'Twas The Day After Thanksgiving

by Donna Pendergast

'Twas the day after Thanksgiving and all through the land

The shoppers were awake, the agenda was planned

The coffee was brewing, the tennies were laced

The stores would soon open, around the house they all raced

The stores were all decked out with flash holiday flair

with hope that the shoppers would soon buy their fare

And Mom with her coupons and dad with his cash

had compiled a list for the mad morning dash

When all of a sudden there arose such a clatter

Mall doors were now open, 'twas all that would matter

The crowd surged ahead in a frenzy quite crazy

Not a place for the weak and worse for the lazy.

Holiday lights in the window of a once simple store

gave the luster of magic to something quite plain before

When what to my wondering eyes should appear

But a runaway mob propelled from the rear.

Push forward, move faster, don't worry where you tread

Don't look back, don't falter, think bargains ahead

From outside the front door, for the length of the mall

Now dash away, dash away, dash away all.

Like leaves in the middle of a wild tornado fly

run for the shops, many presents to buy

Super special sale and bargains galore

but you need to move quickly and get through the door

Then in a twinkling, a voice on the mike

Door buster special, something you'll like

You need to get this deal, you need to buy more

But you better move fast, only five units per store."

So off to that aisle, shoppers flew in a flash

I'm going to get me one and save tons of cash

But I only can do it by fighting off the crowd

I need to be brazen, I musn't be cowed.

As boxes fly  into carts full of loot

get out of the way or I'll give you a boot

I need to get this deal, my kid needs this toy

And I'm on a mission to search and destroy
.

Don't you know it's Black Friday, only one thing to say?

Survival of the fittest is the order of the day

I'm going for the deals, I want only the best

I can't stop or falter, I can't take a rest.

Up and down the corridors, until plum out of steam

I got all my bargains, my haul is a dream

I'm done hitting stores from morning to night

Merry Christmas to all, you put up a good fight.

Black Friday is one of the most anticipated shopping days of the year for bargain-hunting shoppers. It's a time to hit the stores and officially launch the holiday shopping season. But criminals look forward to the shopping season for a very different reason. Based on experience I can tell you that they are hoping to take advantage and prey on shoppers. Be a smart shopper and heed these safety tips:

1. Avoid the ATM. Early Friday morning is no time to be hitting the money machine for a dose of cash. If you absolutely need to visit the ATM, be safe about it. Use a well-lit ATM inside an open establishment. Be especially mindful of anyone who appears to be watching you near an ATM. Also be aware of anything that seems unusual about the ATM machine itself. Criminals have become adept at rigging ATM machines to trap your card which they will extract from the rigged machine after you walk away. They can later use it by entering your pin number which they have learned by either watching you punch it in up close or watching from afar with binoculars.

2. Be Alert. Pay attention to surroundings and keep an eye out for any unusual activity. Park under lights and shop with a buddy. If you have to exit your car in a dark parking lot, wait for a crowd that is heading toward the store or mall as well.

3. Keep your purse close to your body and tightly shut. I have personally been the victim of a pickpocket who was so adroit that he was able to lift my wallet out of my purse while it was on my shoulder. I never felt a thing. Keep a tight leash on your purse and be alert in crowds and aware of persons bumping up against you. A neat tip for your purse if you are putting it in a shopping cart. Put it in the child seat area and lace the seatbelt straps through the purse handle and lock them. This prevents a thief from running by and grabbing it on the run.

4. Don't fight. Black Friday can bring out the worst in shoppers. A good deal is not worth a physical altercation.

Be safe out there tomorrow. Happy shopping, and remember, people. it's only stuff!  Today, think of what's really important and be thankful for what you already have.

Tweet

O.J. Simpson - GUILTY!

by Katherine Scardino

It has finally happened. A jury in Las Vegas, Nevada did it. They told O.J. Simpson that he is guilty of a crime. Some people have been waiting for this for many years. A Las Vegas jury found O.J. Simpson guilty of all counts: conspiracy, robbery, kidnapping, and all done knowingly with a weapon. This verdict came thirteen years to the day that a Los Angeles jury aquitted him.

In 1995, when the jury in California found him Not Guilty of murdering his wife, Nicole Simpson, and her friend, Ron Goldman, most of the sane world was astonished. How could this have happened? I understand totally how it happened, and I will remind you that a jury must find guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt.” You can say that it was his slick “dream team” of lawyers. I am sure that had something to do with it. Yet it has been my experience that you can be the slickest lawyer in the world, but you cannot change the basic facts.

In my office, I keep a pretty fairy wand that was given to me about 12 years ago. It was supposed to help me “change the facts” of cases. I have used it consistently, but to date, I have seen no real results. A lawyer can take the facts and try to mold them in a way that sounds better for your client, but the basic reality is still there.

A lawyer can provide the jury with reasons why his or her client was present during the killing or during a robbery, and hope that the jury will not believe that he was a participant or knew that the co-actor intended to kill or rob someone. But that is all you can do. A fact is a fact.

This Nevada court and the judge made some half-hearted attempt to keep the California murder trial out of this Nevada courtroom. But everyone, I’m sure, knew that would be realistically impossible—unless the “slick” defense lawyer could find a jury of 12 people who had been living under a rock in the Nevada desert for the last 15 years.

The lawyers were not supposed to mention the prior trial and verdict, but remember in the opening statement by the prosecutor, he said something like “make this the first real verdict” for O.J. Simpson. Well, it was clear what was meant . . . and the jury delivered for him.

I watched O.J. during the reading of the verdicts. O.J. has aged considerably since his last criminal trial. He was listening and waiting for the two-word verdict, but it did not come—ever—on any count. It was “guilty” all across the board. His face looked pained and I am sure Simpson, 61, is worried about the remainder of his life. This jury could sentence him to life in prison. He would be eligible at some point for parole, but at his age, for all practical purposes, it would be forever.

Why does this verdict make me a little sad? Is it because I am so used to fighting for the underdog, the oppressed? Am I so much a defense lawyer that I cannot see the guilt in anyone? I am beginning to wonder about myself. Do I want all defendants to win regardless of the facts of the case? No, I do not think that is it.

From what I saw and reported to you during the trial, it appeared that there was enough evidence that was presented to the jury that should have produced a “reasonable doubt” and the verdict should have been Not Guilty. The issue of whether O.J. knew that his co-defendant had a gun was not clear—at least to me and what I saw. Simpson’s attorney put up a good defense, but as with most criminal cases, the defense generally does not have many—or any—witnesses.

The defense here had one witness—and it was not O.J. Does it matter to juries whether the defendant testifies? I believe it makes a huge difference. My general rule is that in serious criminal cases, unless they have a prior criminal history a mile long, I make every effort to put the defendant on the stand to testify in front of the jury. If he is firm in his statement to you, his lawyer, that he did not do this crime—or, in O.J.’s case, that he did not know that the other guy was going in that room with a gun and all he wanted to do was retrieve his own property—then why not put him on the stand? A jury always, I repeat—always—wants to hear from the defendant. And a juror who is really honest with you will say that if the defendant does not testify, they will wonder why not.

A defense lawyer talks to the potential jurors during the jury selection process about whether their client will testify. You try to get a jury who understands every citizen’s constitutional right NOT to testify, but it really does not matter. In the average person’s mind, if you are “innocent” (which is another article in itself), then you should get on the stand and say so.

But what got me, and I bet what each individual juror was thinking, was this: Why in the world would O.J. not call the police to do this job for him? Why in the world would he think that it was acceptable for him and his cohorts to barge into this hotel room and do what he did? Why does he keep committing crimes—little or big? Does he think that he will always avoid repercussions of his actions? Does he think he is above the law? Maybe he did. But I bet he has changed his tune now. Waiting on sentencing can be very stressful and demeaning. Let’s see if he goes to prison, and for how long. For victims of crime, waiting on justice can be unbearable. I bet the Goldman family is raising several glasses of champagne. . . . What do you think?

Tweet

Squeezing O.J. - Will Round II Get the Juice?

by Katherine Scardino

I am not sure whether I want to write something about O.J. Simpson. After the criminal trial in 1994, we all probably said something to the effect of "I hope I never hear this man's name again for the rest of my life."

I know there were people who watched every minute of that murder trial in California over a decade ago—you know, the one that lasted almost a year! And with an equally startling verdict.

During that trial, I remember being called by a member of the press in Houston, Texas, where I live, and asked to basically "guess" what the jury was going to do.

This phone call came during jury deliberations and—in all fairness to the newspaper reporter—he was thinking that because I had been practicing criminal law in Houston for a while, and had tried more than a few criminal cases, I might have some insight or clue as to what the jury would do.

Well, in my most J.D.-educated tone, I told him I thought that surely this jury would find Mr. Simpson guilty of murdering his wife and Mr. Goldman.

I had watched enough of the trial to feel that he was guilty. But I also recognized that Barry Scheck, Johnny Cochran, and the other members of his defense team did a fantastic job of "smoke and mirrors" and that the two prosecutors were totally outclassed and outlawyered by that so-called Dream Team. That is not supposed to matter . . . but in the glare of that circus, it was obvious.

All the same, I still felt that the State had put on enough evidence for the jury to legitimately find this man guilty.

Now we are in the midst of criminal trial number two for O.J. Simpson. This one is a crummy sequel to the first case. He is currently on trial in Las Vegas, Nevada for armed robbery and kidnapping. I have been following the newspaper about as much as you probably have—and with about as much interest.

Then I started thinking, which is a dangerous thing for me to do . . . but here are my thoughts. First, don't be mislead by the fact that he is accused of "armed robbery." He is not being charged with robbing these people of the property that he maintains was his.

No, O.J. Simpson is being tried for robbery because when he and his cohorts stormed into that hotel room, he snatched a cell phone, hat, and sunglasses (which probably actually fell off the man's face) from one of the people in the room.

Second, the "kidnapping" charge arose from a statement Simpson made on the eight-minute audiotape of this incident: "No one leaves. Do not let anyone leave this room." So that is the kidnapping part of his felony charge that could mean a life sentence for O.J.

Then, as if this is not enough, in the opening statement by the prosecutor, he told the jury to let this be the "true verdict."

Of course, the judge had instructed the jury that the California criminal trial was not to have any impact on their consideration of the facts in this case. Right! And, the prosecution was not to mention that trial. So, this prosecutor simply implied to the jury that regardless of the verdict in California, this verdict should be the "true verdict."

And he also mentioned in his opening statement that the jury will hear the "true O.J. Simpson" as opposed to O.J.'s public persona.

While not mentioning the murder trial, he alluded to it in the words he chose to use in front of this Las Vegas jury.

So where is this going? I am tending to believe more and more that this is a set up by O. J.'s alleged "friends." Otherwise, why the full audiotape of this entire incident?

And we have to remember, that "rant" of O.J. Simpson may just be that. He is not being charged with using profane language or with losing his temper because he wanted his "s----" back.

There is always the possibility of a jury finding him guilty because of his history, the language he used, the anger he exhibited, the fact that many people around the world, not just the United States, believe that O.J. is guilty of murder and got away with it.

And this trial may be the last chance a wrong can be made right.

O.J. Simpson might get life in prison for knocking a man's sunglasses and cap off his head, and by saying that no one could leave the room. (Lord, I hope we have not resorted to revenge verdicts.)

Let's keep watching. I'll write more as the case progresses. . . .

Tweet

Does O.J. Deserve an Unbiased Jury?

by Tina Dirmann

O.J. Simpson may not get a fair trial. That's what a lot of people are saying, right? That jurors will be stinging, still, from that February 5, 1997 verdict that allowed him to walk away from a double homicide charge. And jurors will be so outraged, apparently, that they will not be able to weigh the facts objectively now that he stands trial for kidnapping and armed robbery in Las Vegas.

My take? The talk is right. And, beyond that, my guess is that few people care if Simpson's right to a fair trial is violated.

As a career crime reporter, I know only too well that no matter what we think of Simpson—and I do think he brutally slashed to death ex-wife Nicole Brown and friend Ron Goldman—he still deserves an unbiased jury.

You know, the kind he didn't get the first time—only that worked out in his favor. But this time? Eh, my gut says probably not so much. Oh, forget my gut. Listen to the potential jurors directly.

"I feel the case down in Los Angeles—if someone got away with that," a male juror angrily reasoned, "you would keep yourself clean and you wouldn't come back and commit another crime."

That one led the defense attorney to try to have all potential jurors who even heard the comment dismissed. The judge refused. After all, it's taken all week to find 12 unbiased jurors. She wasn't about to allow such a setback. But she did allow others who agreed with him to raise their hands. A few did. All were sent home.

Another juror admitted on his questionnaire that he couldn't get over his anger about the 1995 acquittal (though he later said under examination that he had a "change of heart" about that). Right.

I can't help but wonder, in fact, if there are some folks out there who are so upset over that long-ago injustice, that they'll gloss over their feelings publicly just to get a seat on that jury and somehow finally seek justice for those old murders. It could happen. And we'd probably never know. No more than we knew the jurors in California all those years ago were incapable of setting aside feelings of bitterness over police injustice to the minority community and seek their retribution by letting an obviously guilty man go.

But all that aside, what I'd really love to know is . . . What is O.J. thinking as he sits there, listening to people call him a murderer. Unlike the last time, when he would roll his eyes at comments in court and famously proclaim himself "100% not guilty," Simpson remains passive, with not a flicker of emotion crossing his face as each day's proceedings roll on.

But I bet he is scared. He's 61 years old and once again facing life in prison, this time for kidnapping, armed robbery, and assault in connection to stealing items from two sports memorabilia dealers in a Vegas hotel room last year—memorabilia he claims were his. Such a dumb crime. And this time, he's alone, pretty much. No gavel-to-gavel coverage by all the media networks. No outraged black community. No Cochran and crew (a.k.a., Dream Team). No lenient Judge Lance Ito allowing the circus to dance on and on.

And I think Simpson knows the chances of getting 12 jurors and 6 alternates with absolutely no opinion, with no ax to grind against him, are pretty slim. I'm not saying it's right. Or fair. That's just the way it is.

And if I were O.J., I'd be plenty scared.

Tweet

Sound the Horn: In Texas, You Can Kill Without Being Threatened

by Katherine Scardino

Everyone is talking about Joe Horn, the Pasadena, Texas citizen who shot two Black burglars in the back after he saw them burglarizing his neighbor’s residence. We have all heard the 911 taped conversation with Mr. Horn - where the Operator is saying "Don’t go out there" . . . "Stay inside" . . . "You are going to get shot." (Listen to the call here.)

And our Mr. Horn (pictured upper left) stating that he is going to go outside with his gun and shoot them. He did, and he killed two people. Two people who were Black, burglarizing a home, and I have heard, were illegal immigrants.

This week, he was "no-billed" by a Harris County Grand Jury, meaning he will not face criminal charges for the deaths of two people, Diego Ortiz (left center) and Miguel Antonio DeJesus (lower left).

Let’s look at our Penal Code to see whether we agree with the Grand Jury. Did he use deadly force in defense of himself? No, we know he was inside his house when he called 911 dispatch; the burglars were not burglarizing his home; nor did they provoke Mr. Horn.

How about the use of deadly force in defense of a third person? No, there was no "third person" around.

That leaves us with whether he was engaged in the "protection of one’s own property." He is justified in using deadly force to protect his property when he "reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other’s trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property."

But wait a second. That refers to his own property. How about another person’s property? Under this statute, he is justified in using deadly force if he "reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary" to prevent the burglars from "imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, etc."

I thought the burglars were walking away from his neighbor’s home. If so, there is no "imminent" offense.

So why is he being allowed to walk away? What attitude have we assumed that says he did the right thing. I know. Could it be that the people in our area are sick and tired of their hard-earned property being stolen, their women being raped and/or assaulted, criminals breaking into homes and taking property, killing people, and the list goes on. We are just sick of it. And, you know what? I agree.

Do you think Joe Horn would be facing charges if Joe Horn was Black and he killed two White people under the very same circumstances? Yes, I believe that. I know it is terribly insulting to us to think that we are still racially motivated. But come on, let’s get real. Because we are fed up with crime and because he "only killed two Black people" who were "illegal immigrants" are the reasons Joe Horn can breathe easy today.

Maybe that’s OK. What do you think?

Tweet