What were you thinking? - Follow up

Back in March, I posted an entry about a local man, a deacon in his church, who robbed a bank. My post is here, but in summary, the man was hailed by many as a "good" man who just snapped. He was seen walking into the bank wearing a mask and police were called. He ended up holding two bank employees hostage during the attempt, before he eventually gave himself up.

Last week, Bruce Lee Windsor plead guilty in Federal court to the bank robbery. Windsor, father of 4, stepped up to the task and admitted his actions. He still faces two counts of kidnapping in state court. Whether he will plead guilty in this case or attempt a defense is not yet clear.

Windsor faces up to 25 years on the Federal case (sentencing date not set). According to this news article he did not have a criminal past, however he was facing a $30,000 lawsuit. The article also says the "federal system doesn’t allow parole." With that information and the upcoming state trial, Mr. Windsor will be away from his children for a long, long, long time.

Some comments I've seen on the newspaper articles question Windsor's status as a "good man." Some people had question about his real estate dealings (the lawsuit is one result). He did have financial problems and apparently was looking for a way out.

There are a lot of victims in this story. Some are quick to point out his wife and children, who still face the same problems he faced before the robbery and now face new problems. They are correct in pointing out these problems. Others are correct to point out the two people held hostage, who feared for their life as well as all of the ones in the bank. From a strictly dollars and cents viewpoint, there's lost business at the bank, cost of the police force to come out and other business aspects. I mentioned back in March that I knew a family impacted by the event (much less than those immediately involved).

I go back to my original question - What were you thinking? Obviously, Windsor wasn't thinking. The Greenville News reports that FBI has a 60% clearance rate in solving bank robberies. You have only a 2 in 5 chance of getting anything and then it's only likely to be "couple of thousand dollars." As Miller Shealy, a former federal prosecutor and now Charleston School of Law professor says, "the bank robber is a more desperate form of criminal and not a very smart one these days." (see here)

I hold no special animosity towards Mr. Windsor, but I also hold no special compassion. Maybe he was a "good man", but his actions deserve punishment. The length of that punishment will soon become obvious.

Book 'em Danno

This morning our local station did a "Timeline" story, a story where they explain something significant that happened this day, June 13. Now I would have thought they would have recognized my son-in-law's birthday or maybe granddaughter #3's one month birthday, but rather they focused on a court decision, the decision of Miranda v. Arizona.

Most of us are familiar with the Miranda decision, from watching television (analog or digital). The decision (1966) marked a time when the Supreme Court ruled that an individual must be told his rights when arrested, you know, the right to remain silent, the right to an attorney, etc.

But I got to thinking, whatever happened to Mr. Miranda? Well Wikipedia is always a good source, especially if you aren't writing a paper. In this Wikipedia article, it's all spelled out. Seems 22 year old Ernesto Miranda was arrested for robbery and while under arrest, he confessed to raping a girl 2 days earlier. At trial, his victim positively identified him and his confession was entered into the courts.

The Supreme Court indicated that Miranda didn't know (or wasn't told) his rights and sent the case back to trial. Now Paul Harvey would say, here's the rest of the story. When the case went back to trial, the prosecution entered the same witnesses and "other evidence" (Wikipedia isn't known for detail). The result? Miranda was convicted, sentenced to 20 to 30 years, served 5 years in jail, was released on parole and went on to lead the life of a prosperous citizen.

Well, maybe not that last part. Seems he spent time autographing Miranda cards for police officers and then was stabbed to death in a bar argument four years later. Even when given the protection of his full rights, he was still convicted. And in his final trial, he was afforded the same rights he gave his earlier victim.

Moral of the story: Just because someone gets a big case named after them, doesn't mean they weren't guilty.

Civil Union

This isn't a subject I typically discuss. It's never affected me or anyone close to me directly (at least to my knowledge). But I heard about a case today that brings this to a new light.

Janet Jenkins and Lisa Miller lived in Virginia which does not allow unions of same-sex couples. So they took a trip to Vermont to have their relationship legalized. Of course, since they lived in Virginia (which has a strong law against these unions) their relationship would still go unrecognized.

Lisa wanted a baby. Together (by one report, other reports say no) they went to the doctor's office to conceive along with the help of Donor 2309. Four months after Lisa delivered a little girl, Isabella, they decided to move to Vermont, where their relationship was legal.

But as happens in many relationships, things turned sour. Lisa moved back to Virginia and took little Isabella with her. This is when things got confusing. Seems that Janet wanted custody. The Washington Post has a LONG history of the case here, and it gets confusing. I hope you'll go read it, but you might need to take notes as you go along.

At the heart of the case is which state's laws apply? Of course, if it becomes messy enough to go to the Supreme Court, the question will be can Virginia establish a law to not recognize Vermont marriages. If a homosexual couple marries in Vermont, does Virginia have to recognize it? In the past, I felt like this was a matter best left to the states, but the supremes may decide others.

Reading the details of the story, I'd bet that the case will be decided on some technicality. There are questions about jurisdiction, improper representation and what the mother signed vs what she understood. I'm afraid the supremes will choose not to get involved with the meat of this case and dodge it instead. But be watching the case of Miller v Jenkins.

* updated spelling