Apr
15

Prioritizing Principles

By

After years of scolding everyone in sight for not doing more to stem crime and open air drug markets, Councilman Carl Mumpower last night voted against seeking funding for more police officers.

According to the AC-T, “Councilman Carl Mumpower cast the only dissenting vote, disagreeing with the idea that increased federal spending can revive the economy.”

Dr. Mumpower’s anti-spending principles override his public safety principles, evidently.  Good to know.


Comments

  1. Andrew says:

    Tea bag ‘em.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  2. randallt says:

    Why am I not surprised?

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  3. RHS says:

    Mountain Xpress is also reporting that the Mumps “stormed out” of Tuesdays Council meeting in protest of a discussion and vote on a resolution by Brownie Newman to seek a compromise on the Sullivan Acts regarding how Asheville can run its water system.

    In a richly ironic outcome, because he did not formally ask to be excused his vote, per Council rules, was recorded as a yes.

    http://www.mountainx.com/news/2009/mumpower_storms_out_of_meeting_in_protest_of_water_vote

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  4. Jenny Bowen says:

    Figured I’d share a link to some Tea Party photos today.
    That was a wild circus.

    Some of these signs require a serious double take:
    http://tinyurl.com/cf286a

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  5. Tom Buckner says:

    Funny thing… I served on a jury many years ago in Massachusetts, on the case of a Hispanic fellow accused of selling $20 of heroin to this other guy. When the cops swooped in he had exactly $20 on him and his friend allegedly ditched the bag of horse in the back of a pickup truck parked nearby. Seems the two had been friends for 20 years, the other fellow testified he’d gotten the drugs elsewhere, and his friend was innocent. I thought the official story stunk. If buying drugs from an old acquaintance, why not do it in your apartment about two blocks away? We were supposed to believe these guys were actually that dumb We acquitted on grounds that the police had not proved the case.

    If called to sit on a nonviolent drug case again, I would vote to acquit even if they did prove the charges. Jurors have the right to nullify if they think the law is unjust (and I do; civilization got by without drug laws for 5000+ years). This right predates the Declaration of Independence, stemming from the John Peter Zenger verdict of 1735, and affirmed repeatedly, yet most judges and prosecutors will tell you falsely that you must vote to convict if the charges are proved, no matter how wrong you think the law is. See Fully Informed Jury Association for details.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0