Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Thousands March in LA for President Trump’s Impeachment

Yesterday, thousands of protesters marched on the streets in downtown Los Angeles to demand President Donald Trump’s impeachment. “Down, down, down with Trump–up, up, up with the people,” they chanted. Similar protests are scheduled to take place in other cities in California and the United States. “Every day when I wake up, something is more terrible than it was yesterday,” one protester, John Meranda, said. Before the demonstration started, counter-protesters gathered outside the LAPD headquarters.

One anti-Trump demonstrator screaming at pro-Trump folks, including, “You’re a fraud! You’re a fraud! You’re a fraud!” pic.twitter.com/OpDwnd9xnp

— Laura J. Nelson (@laura_nelson) July 2, 2017

Democratic Representative Brad Sherman spoke from the stage at a rally close to LA’s City Hall, and urged other congressmen to begin an impeachment process. “We have to act now to protect our country from abuse of power and impulsive, ignorant incompetence,” he said. Even though many lawmakers have talked about impeachment, Sherman has actually taken action by drafting articles of impeachment in which he accuses Trump of trying to disrupt the investigation into Michael Flynn.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: July 3, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

There’s only one day left before the inauguration of President-elect Donald Trump. The other day it was confirmed that the Girl Scouts will be there and the announcement led to some backlash for the group. But hopefully, things will run smoothly.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Obama’s Last Press Conference

Yesterday, President Barack Obama held his last White House press conference as POTUS. He said that he’s willing to openly oppose Donald Trump if there is any “systematic discrimination,” and he’ll speak up if he feels that America’s core values are at stake. Obama also defended his decision to commute Chelsea Manning’s sentence and said he’s proud to have contributed to advances in LGBT rights. He elected not to comment on the Democratic politicians who are boycotting Trump’s inauguration.

Obama spoke about diversity and said he thinks the U.S. will see more presidents of color, as well as a female president, Latino president, Jewish president, Hindu president, you name it. “Who knows who we are going to have. I suspect we will have a whole bunch of mixed up presidents at some point that nobody really knows what to call them,” he said.

“You’re not supposed to be sycophants — you’re supposed to be skeptics,” said Obama https://t.co/B1of0UBbGP

— New York Magazine (@NYMag) January 18, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: January 19, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

The movie theater chain Cinemark will no longer pursue the $700,000 in legal fees that four surviving victims of the shooting were to pay after they lost a lawsuit to the theater. Four years after the mass shooting at the movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, this particular case is finally closed after the remaining plaintiffs reached a deal.

Attorneys for the theater chain on Tuesday said:

All plaintiffs in this matter have now waived appeal of the jury’s verdict and the case can now be deemed completely over. Defendants’ goal has always been to resolve this matter fully and completely without an award of costs of any kind to any party.

Surviving victims initially sued Cinemark for not having sufficient security at its theaters, hoping to raise the bar for other theaters across the country. They brought up the lack of security cameras, guards, and silent alarms on the emergency exit doors.

However, Cinemark’s lawyers concluded the theater could have done nothing to prevent the shooting and that the ultimate responsibility lay with the shooter. Cinemark was entitled to ask the plaintiffs to pay for its litigation costs, a bill that amounted to $699,187.13. But now they’ve reached an agreement, which means that any appeals will be dropped and Cinemark will not demand any legal fees from the victims.

The shooting in 2012 left 12 people dead and over 70 injured, including children and an unborn baby. The assailant James Holmes entered the movie theater during a screening of the Batman movie “The Dark Knight Rises,” dressed in a long black coat, a gas mask, throat protector, and leggings. He carried an assault rifle, a shotgun, and two handguns and allegedly said something like “I am the Joker” before he started his shooting rampage. He also had dyed his hair shock orange.

Holmes’ mother spoke out about the event in May this year and urged people to be more open about mental health issues. She didn’t know her son suffered from schizophrenia until she was in court.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Cinemark Drops Claim of $700,000 in Legal Fees from Theater Shooting Survivors appeared first on Law Street.

After an unsuccessful civil lawsuit against the Cinemark theater where the 2012 Aurora, Colorado shooting took place, the victims and their families may be forced to pay the opposing side’s legal fees. Those fees could cost nearly $700,000, according to recent court filings identified by the Denver Post.

In the wake of the Aurora shooting, which left 12 dead and more than 70 injured, many of the survivors and the families of those who were killed filed a civil lawsuit in a Colorado state court against the movie theater, arguing that its security provisions failed to protect the victims. The shooter, James Holmes, was sentenced to 12 consecutive life sentences for the crime.

The victims’ lawyers argued that the theater failed in its responsibility to secure the building, citing a lack of video surveillance, security guards, and silent alarms on exit doors–which is what the shooter used to enter the theater. They also noted that prior to the shooting the Department of Homeland Security warned movie theaters that they might be the target of terrorist attacks.

In response, Cinemark argued that the responsibility for the shooting ultimately lies with the shooter. It claimed that there was no way for the theater to foresee such a meticulously planned attack. Ultimately, a six-person jury sided with the company.

A similar lawsuit in a federal court decided in Cinemark’s favor as well and concluded that the company was entitled to recoup some legal costs, though Cinemark has not yet requested an amount in that case. Many of the victims settled with the company prior to the ruling, telling the Denver Post that potentially being on the hook for legal costs contributed to the decision.

Colorado law allows parties that succeed in civil lawsuits to recover legal costs, leading Cinemark to file a motion to bill the victims for $699,187.13 in expenses. But filing the motion does not mean that the company will get all of what it requested, a decision that requires a judge’s approval. In response to the company’s request, Marc Bern, one of the plaintiffs’ lawyer told the Wall Street Journal that the amount “is an outrageous attempt to keep the plaintiffs from appealing.” And while the company is entitled to recoup the costs, seeking money from the victims of a mass shooting may not be a great decision from  a public relations standpoint.

An editorial from the Denver Post claims that this outcome may actually be preferable because it could put an end to what it considers to be a misguided lawsuit. The Post’s editorial board argues that, ideally, the victims will drop the case and not appeal while Cinemark will retract its demand for the $700,000 in legal fees.  

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Cinemark Asks for $700,000 in Legal Fees from Aurora Shooting Victims appeared first on Law Street.

The U.S. tends to follow an apathetic cycle when it comes to gun control; a mass shooting occurs, Republican politicians blame it on terrorism or mental illness, or anything other than gun control, and Democrats blame it on weak gun control. Gun control legislation is brought up, not passed, and another mass shooting happens.

A week after the worst mass shooting in U.S. history, with 49 people murdered at Pulse Nightclub in Orlando and days after Senator Chris Murphy’s (D-Connecticut) 15 hour gun control filibuster, the Senate will vote tonight on four gun control proposals. 

The Murphy amendment, proposed by Chris Murphy (D-Connecticut)

The Murphy amendment features the largest expansion of present gun control rules by closing the “gun show loophole” and requiring private gun show sales to enforce background checks. The amendment also seeks to expand The National Criminal Instant Background Check System (NICS), the background check database used for gun sales.

The Grassley amendment, proposed by Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa)

The Grassley amendment seeks to improve the NICS to notify law enforcement if somebody who has been investigated for terrorism by the FBI within the last five years attempts to buy a gun. The amendment also seeks to clarify language and documentation on mental health that would bar some from obtaining guns.

The Feinstein amendment, proposed by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-California)

Also known as the “no fly, no buy” amendment, Feinstein’s proposal would allow the attorney general to deny gun sales with “reasonable belief” that the buyer is connected to terrorism. This lower standard than “probable cause” extends beyond the “no-fly” watch list.

The Cornyn amendment, proposed by Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas)

The Cornyn amendment allows up to a 72-hour wait period for individuals on terrorism watch lists who attempt to buy guns. This amendment is supported by the NRA.

The Democratic priority at this point is to close background check loopholes included in sales at gun shows, online sales, and more, the Cornyn and Grassley amendments have been chastised as not doing nearly enough. Further, the focus on barring individuals suspected of terrorism from buying guns is important but, frankly, does not address the problem behind the remarkably high number of mass shootings in the U.S.

In fact, of the 18 largest mass shootings in U.S. history (each having 10 or more fatalities), only 3  had expected terrorist connections: the Pulse Nightclub shooting, the Fort Hood shooting, and the San Bernardino shooting. These shooters were all self-radicalized and the FBI couldn’t find any connection between them and international terrorist regimes. Further, most recent American mass shooters obtained their guns legally with passed background checks, despite half of them having criminal histories or turbulent mental health backgrounds.

So far we have yet to see legislation that proposes a solution to the “typical” mass shooter in the U.S.: a person working independently due to feelings of anger, vengefulness, and unstable emotions or mental health reform on a larger scale.

The Grassley and Feinstein amendments are more or less misled in their focus on the “terrorism gap,” which hasn’t proven to be prevalent in the U.S. and essentially panders to public fears. The Cornyn amendment offers essentially no solution—does a 72 hour waiting period really work? The Murphy amendment offers imperative safeguards against people who shouldn’t be able to obtain a gun, but, with the NRA and gun rights playing such a pervasive role in Republican politics, will the GOP vote in the public interest?

The Senate vote for these four amendments is scheduled for 5:30 P.M. on Monday.

Ashlee Smith

Ashlee Smith is a Law Street Intern from San Antonio, TX. She is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and Journalism. Her passions include social policy, coffee, and watching West Wing. Contact Ashlee at ASmith@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Will U.S. Gun Control Strife End with Monday’s Senate Vote? appeared first on Law Street.

Orlando gunman Omar Mateen’s wife feared he would do something drastic and violent when he left their home on Saturday night, but he assured her he was just going to meet his friends. Authorities are now investigating how much 30-year old Noor Zahi Salman actually knew about her husband’s plans to attack the gay nightclub Pulse. Whether she will face any criminal charges is still unclear.

Both “Scoped Out” Orlando Locations

According to recent reports, Mateen had his wife drive him to Pulse nightclub in Orlando earlier in June to “scope it out.” They lived two hours away, in Port St. Lucie. They also looked into other locations, such as Disney World and the shopping complex Disney Springs. Salman was also with Mateen when he bought ammunition and a holster. Investigators said it’s unclear whether she knew of his eventual intentions at the time, though an anonymous law enforcement source told Reuters that she did. She could face criminal charges as early as Wednesday.

Gay Pride, Ramadan, and Solidarity After Orlando… https://t.co/VX4UwUW2m1 pic.twitter.com/w9Bk3heK2H

— LGBT NYC (@lgbtnyc015) June 15, 2016

Responding to speculation over whether or not Mateen was secretly gay, his father Seddique Mateen said that his son’s marriage was good and that if he were gay his wife of three and a half years would have known about it. He also said that Mateen was really upset when he once saw two men kissing. However, regulars at Pulse nightclub said Mateen came there frequently to meet men.

Mateen was married twice, and his ex-wife described their five-month marriage in 2009 as violent and abusive, calling him bipolar and emotionally disturbed. He would beat her, pull her hair, and keep her from seeing her family. She also told TIME that he had some behaviors that “most straight men don’t”, such as spending a long time in front of the mirror and “little movements with his body.”

ISIS Twitter accounts hacked to show support for gay pride message https://t.co/m42lYrURSK pic.twitter.com/rig116zlHt

— Dennis Jansen (@dennisjansen) June 15, 2016

A Complicated Picture

The motive for the shootings is still unclear. Mateen pledged allegiance to ISIS when he called 911 during the attack at Pulse, but according to authorities he was self-radicalized over the Internet and there are no signs of a connection to the organization. Opinions about his personal life differ, with his father calling him homophobic, and his ex-wife thought he wasn’t “totally straight.” Neighbors described him as a completely normal man, while gay men he met at Pulse said he was “strange.”

The mass shooting in Orlando is the largest in US history and killed 49 people and leaving 53 injured. Even though FBI investigated the shooter in 2013 and 2014, he was legally able to buy weapons and ammunition. He was killed after a three-hour standoff with police.

Read Law Street’s original post about the Pulse attack here.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Orlando Shooter’s Wife Knew About Attack, Could Face Charges appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to the RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through the top five controversial and crazy stories in the world of law and policy each day. So who is ranting and who is raving today? Check it out below:

Gay Blood Donors Barred From Giving To Orlando Shooting Victims

Today hundreds lined up at blood banks all over Orlando in support of the injured victims of the Pulse nightclub shooting. Many do-gooders, however, will be turned away due to a ban the FDA has enforced on the gay community. Gay and bisexual men who have had sex with another man in the past 12 months are not permitted to give blood. This has outraged some in the community who simply want to support their LGBT “brothers and sisters” who were injured in the massacre. Sunday’s attack is said to be the worst mass shooting in American history, leaving forty-nine people dead and many grieving.

Blood banks in Orlando are overwhelmed by people queuing for hours. – but many gay man cannot donate blood.https://t.co/C1AA8BI61R

— Channel 4 News (@Channel4News) June 13, 2016

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: June 13, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

In retrospect Sandy Hook marked the end of the US gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over.

— Dan Hodges (@DPJHodges) June 19, 2015

Every single time I see news of another mass shooting, an experience that has come pretty damn close to being an everyday occurrence, I think of the people who pointed out that if America’s gun control laws don’t change after Sandy Hook, they never will. Twenty children and six teachers were slaughtered, and nothing has changed. Since Sandy Hook, there has been roughly one school shooting per week. Since November 2012, this is the 994th mass shooting–by the time we hit the three year anniversary of Sandy Hook, we’ll probably be at 1000. Yesterday, 10 people were killed and seven more were wounded at Umpqua Community College in Oregon. This is an epidemic, and it shows no signs of stopping.

Mass shootings are no longer shocking–instead they’ve become routine occurrences. The cycle we’ll go through after this shooting: anger, arguments about the applicability of mental illness vs. gun laws, an analysis of the murderer’s background, then an unsteady return to normalcy, has become mundane. This weariness was echoed by President Obama at a press conference last night, where the president sounded embattled and exhausted. He talked about how the United States stands alone with this problem; how other developed countries don’t have to mourn their young people to a school shooter on an alarmingly regular basis, stating:

We know that other countries, in response to one mass shooting, have been able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings. Friends of ours, allies of ours — Great Britain, Australia, countries like ours. So we know there are ways to prevent it.

He also pointed out the cyclical nature of our response as well, stating:

And what’s become routine, of course, is the response of those who oppose any kind of common-sense gun legislation. Right now, I can imagine the press releases being cranked out: We need more guns, they’ll argue. Fewer gun safety laws.

Does anybody really believe that? There are scores of responsible gun owners in this country –they know that’s not true. We know because of the polling that says the majority of Americans understand we should be changing these laws — including the majority of responsible, law-abiding gun owners.

So will anything change? I doubt it. To harken back to the quote I opened this article with, it does truly feel like the gun debate in the United States is over.

As a writer tasked with covering the law and policy news of the day, our response to mass shootings has started to feel overwhelming formulaic. At the risk of being crass, the hundreds and thousands of think pieces and op-eds that have been written and will be written about the tragedy in Oregon will follow the same rubric, and they’ll be no different than those that are written after the next shooting. Here’s the formula:

On ______ there was a mass shooting in _____. __ were killed, and the shooter was eventually killed by police. Victims include (insert here the names of the often young people whose lives were taken by senseless gun violence). President Obama and (politicians from the state that was affected) held press conferences to address the tragedy.

Insert impassioned anger, rhetoric, and arguments about why the gun laws should be changed or stay the same. Mention mental illness, maybe. Include a call to action.

The end.

There’s nothing new to say anymore and nothing new to write anymore, because no one is listening. Because there’s nothing new about these mass shootings. I mourn the victims in Oregon, but I truly have no idea what to say at this point. Because is there really anything else left to say?

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Depressing Routine of Mass Shootings in the United States appeared first on Law Street.

James Holmes was sentenced to life in prison yesterday by Judge Carlos A Samour, without possibility of parole. He will be serving 12 consecutive life sentences, and an additional 3,318 years in prison. While that’s obviously an incredibly restrictive and grave sentence, many were surprised that the perpetrator of one of the bloodiest mass shootings in history didn’t receive the death penalty, and questioned the motives of the single juror who voted against it.

Aurora theater gunman sentenced to life without parole http://t.co/WVytelb7bz pic.twitter.com/Hlw4CPhCNp

— The Atlantic (@TheAtlantic) August 26, 2015

On July 20, 2012, Holmes opened fire in a theater in Aurora, Colorado, during a showing of the “The Dark Knight Rises.” He killed 12 people and injured 70 others before being detained. In court, his lawyers claimed that he wasn’t guilty by reason of insanity, but that defense was ultimately unsuccessful, given that he had clearly put thought into his assault beforehand. He had spent months accumulating weapons and body armor, and had purchased his ticket beforehand.

In Colorado, in order for a defendant to be sentenced to the death penalty, the jurors had to vote unanimously for the death penalty. In this case, there was one juror who would not vote for that sentence, ensuring that the death penalty could not be used. Instead, Holmes was sentenced to 12 consecutive life sentences by the jurors–as is custom in Colorado the judge formally sentenced him today and was bound by the jury’s decision.

The fact that it was just one person who stood between Holmes and the death penalty received mixed reactions. For Judge Samour, it was an act that represented compassion in the face of the horrible evil that Holmes committed. Judge Samour stated: ““At least one juror showed the defendant the mercy that he refused the victims that day when he went into that theater.”

However for others, the fact that Holmes didn’t receive the death penalty was deeply problematic. Robert Sullivan, grandfather to six-year-old Rebecca Moser-Sullivan who was killed, and father to Ashley Moser, who was paralyzed, explained his frustrations to CNN. The sticking point appeared to be the one juror who voted against the death penalty; Sullivan called him a “stealth juror.” In order to be on a jury trying a death penalty case, you have to be willing to vote for the death penalty. A stealth juror is someone who is secretly anti-death penalty, but is still able to convince the attorneys during jury selection that they’re alright with the death penalty.

When the jury was being selected, there were concerns that a stealth juror would make it on. Legal experts voiced those concerns during the original jury selection process this winter. David Lane, a longtime Denver criminal defense attorney, told Yahoo about the difficulties of finding a stealth juror:

They are sworn to tell the truth, but a good liar can slip by. The only remedy for prevention is extensive questioning. Probing jurors about their attitudes about other things which would tend to out them as either liberal or conservative are helpful.

Whether or not the juror who voted not to give Holmes the death penalty was a true “stealth juror” or someone who genuinely thought that it was not an appropriate punishment for this case will probably never be known. However, the fact that Holmes received life sentences as opposed to the death penalty means that he, and his surviving victims, won’t be locked in years of appeals, hopefully finally bringing some closure.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Was There a Stealth Juror in the James Holmes Case? appeared first on Law Street.

You’ve probably heard the name Schumer before–but the question is whether politics and taxes on private equity managers or jokes about women’s sexuality and vaginas come to mind. Now, the two Schumers will be increasingly associated. Comedian, writer, and actress Amy Schumer and her cousin, Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, publicly announced on Monday that they are teaming up to fight gun violence. The announcement comes just two weeks after a fatal shooting in Lafayette, Louisiana, when a gunman opened fire at a screening of Amy Schumer’s new movie “Trainwreck,” killing two women and injuring nine others before committing suicide.

My heart is broken and all my thoughts and prayers are with everyone in Louisiana.

— Amy Schumer (@amyschumer) July 24, 2015

The comedian has called this shooting “extremely personal” and stated that she thinks of the two women who were killed during the showing of her movie every day. “This should not have happened,” she said at a news conference alongside her Senator cousin on Monday. “It’s a tragic, senseless and horrifying action from this man who should not have been able to put his hands on a gun in the first place.” The Lafayette shooter bought his gun in Alabama last year after a background check failed to reveal his history of psychiatric problems and that he had been the subject of domestic violence complaints. Senator Schumer, sponsor of the “Brady Act” that was passed 20 years ago and requires background checks for gun buyers, stated, “We should do everything possible to tighten up loop holes,” and that “we can’t sit back and let mass shooting become commonplace.”

Senator Schumer proposed new gun control measures that are meant to prevent violent criminals, abusers, and those with mental illnesses from obtaining guns. The legislation would improve the currently flawed background check system by creating monetary incentives for states that submit thorough reports to the federal database used to block gun sales to people with criminal records or a history of serious mental illness. The bill would also create penalties for states that fail to submit these records to the database. The Senator emphasized that this new plan is about improving the present background check system, not putting new restrictions on buyers.

74% of Americans want stronger background checks. Joining @amyschumer to call on my colleagues in Congress to finally listen. More at 11.

— Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) August 3, 2015

On Saturday, Amy Schumer tweeted in response to an open letter addressed to her from a Georgetown University student who called on Schumer to speak out against gun violence and advocate for stricter gun laws. “Your movie — which was so well-received, so brilliant, so you — will now forever have this shooting attached to it,” the letter begins. The letter, which went viral on social media, raised many points about women’s victimization from gun violence, stating that every day in the United States, five women are murdered with a gun, making American women 11 times more likely to be murdered with a gun than women in other high-income countries. The letter continues with more chilling statistics about gun violence against women, stating:

And from 2001 through 2012, 6,410 women were murdered in the United States by an intimate partner using a gun — more than the total number of U.S. troops killed in action during the entirety of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined.

The author of the letter, Sarah Clements, says that she knows the “guilt, the sadness, the hole in your heart” that Schumer must have experienced upon hearing the news of the shooting. Clements writes that her mother was a survivor of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in 2012, and she has since dedicated her life’s work to gun violence prevention. After Schumer read the letter, she tweeted in response, saying not to worry because she is “on it.”

@cdickason11 @sfclem Her name was Mayci, not Marci and I think about her and Jillian everyday. Don't worry I'm on it. You'll see.

— Amy Schumer (@amyschumer) August 1, 2015

And she was on it. Just two days after the tweet, Schumer followed her cousin’s presentation on his plans for gun violence prevention with an emotional speech at the New York press conference. “Unless something is done and done soon, dangerous people will continue to get their hands on guns,” she said. “We never know why people choose to do these things,” Amy Schumer stated, “but sadly we always find out how, how the shooter got their gun.” She said that her cousin’s three-step plan “deserves unanimous support” because it seeks to address the flaws in the “how.”

Amy Schumer fights gun violence: 'Shootings have got to stop' http://t.co/t29GcKiWY3 pic.twitter.com/MH2Uj68iIt

— TODAY (@TODAYshow) August 4, 2015

Mass killings in the United States have occurred with increasing frequency in recent years. From 2000 to 2007, an average of 6.4 active shootings occurred per year; from 2007 to 2013, that number jumped to 16.4 incidents per year. These mass killings will continue to gain momentum unless we pass legislation that creates serious incentives for states to obey the gun restriction laws that are already in place. Not only do we need to buckle down on the current system of gun control that is not being followed, but we also need to eventually introduce new restrictions. In a majority of mass shootings, killers obtained their weapons legally. This fact warrants significant pause; our laws are not protecting us from danger and are allowing individuals to commit mass murders. All in all, serious improvements to America’s gun laws are needed.

Senator Chuck Schumer and Amy Schumer are using their public platforms to advocate for necessary change that will hopefully spark a more robust conversation on gun control that has been fleeting and unfinished in the past. Amy Schumer’s last line during Monday’s press conference has left everyone wondering what is next for the Schumer pair when she stated: “These are my first public comments on the issue of gun violence, but I can promise you they will not be my last.”

Emily Dalgo

Emily Dalgo is a member of the American University Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Contact Emily at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Schumers are On It: Gun Violence Prevention Has a Few New Faces appeared first on Law Street.

James Holmes was found guilty of first degree murder last Thursday for the deaths of 12 people in the July 2012 Aurora, Colorado shooting. The insanity defense that his team tried proved unsuccessful, and Holmes will now be sentenced for his crimes.

Holmes faced two counts of first degree murder for each of the twelve victims killed during the shooting. The jury found him guilty on all 24 counts. The jury also found Holmes guilty of attempted murder on all of the 140 counts against him for the 70 people wounded in the shooting. Additionally, he was found guilty of one count of possession or control of an explosive or incendiary. He faced a total of 165 charges, a decision that took the jury 12.5 hours to reach. Now the same jurors are faced with the task of sentencing him to death. This process began yesterday. His attorneys are expected to raise his mental illness again during the penalty portion.

Holmes who had pleaded not guilty by reasons of insanity, but admitted to the killings, showed no reaction as the verdict was announced. His attorneys were pushing for him to be committed to a mental hospital for the rest of his life, while state prosecutors were seeking the death penalty.

Even though Holmes did not take the stand, the jury did hear from him via the 22 hours of recorded psychiatric interviews he had at both the Colorado Mental Health institute in Pueblo and at the jail where he is being held. Two defense psychiatrists testified that Holmes suffered a psychotic break the night of the murders and could not discern between right and wrong, but two-court appointed psychiatrists told the jury the defendant was mentally ill, but not insane. While those sound interchangeable, there’s actually important distinctions under the law.

In pleading not guilty by reason of insanity, James Holmes attempted to do something no accused mass shooter in America has done in more than 20 years–win a case with the insanity defense. Holmes faced long odds for a defense that studies show is raised in only about one percent of all felony cases nationally and successful in only about a quarter of those.

Mass shooters very rarely survive their crimes to face court charges. According to a database of American mass shootings in the last 30 years, suspects in only 19 of 61 mass shootings examined were arrested. Others either committed suicide or were killed during the shooting. Of those 19, only four, including Holmes, pleaded insanity.

The reason for the low success rate is the high bar that laws set for the insanity defense. In Colorado, it is not enough for defendants to be mentally ill. Instead, the law defines insanity as having judgment so impaired by mental illness that the defendant could not tell right from wrong. Given Holmes’ vivid plan, this did not appear to be the case.

The primary factor in determining insanity is the intensive mental health evaluations that a defendant pleading insanity is required to undergo. The judge overseeing the case this week ordered Holmes to be evaluated at the Colorado Mental Health Institute in Pueblo. After several hours of evaluations, it was determined that his insanity plea was not plausible.

Evidence shows that Holmes’ plan, to some degree, was thought out beforehand. Holmes bought a ticket 12 days before the July 19 showing, and walked into the theater screening of the “The Dark Knight Rises” like any other movie goer. He then walked out through a rear door, which he left propped open. Just after midnight, about 20 minutes after the movie began, he returned wearing a ballistic helmet, a gas mask, black gloves, and protective gear for his legs, throat and groin. A tear gas canister exploded in the theater, then gunfire erupted from an AR-15 rifle, a 12-gauge shotgun and at least one .40 caliber handgun. The shooting stopped with Holmes’ arrest outside the theater about seven minutes after the first 911 calls were made to police.

Given that evidence of his plan, it was not hard for members of the jury to believe that Holmes did not meet the bar for the insanity defense. “Look at the evidence, then hold this man accountable,” Arapahoe County District Attorney George Brauchler said. “Reject this claim that he didn’t know right from wrong when he murdered those people and tried to kill the others…that guy was sane beyond a reasonable doubt, and he needs to be held accountable for what he did.”

With the jury certain that Holmes does not fit the bill for the insanity defense, it is not clear where their decision will fall in terms of Holmes receiving the death penalty. As one of the largest mass murderers in American history awaits his fate, we will have to see what the jury ultimately decides.

Angel Idowu

Angel Idowu is a member of the Beloit College Class of 2016 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Angel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Guilty Verdict for James Holmes: Does the Insanity Defense Ever Work? appeared first on Law Street.

Seattle Pacific University lost one student and three others were wounded last Thursday in a shooting on campus. The university has suffered a tragedy, and while I do not disapprove of the time that the media has invested in covering it, I would like to call another, more prevalent, issue to mind. Shootings occur more frequently and affect an even greater number of people in our cities than on college campuses, yet have largely been disregarded or overlooked as news.

Forgotten and Forlorn

Inner-cities in America suffer greatly and receive little national coverage. On Friday, June 6, a man named Andew Perez was shot to death in his car in Camden, NJ. On the same day in Newark, NJ, two men were shot and killed and one woman was wounded. Between Friday afternoon and Saturday morning, three people were killed and at least 19 others were wounded in Chicago shootings. On Saturday, a 15-year-old girl was shot and killed in Oakland, Calif. Mostly untouched by the news, there were at least seven gun-related deaths and even more injuries in American cities last weekend.

Events like the one at Seattle Pacific University and the recent mass shooting at UC Santa Barbara have revived fears about mass shootings in schools and colleges. The prevalence of these incidents is, while not inconsequential, a small part in the larger picture of American gun violence. Media attention for school shootings is always high. We become upset when a place that is created for improvement and learning face something as destructive as gun violence. Neglected, however, are the places that we do not assign such positive values.

As the FBI’s crime reports show, metropolitan areas are afflicted with high rates of violence. Violent crimes (robbery, rape, aggravated assault, and murder) have particularly high rates in cities. In 2012, each category of metropolitan counties had a higher violent crime rate than their non-metropolitan parallels.

Crimes occur much more frequently in metropolitan areas than they do in their non metropolitan counterparts.

Compared to urban areas, campuses are relatively safe, but the difference in the American mentality that surrounds college campuses and urban environments is significant. The poorest, most dilapidated parts of cities are forgotten and forlorn by the media. Shootings there are frequent, while shootings at schools are few and far between. This is not to say that people should care less about violence at schools like Seattle Pacific University, in fact, they should care more. People should care enough to advocate for and vote in favor of gun restrictions. Instead, people are shocked when shootings happen at schools but hear nothing about, or completely ignore, the recurring murders in America’s cities. While shootings and schools do not make sense together, we all-too-readily understand that gun violence and cities go hand-in-hand.

“Nearly Half of All Homicides”

A special report from the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), “Black Victims of Violent Crime,” shows how this violence is particularly prevalent among blacks.The report states that, “While blacks accounted for 13% of the U.S. population in 2005, they were victims in 15% of all nonfatal violent crimes and nearly half of all homicides”. The BJS used statistics from 1993 through 2005. The data comes from its National Crime Victimization Survey, which collects first-hand victim testimonies about incidents that have gone unreported to police, as well as the Supplementary Homicide Reports from the FBI. While staggering, this information is nothing new, nor are the 2005 numbers out of date. According to the FBI’s 2012 Uniform Crime Report, there were 3,128 white and 2,648 black victims of murder. These numbers, relative to the population proportions of whites and blacks, reveal an epidemic in the black community, and only reflect offenses reported to police. When taking into account crimes that go unreported and the instances of blacks being wrongfully shot by police officers, that murder rate would be even higher.

Uniquely, the disparity here is so great that the numbers are difficult to observe in a single graph. The difference is astounding. Although both have been decreasing recently, the homicide rate for blacks is dramatically larger than it has been for whites for over a decade.

In a Washington Post article last year, Dan Keating notes the difference between firearm deaths of whites and blacks,

“A white person is five times as likely to commit suicide with a gun as to be shot with a gun; for each African American who uses a gun to commit suicide, five are killed by other people with guns… Gun deaths in urban areas are much more likely to be homicides, while suicide is far and away the dominant form of gun death in rural areas”.

That’s one more statistic in a set of disturbing facts.

The Wall Street Journal compiled data sets from 2000 to 2010 in an article about blacks killing other blacks. Their charts show how no other group of people in the United States has been killed as frequently by firearms than blacks, not even when taking population proportions into account. Between 2000 and 2010 there were at least 60,028 black Americans were killed by firearms. A Slate.com article tracks the number of deaths as a result of school shootings from 1980 to 2012: the total is 297. Any shooting on a college campus deserves attention and a swift, appropriate reaction. But that number, 60,028, is the mass shooting we should be paying attention to.

Jake Ephros

Jake Ephros is a native of Montclair, New Jersey where he volunteered for political campaigns from a young age. He studies Political Science, Economics, and Philosophy at American University and looks forward to a career built around political activism, through journalism, organizing, or the government. Contact Jake at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post A Mass Shooting, Ignored appeared first on Law Street.

A TSA employee was fatally shot on Friday morning inside terminal three at Los Angeles International Airport when a gunman opened fire with an assault weapon at 9:20 a.m. The shooter has been identified as Paul Anthony Ciancia, 23 years old, from Pennsylvania. Ciancia moved to California approximately 18 months ago and has no prior criminal record. According to LAX Police Chief Patrick Gannon, the gunman “pulled an assault rifle out of his bag and began firing. He moved into the screening area and continued shooting.” Additional reports stated that authorities tracked down the suspect and shot him near a Burger King before taking him into custody. He was shot four times, including once in his mouth and twice in his chest; he remains heavily sedated with 24-hour armed guard protection at a local hospital.

The Los Angeles Fire Department reported that seven people were treated for injuries at the scene and were then taken to a local hospital. The TSA identified the victim as Gerardo Hernandez, 40 years old, working as a travel document checker. Two additional officers were injured and hospitalized.

Prior to the shooting, Ciancia’s father contacted Pennsville state police about a disturbing text from him to his brother. Although the incident is still under investigation, a note was discovered in his bag in which Ciancia stated that he “wanted to kill TSA and pigs,” and that he was a  “pissed-off patriot.” Witnesses reported that he walked from person to person, asking if they were affiliated with the TSA. The note also indicated that Ciancia thought that his rights were being violated by TSA.

State prosecutors have charged Ciancia with the first-degree murder and killing a federal officer. These charges makes him eligible for life in prison without parole or even the death penalty.

There has been a tremendous amount of loss. People are traumatized as one victim reported, “I’ve never been afraid like that.” Gerardo’s wife said, “I am truly devastated.” Moreover, the shooting resulted in troublesome flight delays due to the prolonged shutdown of the nation’s third largest airport terminal, which serves Virgin America, AirTran, Spirit Airlines, Horizon Air and JetBlue. After the shooting the terminal was out of service and all planes in the air were diverted to other airports. President Obama also took notice of the incident and expressed his condolences to the victim’s family.

Although the shooter has been arrested and charged within the criminal justice system, questions arise as to who is responsible, and how did the gunman manage to bring his weapon inside the nation’s largest airport? According to ABC News, one of Ciancia’s intentions was to display how easy it is to get a gun into an airport.

This is not the first killing spree in Los Angeles. A limo driver opened fire at the same airport, killing two police officers in 2002. In fact, several cases of mass shootings have caught national attention in the media lately. Another recent example is the Navy Yard shooting in which the shooter killed twelve people and wounded four in Washington, D.C.

Why has there been an increase in this type of tragic event all over the nation? There was a total of nine mass shootings last year at a variety of locations. Shooters have not explicitly targeted government buildings, rather, they have focused on sensitive areas in order to maximize the damage. Is this because of law enforcement’s ineffectiveness at security checkpoints or is it due to weak gun control laws? Whatever the reason may be, these incidents give a credible standpoint to all those who support gun control, but the question remains, are guns really the problem?

[Los Angeles Times]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Flobrio via Wikipedia]

Asim Mian

Asim Mian is a graduate of George Mason University. Contact Asim at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Mass Shootings in America: LAX Airport appeared first on Law Street.