat. His eyes appear glazed, he hasn't shaved or bathed in several days,  and he is muttering to himself while pacing back and forth. A police officer approaches him and pats him down. He finds a .45 caliber Sig Sauer in a holster tucked into the back of the man. In his wallet is a valid CCW permit.  As the officer continues his investigation a  young man chases his girlfriend with a water pistol, squirting her as they both scream in delight. Which one can be arrested? *

Outside of drugs, Republicans seem firmly committed to the type of math that bankrupts companies and governments. Less is more. Less taxes equals more tax revenue. Less guns equals more gun violence. Less government equals more government success. Only with the war on drugs do they seem to believe that less drugs equals less drug addiction. 

Regarding guns, the Republicans seem very committed to the idea that society can only be better, more peaceful, and less violent if everyone was armed. The more guns the better. There are hundreds of millions in guns in the United States and the death rate from homicide by firearm is roughly almost 4 per 100,000 people while in Canada, The United Kingdom, Switzerland,  France, Norwa, Greece, Poland, Hong Kong, Chile, South Korea, and Japan the death rate is always less than 1 per 100,000.  Source.

The Brady Center writes: U.S. homicide rates were 6.9 times higher than rates in the other high-income countries, despite similar non-lethal crime and violence rates (as reported in other studies).  The firearm homicide rate in the U.S. was 19.5 times higher.  

The researchers conclude that “Whatever our basic level of violence, the empirical evidence from ecological, case-control, and other studies indicate that readily accessible firearms - by making killing easy, efficient, and somewhat impersonal - increase the lethality of violence”

How many more innocent people-children and adults- need to die before we do something to stop the madness?

* As we reported yesterday, Tampa has passed an ordinance outlawing the possession of squirt guns but cannot pass an ordinance outlawing or restricting the possession of firearms as such a local ordinance about firearms (as opposed to anything else, like squirt guns, donuts, frisbees, etc) is prohibited by Florida Law. 


Anonymous said...

Switzerland, which you cite as an example of low gun violence, has a long-standing gun culture and plenty of guns like the United States. Every man in Switzerland is required to keep his fully-automatic, true assault rifle as home. Yet there is no gun violence. Why? The Swiss people are peaceful and law-abiding, therefore, they don't use guns in crime. The difference is the people not the amount of guns. Again, the old adage applies: Guns don't kill people, people do.

Rumpole said...

Guns don't kill people? Really? There's no accidential discharge that kills people? When someone gets angry and pulls a gun and fires, it's not the person wrapping their hands around a person's neck, it's the gun and the bullet that kills the person. The gun makes the impulsive decision to kill so much easier. There is a two part process: the person and the gun. The gun makes it easier. Lets say this sick man in Colorado didn't have access to guns and showed up with a knife. How many less people would have been killed and wounded?
Guns kill people, plenty of people and that slogan is just to try and influence the weak minded. It won't work here.

Try another analogy- do nuclear weapons kill people or do the people launching them kill people? If we didn't have a working nuclear weapon in 1945 there would have been no nuclear attack on Japan. There would have been an invasion costing 250,000 US lives. But don't mistake for one moment that it wasn't the nuclear bomb that incinerated all those Japanese. It certainly wasn't the pilot of the Enola Gay.

Anonymous said...

Guns don't kill people, bullets kill people

Anonymous said...

Under your analogy, Rumpole, let's ban automobiles, boats, airplanes, golf carts, skateboards, irons, toaster ovens, electricity, etc. They all kill and injure people. Let's ban walls, buildings and concrete structures too because they conspire with the above vehicles to kill people because when they slam against a surface, it's more deadly if the surface is hard than if it is soft. While you are at it, ban swimming pools too because they kill more children than guns and don't forget football helmets because they also kill and injure players.

Nuclear weapons don't kill people, it's the people that launch them. That's why they have so many protocols, codes, dual keys and other safeguards to launch a nuclear weapon and why not one nuclear weapon has launched itself or killed people since 1945. Same with guns, someone has to load then and cause the firing pin or the striker to hit the primer of the cartridge for them to fire, be it intentionally or accidentally, but no cartridge loads itself into a gun chamber and no pin or striker hits the primer by itself.

ELECTION 2012 said...

Does anyone know the back story behind why Andrea Wolfson accepted the Christian Coalition endorsement and rejected SAVE Dade?

Wannbe Judge said...

If you're interested in this topic, I recommend Bowling for Columbine. Forget what you may personally think of Michael Moore. It is a solid, entertaining documentary that explores the cause of gun violence in America. I came away with no clearer explanation, indeed with far more questions, but I did understand this: there is no easy answer. When you control for the various variables, gun ownership rates, poverty, demographic mix, geography, etc., there is still no plausible explanation as to why Americans kills so many Americans reach year.

Rumpole is right; the rejoinder to guns don't kill people is: guns don't kill people, people kill people... with guns. But no one can says guns cause Americans to pull the trigger. The reason so many of us pull the trigger is very complex.

Anonymous said...

a gun in the possession of the right person does not kill anyone. It's the gun in the wrong hands. If you outlaw guns, the right people won't have guns but the wrong people will still find a way to have them.

Anonymous said...

If there is so much corruption in politics its directly Kathryn Fernandez rundel fault. She puts her political needs first & doesn't prosecute her political friends.

Anonymous said...

Hey Rump-a-chump, why you covering DS? I posted an analysis of DS (I've known him over 20 years) to his recent crazy rants. It should be between your 11:11 comment and before my own 2:13 comment. What's the matter? You afraid he might cry?

Rumpole said...

11:48 here is what you all miss with your "hey, lets ban cars and boats and concrete if you're going to ban guns" arguments which are sophmoric at best.

Cars serve a useful purpose. So do boats and planes and trains. Accidents will happen. We needed guns in this country at a certain period but we do not need them anymore. There are 200 MILLION illegal handguns in the US.

As someone who has spent most of his adult life in the criminal justice system, time and time again in a handgun shooting case I hear a client say "if I just waited a few moments to calm down" or "if I didn't have gun in the car I would have just driven away."

Will banning guns end gun homicides? No. But removing a large chunk of the hand guns from the population will make them less accessible. And here is one undeniable fact: if you cannot obtain a gun, you cannot use a gun. Period. Please refute that simple argument.

And since large majority of the killings with handguns come from sudden combat/anger/mistake, then not having guns so readily accessible will end those tragic killings.

Again- stop with all your "ban planes, and trains, and cranes, and platic bottle top" arguments because all of those can be used to kill someone accidently and just answer me this: HOW WILL LESS GUNS LEAD TO MORE GUN VIOLENCE? HOW WILL MORE GUNS LEAD TO LESS GUN VIOLENCE? Because those are the logical conclusions from the "guns don't kill people" argument.

Jewish Marksman said...

Counselor, we reject a society where your clients are the only ones with the guns.

Anonymous said...

Just make simple possession of any firearm (unless in military or police) a 5 year min-man in State prison with no possible waiver available.

Jewish Marksman said...

"And here is one undeniable fact: if you cannot obtain a gun, you cannot use a gun. Period. Please refute that simple argument."

The refutation derives from the "if". If you cannot obtain heroin/crack/pcp you cannot possess or use it. Right? Just pass a law! So for all your clients with impulse control, we banned narcotics. We spend billions on enforcing that law, and LEOs risk life and limb to that effect.

And yet, despite all of society's efforts, your clients somehow find a way to obtain narcotics.

Oh, but guns would be different? How so?

Again, I'll give up my guns when each and every one of your clients give up theirs. Send me an email when that happens.

Anonymous said...

Let's take it one step further=== sue the company that manufacturers the bullets for the guns!

Anonymous said...

What about the fact that this jackass was able to acquire magazines permitting him to kill more people in less time easily and legally? If he would have visited a florida doctor incoherent and talking murder the wise florida legislature and governor would have had the Dr. arrested if he asks the lunatic about firearms.

Anonymous said...

The mass murder of students and decent people by assholes protected by the N.R.A. is a practically yearly event now. the truth of the matter is that the gun lobby is responsible for the slaughters.

Anonymous said...

Kathy has been in Office for 20yrs and is valued at $2,295,000. Not impressive but how did she accumulate it.
Second, Kathy's Prosecutor's have been constantly cited for prosecutorial misconduct repeatedly.
Also, Kathy says she fights corruption, but if you have followed her selective prosecutions over the years, you clearly see an unethical pattern.
Broward County has Brady List readily available and Kathy's office has not in 20yrs of corruption release a Brady List that the Constitution has said it is the duty of the Govt. to compel.
Kathy-Fernandez might have the money, but she does not have the confidence or trust of the community. She leaves Don Horne to debate for her as if he's running for Office, and constantly slights the attendees and community by avoiding questions and not even showing up at most of the events. I did not forget when she was the only guest who did not show for the NAACCP Installation of the executive members, but poped up at the same Leaders pastoral anniversary and managed to joke about contributions. Convberting republicans, ambiguously manipulating %'s on her website by saying murder is down, when if fact murder is up by (fire arm) there are several categories firearm/ hand,fist,feet/cutting,inst.other. She has become a "Loan Shark" loaning out over 200,000 dollars to individuals Robert Feinschreiber, Margaret Kent, Bevy Briggs, Raul Greaves at 12% interest rate (that's Miami for ya). Enough is enough the unscrupulous, unethical behavior, the political manipulation, the questionable Doner's. Kathy is exemplary of a career corrupt and overdue politician who receive campaign donations from San Juan Puerto Rico, Kathy it's time to relinquish that post to someone more integrable than you.
The confidence of the community no longer resides with you.
~Miami-Dade County~

Anonymous said...

What's an illegal gun, Rumpole? Define that for ua and explain why you say 200 million guns are illegal and where you got that number.

Guns serve a useful purpose and that is that they save lives. They save a lot more lives than they take, and that's not coming from me, but from anti-gun but intellectually honest criminologists. And most of the time, they don't even have to be fired to prevent an attack on an innocent victim.

When the concealed weapons law was enacted in 1987, the Miami Herald and every anti-gun media outlet and pro-gun-control elitist predicted mayhem, Dodge City gun fights and lots of gun deaths. The actual result was a drop in the violent personal crime rate and an increase in property crimes, as criminals started to avoid occupied dwellings and possibly armed victims and switched to stealing unaccompanied property. Inmates at state prisons admitted as much in a study conducted by Dr. Gary Kleck of FSU.

I myself avoided an ATM robbery once when two robbers who were coming at me saw me spin around holding my gun inside my pocket. Without waiting for me to even pull it out, they made a 180 degree turn, got in their car and left the bank's parking lot screeching tires.

This how guns save lives:


If you don't like guns, Rumpole, fine, don't buy them, don't carry them. But don't try to take them away from the rest of us responsible gun owners who use them safely and for positive and life-saving purposes.

Rumpole said...

In what universe and on what planet do guns SAVE more lives than they take? Where does that come from? What source? How are the guns saving lives?

This is from wikipedia:
There were 52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000.[4] The majority of gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides,[5] with 17,352 (55.6%) of the total 31,224 firearm-related deaths in 2007 due to suicide, while 12,632 (40.5%) were homicide deaths.[6]

So looking at the last figure, show me some source where during that year there were 12, 633 instances where a GUN SAVED someone's life.

are there instances where guns stop criminals? Sure. Are there more instances where criminals cause homicides with guns? Yes. Other than the feeling of powerlessness that apparently many people feel without their gun, there is nothing I know of that suggests guns make you safer.

From child defense dot org comes these stats:
The latest data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that 3,042 children and teens died from gunfire in the United States in 2007—one child or teen every three hours, eight every day, 58 every week.

So now go show me a statistic that a gun is saving two children every three hours.

Anonymous said...

Stop covering for DS. He made his bed, now let him lie in it! Don't censor the comments Rumpy!

DS said...











Anonymous said...

Too little too late Dick Snot! You held yourself out as an Assistant Public Defender and made jokes about the mentally ill in the name of that office. If I were in charge over there, you would be without a job. Nice little modification on the profile.

Anonymous said...

Rump: Let's ban gasoline. The guy had his apartment wired to blow up like a fourth of July gone bad, using gas, among other things. Let's ban gas cause this one lunatic took it and used in a perverse way. Why don't we ban alcohol? What purpose does it serve? At the very least, why don't we remove parking lots from bars. What reason does a person who has had even one drink, have for driving?

You live in a world where you cry for people to help you and throw money at your problems. You're the kind of coward who would piss his pants and cry while waiting for the cops to show up. Not me. Why do you want to take that away from me?

I respect and agree with you on most other things, but here you've repeatedly pissed me off with your nonsense.

Don't be a hypocrite. You believe in people's individual rights until it offends your sensibilities. I guess you know what's best. You don't understand guns, your ignorance is apparent from what you write. Stop trying to proclaim all these lofty goals, while failing to understand the most fundamental reasons why violence happens in this country, can be traced to things like social poverty, educational poverty, mental illness; all things that have NOTHING to do with inanimate objects like guns.

Please stop this bullshit already. Stop citing the Brady Campaign. That's like citing MADD. These are people who haven't found a way to deal with their own personal and unique tragedies except to proclaim that they know what's best for the world in whatever subject is the source of their own personal grief. They're angry at the world, and they exorcise it by becoming fanatical about these issues. The NRA isn't the only one that is fanatical.

And by the way, you do more harm to this country by participating in a financial market that encourages people to bet against the growth of companies and has invented all these ridiculous and worthless financial insturments and tricks, none of which add ANY value to the U.S. ecomony. Go back to being a parasite and worry about how you are going to use short puts and collars and the like to further your wealth, while the middle class is vanishing. That's more of a threat to this country as whole than my guns will ever be.

Anonymous said...

David Sisselman thinks it is appropriate to make jokes about the mentally ill in a public forum. He must be a great advocate for those who suffer with mental illness and must do an excellent job protecting their rights. As someone who suffers from manic depression, I would not want anyone so callous anywhere near me if I was facing criminal charges. His non-apology (if you were offended) is a joke.

Anonymous said...

As someone with conflicted views on the subject of gun control, I've thought about and studied this issue for 40+ years. Aside from the existence of the Second Amendment, I think there are two points to be made.

It seems clear to me that it would be ideal if there were no guns available and present in our civil society.

It is also clear that this genie is out of the bottle. There are too may guns available now to ever, and I mean ever, rid them from society in any significant way. Even if a nationwide legislative will existed to ban and confiscate all private ownership of guns, it simply cannot practicably be done short of totalitarian measures. Any demand that we do so is, while maybe well-intentioned, sheer utopian folly.

Rumpole said...

8:22- did you read what I wrote at 3:47? Your argument about banning gasoline is sophomoric and not worthy of much of a response.

Open your eyes. We are slaughtering innocent people with guns. No other civilized country in the world has the gun death problem we do. You can call me names and belittle what I say but what YOU CANNOT DO IS THIS: YOU CANNOT PROVE THAT MORE GUNS =LESS GUN VIOLENCE AND YOU CANNOT PROVE THAT LESS GUNS = MORE GUN VIOLENCE. Its simple logic. But because you cannot prove it or disprove the opposite, you drag down the argument with "lets ban gasoline". How about this: lets ban surgery because people die in surgery. Hey- lets ban ice because people choke to death on ice in drinks. What you cannot see or acknowledge is that this incident in Colorado is NOT unique. A child is killed with a hand gun every three hours- it just doesn't make the front page. Every two days more children die in the US every day- than died in Colorado last week. That is what you do not acknowledge because you can't. You try and just change the argument by saying "hey,lets ban apartment buildings because he booby trapped his apartment."
I'm waiting for someone to refute the two arguments I made in caps. I've been waiting for a few days now, but none of you gun freaks can do it. You're too busy pasting the "you can have my hand gun when you pry it from my cold dead fingers" bumper stickers on your trucks.

Jewish Marksman said...

"Other than the feeling of powerlessness that apparently many people feel without their gun, there is nothing I know of that suggests guns make you safer."

How about the actual data? Have you bothered to read any of John Lott's work?

"Every Jew a .22" -Rabbi Meir Kahane

Rumpole said...

Wow- I cannot believe how simple this is. You cite Kahane and his every jew a .22? HE WAS SHOT TO DEATH YOU IDIOT. BY A PERSON WITH AN ILLEGAL HAND GUN. HOW DID HIS .22 HELP HIM?

Really, I expect better from lawyers who argue for a living. As Neil would say..UNBELIEVABLE.

Rumpole said...

And by the way, John Lott's gun conclusions were conclusively refuted by Steven Levitt in the best selling Book Freakanomics in which Levitt showed that Lott's research was faulty and could not be replicated by unbiased academics who tried to do so. Lott sued for defamation and lost. So much for Mr. Lott and his lies.

DS said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
DS said...

It was just a little joke. Yet I am savaged for it. I have represented hundreds of mentally ill defendants, with out ever having any question of my ability to defend them.

Hell it was a stupid joke and now you want my JOB? FU

Rumpole said...

No more attacks on DS. Enough is enough.

fake kenny W said...

Dinner tonight at Mission Chinese in NYC was just divine. Can't beat kung pao pastrami. Just can't.

DS said...

I have NEVER held myself out as a spokesperson for the office I work for.
I happen to work at an office but I DO NOT SPEAK FOR IT.

Only someone foolish or stupid would see my personal comments as speaking for the office , I am just a pit attorney.

As it happens ,I DO undertand Mental Illness.

But if cant laugh or joke and must always be politically correct then What's a Heaven For?

I can advocate for fathers who rape their 8 or 10 year old daughters but still find those acts disgusting.
Why is a simple joke disqualify me from representing people.

Do you agree with, hold hands with, totally empathize with the Murderer or Home Invader you defend?

I do not but do work as hard as I can to defend them and protect their rights.

By the way your disorder is no longer called mannic depression. DSM IV would call you Bi-polar.

Anonymous said...

Ha ha ha ha ha. Someone can launch an attack on the mentally ill but when the community fights back, Rump censors the blog!

Rumpole said...

An attack on the mentally ill? You must be mentally ill. It was joke. No worse than the jokes that are told a thousand times and more in the REGJB- in court- in chambers- in au bon pain. The fact that you make so much out of it tells me that perhaps you have a bit more than a bystanders interest.

You know, us defense attorneys don't like snitches.

Jewish Marksman said...


1. So call me old fashioned, but I always thought that lawyers who "argue for a living" should actually read and understand the relevant documents before arguing about them.

You either did not read them, or do not understand them. If you had read them, you'd know that Lott's methodology has credible academic support. Wikipedia has an exhaustive list (including Lott's detractors):

There is no question Levitt's book's one paragraph discussion about Lott's methodology was wrong; the question in the lawsuit was whether the paragraph was defamatory.

You can read the district court's ruling here:

And the affirmation here:

2. As for Kahane, he was ASSASINATED by a terrorist. There is very little chance of defending a planned assassination (see e.g. A. Lincoln, J. Kennedy, R. Reagan, ...) Terrorists blow people up if they can't shoot them.
As far as I know, nobody is planning to assassinate me. But there are many other violent crimes afoot in South Florida, for which my S&W could come in very handy and perhaps my luck will be better than Rabbi Kahane's. Having a gun doesn't mean you win every fight, it merely means you have a fighting chance.

"Every member of the tribe a .45!"

Rumpole said...

Kahane was shot and killed. If the killer didn't have a gun, then what? In fact now that I think of it- lets look at the most notable assassinations: Both Kennedys, Wallace, Lincoln, the attempts on Regan and Ford, Garfield and McKinley. Were any of them stabbed? Poisoned? Blown up? No. All were SHOT with a gun.
No gun- then what?

Care to answer the statistic about one child dying from a GSW every three hours? Please tell me how MORE guns will lessen that statistic. Not only me, but 8 children a day- 8 children tomorrow- are literally dying to know.

Jewish Marksman said...

1. Re: Kahane. Bombs. Assassination weapon of choice in most of the world now. See e.g. Benazir Bhutto, Ghulam Haider Hamidi, etc.

Knives, pipes, fists and baseball bats probably won't work against major politicians who have a security detail. But me and my family don't have a security detail. And I suppose none of your clients ever used anything but a gun to hurt an innocent human being, right? Women are never raped by men holding knives, or simply overpowering them, right? None of your clients ever did that, right?

2. "one child dying from a GSW every three hours?"

Again, you fail to actually read and understand the data you rely on. The unbiased, original source is here:

Under #2, select Firearm. Under advanced options, select a custom age range of <1 and 17. Use 2007 as the most recent year. Select no age adjusting. Data comes back as 1,520 out of a population of 74,340,127. Hit back on your browser, select suicides, and you see that 325 were suicides. We're down to 1195. But wait, we're including gang-on-gang violence. So let's lower the age group to 12 out of a (naive?) belief that gang activity doesn't start until a later age. We get 225 (which includes 9 suicides).

So even if we use 1195, this is a third of the number you cited, and arguably, the number for purposes of policy formation should be closer to the 225.

Now run the data for 0-17y.o. for poisoning, 552. Drowning, 952. Transportation related, 4,268 (unfortunately we can't see the DUI figures).

Guns are a threat to children? Hardly. If you want to save children's lives through legislation, how about toughening up the mandatory mins on DUI?

Anonymous said...

A man with multiple personality disorder walks into a bar. He is the only customer there.

The bartender says,"what'll you have?"

The man says, "I'll have what he's having."

Anonymous said...

By now the story appeard in the local paper and suggestions began rolling in:
"Manic-depressives and anal retentives"
"Minds and Behinds"
"Lost souls and Assholes"
"Analysis & Anal Cysts"
"Nuts & Butts"
"Freaks & Cheeks"
"Loons & Moons

None of these satisfied one or the other side, but they finally settled on

"Dr Smith & Dr Jones, Odds & Ends".

Anonymous said...

When the new patient was settled comfortably on the couch, the physiatrist began his therapy session, "I'm not aware of your problem," the doctor said. "So perhaps, you should start at the very beginning."

"Of course." replied the patient. "In the beginning, I created the Heavens and the Earth..."

Anonymous said...

There was a naked guy, and he wraps himself in Saran wrap and goes to see a psychologist. He walks in, and the doctor says "Well, I can clearly see you're nuts!"

Anonymous said...

Rumpole, do you agree with this extremism in Canada's gun laws?

A Kitchener father is angry at police after he was arrested at his child’s school and later strip-searched at the police station, all because his 4-year-old daughter drew a picture of a gun in class.

“I’m picking up my kids and then, next thing you know, I’m locked up,” Jessie Sansone, 26, said of his ordeal on Wednesday. “I was in shock. This is completely insane.”

The school principal, police and child welfare officials, however, all stand by their actions. They say they had to investigate to determine whether there was a gun in Sansone’s house that children had access to.

“From a public safety point of view, any child drawing a picture of guns and saying there’s guns in a home would warrant some further conversation with the parents and child,” said Alison Scott, executive director of Family and Children’s Services.

Waterloo Regional Police Insp. Kevin Thaler said there was a complaint from Forest Hills Public School that “a firearm was in a residence and children had access to it. We had every concern, based on this information, that children were in danger.”

Sansone said he went to pick up his three children on Wednesday and was summoned to the principal’s office, where three police officers were waiting. They said he was being charged with possession of a firearm.

The "firearm" for which the mas was arrested and stripped searched was a plastic toy gun that shoots foam darts.


Anonymous said...

Rumpole, I posted links with the information on the academic studies about firearms saving lives and you didn't post them publicly. How come? Too inconvenient for your argument?

Anonymous said...

Ok, let's dispense with the political correctness. I'd venture to say that half of us have some kind of mental health issue (who else would practice criminal law!). We all have family members or friends with mental health issues and routinely help (or attempt to help) offenders with mental health issues.

DS is an excellent attorney. He knows the law, is an effective advocate, and is as compassionate as they come. If you don't want him to represent you, it's because you don't know him.

He made a stupid joke. Big deal. In this business, you laugh or you cry (or both). I've seen him in court MANY times and would have no qualms with his defending me, a family member, or friend.

I continue to be amazed how people in the blogoshphere are so quick to judge others and throw around personal insults as if the recipient can't be hurt.


Anonymous said...

Man goes to a doctor. He says: "Doctor, I don't know if my wife has TB or VD."

The Doctor says: "Chase her around the bed. If she coughs f--k her."

Anonymous said...

Man goes to a tatoo parlor and has "I love you" tatooed on his penis.

He comes home and says to his wife: "Honey, how about a blow job?"

The wife says: "Stop trying to put words in my mouth."

Anonymous said...

A man goes to a doctor. (Men go to doctors a lot in these jokes) The doctor says: "I have bad news. You have cancer."

The man sadly replies: "That is bad news."

The doctor continues: "There is more. You also have Alzheimer's"

The man says: "Oh thank God. It could have been worse. At least I don't have cancer."

Anonymous said...

"Us defense attorneys don't like snitches."

Unless, of course, it is our client wanting to do the snitching, in which case we assume the position almost greedily.

Anonymous said...

I have known DS for 15 years. I am not a friend of his but rather an acquitance and former colleague. It was a fucking joke people - and I thought a damn funny one.

Political correctness is bullshit. When you lose all your ability to take a joke, you're an asshole. Carlos Mencia, Eddie Murphy, George Lopez, all are politically incorrect and they are all funny as hell. If you're a Hispanic, Black, Asian, White, Jewish, OR mentally ill person and you can't laugh at yourself THAT IS YOUR PROBLEM. The hypocrisy in this town makes me sick. There is a former true believer, sympathizing, white former PD who always used to moan that his black clients were ALWAYS mistreated, persecuted, targeted, whatever. He would go to their houses for dinner, go to their family parties, go to their family funerals. NONE of his black clients were ever bad people or guilty. Yet when Zimmerman came along, ALL his FB postings were about how Zimmerman was a racist, guilty, etc. If the tables were turned and Martin was the shooter, this former PD would be saying that Martin shot in self-defense. Now that the Colorado shooting has happened, this same PD puts up some bullshit poster saying that if the shooter was arab, it would be terrorism, if black, a thug, but because he's white, it's mental illness. So fucking offensive.....

And all of these posts attacking DS for a JOKE are in the same line. FU all. Get a fucking sense of humor and get off your soap-box. Your whining is old already.

Anonymous said...

Well put son

"American Minority" said...

Why do printer seem to give out in the middle of the most important work??? Geesh! If you run out of color why wont it just print Black and white, my printer must be republican, because it's filibustering.

"American Minority" said...

1:13pm You are right! When Johnny Simms committed that atrocious act, the media and James Loftus described him as being evil.
When Jared Loughner commited that heinous act of killing a Federal Judge a nine year old innocent girl and critically wounding congress Woman Kathy Giffords, they described him as being mentally ill. Why wasn't Loughner evil or this killer who shot a movie theater full of innocent people? Why the double standard?

Anonymous said...

Am Min

Sims isnt labeled mentally ill because his final act was not one that was driven by delusion or any other irresistible urge that could be qualified by a psychologist or mental health professional as a mental illness.

He committed one final act in hopes that it would prevent him from going back to prison.

Dont misunderstand, someone like him clearly has some anti-social type behavioral problem. it may stem from various causes, of which I wont speculate because I did not know him well enough to say.

There is one other possibility which would actually make you correct. if this final act had been a death by cop scenario, he could have been in such a state that he believed the only way out was to commit an act that would get him killed.

I think the difference is that very few people can see how a mass murder could have any basis in rational thinking, where Sims act looks like that of a street punk.

I dont know if Sims is a poster boy for mental illness, but your point of the double standard is an interesting one.

Anonymous said...

Am Min:

"Loughner's mug shot is being called "the face of evil.""

Plenty of people called Loghner evil - just Google it. Simms was both evil AND a thug. Loughner was both evil AND psychotic. One does not cancel out the other.

I think you missed the point of my posting........


Anonymous said...

I agree with 1:13 100%. Political correctness is nothing but hypocritical b.s.

Anonymous said...

This is still America right? You have the right to be offended if you want. Your right to be offended does not trump my right to say what I want. I will say whatever the fuck I want to and feel free to be offended. Sometimes the truth hurts deal with it. Fuck all political correctness , it's whiny bullshit. Demanding that someone should loose their job for comments some find offensive is offensive. Some might find the same comments refreshingly honest. You say what you want I'll say what I want it's called discourse. Feel free not to read the comments of people you don't like or respect , that too is your choice. Jason Grey

Anonymous said...

Here's just a joke Rump:

What's the first thing a woman should do after she leaves the shelter?

The dishes if she knows what's good for her!

Appropriate in a any forum? In this forum?

How about gay or black or Hispanic jokes?

You're a hypocrite.

Why are you babying DS so much?

Anonymous said...

People these days are way too sensitive. People use "political correctness" as an excuse for censorship.

We have just enough people in this world looking for an excuse to sue or to harm others that everything we say and do is looked at under a microscope and nothing get accomplished.

I have found that those who are afraid to man up are usually the ones with the most to hide. Others speak their mind and can also deal with a disagreement and look at the big picture. Life is not a one way street, yet these overly sensitive people tend to think the world should agree with them or they are ready to sue someone or at the least slander anyone who disagrees with them.

What happened to allowing people to have differing opinions and discussions? The overly sensitive people took that option away. The weak and overly sensitive people also degraded legitimate complaints by those who were and are being harmed.

Anonymous said...

A Greek athlete was kicked off the Olympic team for making a racial joke. If the joke had been about black people, instead of the mentally ill, no one would be debating whether or not anyone has the "right" to be offended. The fact is that there is a serious stigma and shame attached to mental illness but it is socially acceptable to joke about it while it is not socially acceptable to make a watermelon joke. Someone who this blog officially endorses chose make fun of a serious social problem and then said FU to those that thought it was unacceptable. Make all the jokes you want about whatever you want. Just don't hold yourself out as an advocate for those who you ridicule and don't be shocked when people are offended.

Anonymous said...

No one has the right to expect to never be offended.

I do however have the right to my opinion.

In my opinion the joke was funny.

Asking for him to be removed from his job over this is, in my opinion, petty and stupid.

He has already made his apology which was unnecessary.


Anonymous said...

Put on the local comedy shows in Spanish-language TV and you'll see the most politically incorrect, yet very funny, jokes and skits. They make fun of race, sex, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, politics and physical or mental handicaps, oftentimes all together in one skit. Cubans and other Hispanics don't get offended, laugh and increase the shows' ratings without the slightest regard to the Anglos' political correctness.

miami said...

Quit protecting for DS. He created his bed, now let him lie in it! Don't censor content Rumpy!
Miam Dodge