I'm a bit torn over the news about General Milley. On the one hand, it seems like he may have greatly overstepped his constitutional authority. On the other hand, thank goddess he did. I can easily envision the Dotard deciding to launch nukes in the middle of a Twitter tantrum, and I'm super glad Milley prevented that possibility, even if he did overstep his authority.

Just saying, the frontrunner for the GOP in the California recall was a black guy. Batshit crazy knows no race.

Well, of course the CA GQP doesn't mind spending hundreds of millions of taxpayer money on a hopeless, futile effort to oust a democratically elected governor: A of All) because now they can whinge about "a frivolous waste of taxpayer dollars" even though THEY were the ones wasting the money (which their base, with their typical cognitive dissonance will completely overlook), and B of All): they probably received several hundred millions of dollars in direct contributions from the same credulous, slack-jawed yahoos who believed their lies about Newsome in the first place. So, even though they lost the recall, it was still a win-win so far as they're concerned.

@1: Milley's oath is to uphold the constitution, which is above the commander in chief. And if the commander in chief has been abusing the constitution, and dangerously undermining it in multiple ways, at most it's a constitutional blemish in a gray area.

Re AOC - not "haters gotta hate" but "pitiers gotta pity".

The crimes of murder and rape should always be tried in adult criminal court.

If found guilty the age of the perpetrator can be considered during sentencing but the trial itself should be in Adult Criminal Court.

@1 and @4
As Raindrop points out the oath is to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

No officer or enlisted personnel is required to obey an illegal order.

If the President is violating their oath and attempting to undermine the Constitution the General has sworn an oath to defend against that.

Well I certainly never thought I'd see Charles leap to the defense of someone who intentionally hit and murdered someone else WITH A CAR.

Those calling for her to be tried as an adult are just giving into the bloodlust that undermines and permeates our punitive criminal justice system. The best thing that could come from the tragedy is her redeeming and rehabilitating herself to hopefully and eventually contribute something positive to society, and not to be sent away to rot in a cell for the next half-century. And the most likely means by which to achieve such an outcome would be for her to be tried as the child that she is.

My fellow NPR junkies have all heard any number of heartbreakingly sad, but also beautiful and uplifting stories of redemption and forgiveness, and of families forgiving those who've harmed their loved ones. Here's a quickie from StoryCorps.

https://www.npr.org/2021/02/26/971327506/worth-being-forgiven-a-father-and-his-sons-killer-bring-past-and-present-togethe

"If you see the girl as an adult, then look at it this way: What, after all, is a 15-year-old-girl doing in a car? What made this even a possibility?"

What made this possible was her decision to ignore WA state law which does not allow a 15-year-old, even with a learner's permit, to operate a vehicle without adult supervision. (She also chose to ignore laws prohibiting murder.)

"Reality is not just an event but also its cloud of causes. And causes always have more reality than the appearance of the event."

Given your reflexive hatred of cars, Charles, I suppose you believe: Psychopaths don't kill people, cars do.

“But we must have no illusions on the left. We really do not have a chance at the White House. The generals will never let us in.”

What are you talking about Charles?

The Generals did not interfere with the inauguration of Biden, Obama, or B. Clinton and had they won their elections the Generals would not have prevented the inauguration of H. Clinton, Kerry, or Gore.

If you are implying that Bernie, AOC, or Sawant will not sit in the Oval Office because of the military that’s horseshit.

The reason Bernie will never be President is because Bernie was never able to convince a majority of Americans to vote for him. Hell in two tries he wasn’t even able to get a majority of Democrats to vote for him.

Progressives have decent ideas but they are completely unable to communicate those ideas to anyone who’s not already on the bus.

Want a Progressive President? Start communicating better and for gods’ sake stop insulting and marginalizing those who aren’t with you 100%.

The reason a child should never be tried as an adult is the same reason we don't allow children to sign contracts, or give consent, or serve in the military, or buy a gun, or vote, or drive, or drink, or smoke. Because we don't legally deem them capable of making adult decisions or understanding adult responsibilities and adult consequences.

Hell, we don't even know this girl's name because the media considers her a child.

Now, I'm open to changing those laws, changing the age of consent and so forth, if it seems we need to do so because the current ages are wrong, but right now, and when this murder happened, the state considered her a minor. Either she's a minor or she's not. You can't vacillate between the two without showing bias and prejudice and those two things are something we need far LESS of in the criminal justice system.

A person who at fifteen steals a car, joy-rides two towns over, kills a stranger on a whim, and laughs about it all the way home does not have a redemption arc to look forward to in her story.

Rehabilitation is possible for some people, but not for everyone.

Of course the republicans are willing to Spend! Spend! Spend! taxpayer money. I don't know why that surprises anyone though. They've always been wasteful. They spend like drunken sailors.

If you're looking for a political group that's fiscally responsible, the republican party is NOT it.

The 15 year old girl should be tried as an adult as she purposely hit the poor jogger and is a danger to society with her sociopath thinking. She was killing for sport and needs to be punished and recieve treatment for her mental deficiencies, in prison. The thought that she, if tried as an adolescent, could be free from legal worries by age 18 would be a shockingly dismissive sentence. Consider her age during sentencing but punish her a abhorrent behavior in adult court. As for General Milley, an investigation committee needs to look at his behavior of treason and if found gulity, he needs to be stripped of his rank at a minimum. We cannot play favorites when the constitution has been breached. After his handling of the Afghanistan debacle I personally wouldn't miss him.

@14 Did it ever dawn on you that some people are beyond redemption?

There are almost 8 billion people on the planet and most of us got through are entire lives without even assaulting someone, let alone killing them.

This person is 15 years-old and IF they are guilty of this crime they callously killed for a thrill. If guilty she deserves no sympathy. And the best venue to determine her guilt is in an adult criminal court.

For anyone who thinks a minor should be tried as an adult, answer me this:

Is there any case in which an adult should be tried as a juvenile?
If not, why not?

@21 What the hell are you talking about?

What Treason? Milley's oath is to the Constitution, not the President, not the Chain of Command. As a commissioned officer he is legally bound to refuse any illegal order.

In case you have forgotten your Constitution, the power to declare war does not reside with the Executive. It resides with Congress. Similarly the Executive has no power to change the outcome of an election.

It seems Miley's actions were designed to prevent a President from Illegally starting a war and to prevent a President from illegally changing the outcome of an election. That's called Patriotism, that's called integrity, and that is following his Oath to the Constitution of the United States..

@18

I agree with you on every crime except Murder and Rape. If you are capable of either of those actions you are capable of being tried as an Adult.

@23 I can see having a juvenile court adjudicate cases where an Adult has a severe learning disability.

Maybe instead of having an Adult Court and a Juvenile Court we could have a Cognitive Court and a non-Cognitive Court. Eliminate the Insanity defense and try the insane in the non-Cognitive Court along with Juveniles.

It's interesting to think about.

But it is not the system we have setup. We have Adult Court and Juvenile Court. And in my opinion the crimes of Murder and Rape should always be tried in Adult court. Age and cognitive abilities can come into play at sentencing.

@22
Grammar Edit: There are almost 8 billion people on the planet and most of us go through our entire lives without even assaulting someone, let alone killing them.

@18: Correct. The volume of our anger should not change our principles.

What the hell does Milley trying to stop a rage-fuled nuclear war have to do with whether it's Sanders or Biden who won the election? I can guarantee you that if Bernie won, the Orange Turd would have had even a bigger snit and Milley would have done the same thing.

@30: Not using strange and contorted comparisons is not a failure.

“How do you feel about the theft by the unvaccinated???”

ripped off
bludgeoned
sucker punched
and at wit’s End.

but they haven’t
killed anyone close yet
not that they’re not giving it their All.

but Asking that Question
is the very first Step to Recovery:

it’s ALL in the Framing.

END the Mollycoddle.

Charles, my reading comprehension must not be so great because I don't see any excitement in the quote from KOMO.
It is a statement from the family with zero insinuating from KOMO.

I mean, you're basically just making shit up now to cream the jeans of the ten regulars here who think every media outlet that isn't the stranger is a nazi maga propoganda farm.
Are you even trying anymore?

@18: You're entirely right. We have a criminal system fueled by a toxic mix of puritanism and revenge based retribution that leads to enormous inconsistencies baked into the system.

When it comes to sex, alcohol, drugs, or anything that involves either pleasure or consent we consistently do everything we can to push the age as high possible in order to criminalize adults who enable, or are involved in that behavior. Meanwhile, when it comes to revenge based youth crime we consistently push that age as lower as possible.

On the surface it seems inconsistent. If a 16 year old robs a liquor store and takes a drink, how can you both charge her as an adult for robbing the store and a minor for taking a drink?

It only makes sense when you zoom back and realize the fundamental purpose of these apparent inconsistencies is to increase the number of people you can criminalize and incarcerate and give the State criminal control over personal choice. That is the consistency behind the inconsistency. It's the inconsistency of an authoritarian culture that thinks harm and consent should be determined entirely by police, prosecutors and judges.

For those who propose some are beyond redemption you are missing the point. Setting aside for now that investigators lie routinely so we really don't no based simply on their say so if this version of events is accurate, it's hubristic in the extreme to imagine you have god like judgement and are able to separate those capable of redemption from those who are not. That is doubly true when it comes to children. the criminal system makes it's living painting anyone they arrest for a crime and the worst monster to walk the earth as chum for the simple minded in the community. Life and facts on the ground are almost always more complicated that the version of events the police PR team feeds you.

Yes child killer are completely unredeemable. Juts look at how these two sociopaths turned out! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parker%E2%80%93Hulme_murder_case

@40
I think the laws change state by state but from my understanding if she is tried in juvenile court any sentence can’t reach past her 18th birthday.
Trying the case in criminal court allows more flexibility in sentencing.

@12:

Progressive Liberals weren't the ones who bankrolled the recall effort, were they?

https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Newsom-recall-bankrolled-by-wealthy-mega-donors-15995587.php

Or did you expect Newsom and the Democratic Party to simply roll over and let the RWNJ's have their way? Oh, wait. Of course you did. Sorry you were so disappointed, but hey, at least that's a few hundred million the billionaires who run the national GQP won't be able to spend during the next election cycle, so I guess it's a double-win for our side.

@15:

But psychopaths WITH cars DO kill people...

@23:

Adding on to @26, another example would be if the suspect committed the crime as a juvenile, but was apprehended and charged after they reached the age of majority.

@40: From what I've read she gleefully committed vehicular homicide because she wanted to "punish" the jogger, that sounds like a sociopath to me. "

I say again, this is the police narrative. How many times have we caught the police lying not just about the facts of a case, but especially the motives? (constantly). How many people other than fictional comic book characters "gleefully commit vehicular homicide?" outside of some cop generated passion play?

The complete lack of skepticism from the public when the police feed us these generic 2 dimensional comic book villains designed to get easy convictions and the continued growth of funding for the police state is truly staggering. We are truly the most frightened and gullible group of people on the planet.

You're a grown up with real life experience. How often do you run into real humans like that outside of police generated comic villains?

@47 Isn’t that why we hold trials, to determine guilt?

To have faith in our justice system we need aggressive prosecutions AND aggressive defenses.

Now I’m all in favor of increasing the budgets for public defenders so they can hire better attorneys and mount more aggressive defenses.

But I’m not in favor of the policies proposed by Dan Satterberg, Pete Holmes, and Nicole Thomas-Kennedy of limiting prosecutions.

In criminal cases I want the prosecutors to be bloodthirsty. I also want the defense attorneys to be equally rabid in defense of their clients. Then let the jury decide.

@23 Lennie should have been tried as a juvenile! Now for George to be the Prosecutor, Judge, jury and carry out the sentence seems a bit improper, but under the circumstances I suppose he figured it was the best he could do.
Of course that is apples and oranges, Lennie didn't intend to do what he did and George was probably more concerned about what was going to happen to Lennie if Curley caught him than who else Lennie might kill in the future, and anyway the end result for Lennie would have been the same, just a lot more painful in one case, so again, not like the current case at all.
Though one does wonder if this girl has killed any puppies (or mice, in case someone doesn't get the reference) or, or .. Kittens??? They say drawing and quartering females is indecent, so, burning at the stake will have to do. (how better to start a flame war than a reference to actual fire?)

@48: The roll of prosecutors, defense attorney budgets and the criminal system is not the issue here. The issue is if Police and Prosecutors should be spreading unchallenged stories in the media like this prior to trial that will affect the jury pool. The only rule against it is ethical, which means nothing to police and prosecutors.

Anything the defense says in public can be used against them at trial. Nothing a prosecutor or police officer says prior to a trial can be used against them. The first thing a defense attorney tells their client it to not talk to the media for just that reason. When police and prosecutors are accused of crimes they are quick to talk about how unethical it would be to talk about an ongoing trial. It's unfortunate they are morally bankrupt when it comes to prosecuting the public.

Last time I checked their was a presumption of innocence in America. Prosecutors and police have any ethical duty to not push for a pre-trial media driven conviction by scoring cheap points for political purposes to raise their own profile. They could have simply reported the crime without making the accusations about her motivation she is unable to counter in the media.

The jury will almost certainly be reading these stories despite the judge asking them not to do so. What do you think the odds are of this helping with a fair trial?

@50 Are you saying Defense Attorneys never grandstand to the media?

Seems your beef is with the media not the DAs or Police