|
|
Post by Mr. Kruzich on Sept 14, 2016 7:38:54 GMT -6
CURRENT EVENTS! All of you have signed up to post & present a Monday current event. Current events should be online sources, legitimate articles from reputable sources, of a "decent length," and related to government or politics (local, state, national, or international). When you post, you should do the following: 1. Write the title of your article, and hyperlink the online source 2. In 1-2 paragraphs, summarize your article. Answer the 5 "W's" and provide any necessary details & explanations. Somebody reading your summary should not be left with questions about what happened. 3. In 1 paragraph, discuss one aspect of the article that relates to something we've covered in class. 4. In 1 additional paragraph, write a reflection. This could be sharing an opinion, predicting what the event will mean to the future, or asking additional questions that you'd like to see answered. Basically, do some processing of your topic. *Current events will be worth 20 points. I will not only expect your topic to be covered completely and accurately, but I will expect your responses to be academic and professional. Use well-developed paragraphs with proper spelling and grammar. Your posts are due at the beginning of the class period for presentation points (5 of the 20). Posts that are late cannot have the presentation points made up. Posts after your posting week will not be accepted. These are hard deadlines. *Each student is responsible for 4 responses to articles throughout the semester. These must be done throughout the semester... one by the end of September, one by the end of October, one by the end of November, and one before our final exam. These are hard deadlines. You may work ahead and get them done. These responses should: 1. Be 1-2 well-developed paragraphs. 2. Add something additional to the article that isn't in the summary or previous responses 3. Demonstrate clearly that you read the actual article, and not just the summary 4. Be timely- within one week of the actual posting of the article. *Responses are 10 points each. Why are we doing this? Because our district standards say we must. Happy reading, happy writing! |
|
|
|
Post by Lexi on Sept 18, 2016 20:38:31 GMT -6
Philadelphia Shooter Left Rambling Letter, Police Commissioner Says www.cnn.com/2016/09/17/us/philadelphia-gunman-shot-dead/index.html(to read the article, just copy and paste because it won't let me link) Summary: A man in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, shot and killed one woman, and injured another woman and two men in a shooting rampage. He left a note at the scene stating how he hated the law enforcement and probation officers. He mentioned one probation officer in particular. He began with firing 18 shots at close range into a police car “clearly trying to assassinate” the officer inside. Then he ran to a nearby bar and injured their security guard, and at this point, he was being chased by police. He grabbed a young lady in the bar to use as a body shield after shooting her in the leg. He then escaped and shot into a nearby car, killing the woman and injuring the man inside. He was finally cornered in an alley and killed by police officers. It's said to believe that the man had a mental disability, and a long criminal record. There is seemingly no outside connection to what may have caused the rampage, such as isis or another terrorist group; he just really hated the law enforcement. How it connects: When we talked about the supreme court case that came to centennial, we talked about probation officers and what they do. I connected that to this story because he had a “long criminal history” and “mental insanity”. Since he left a specific probation officer’s name on his letter, I figure that he is probably in trouble with his probation officer and maybe running from his responsibilities and not following the court’s rules for his probation. My opinion: Obviously, what he did was morally wrong. I want to work in law enforcement so it doesn’t sit well with me that he would shoot and try to assassin a police officer. I think the police did the right thing by shooting him, because if they didn’t, he would have continued killing and injuring more innocent bystanders and committing more crimes to add to his criminal record. My question was the motive behind killing the two people in the car, and what was he arrested for before that caused him to be on probation?? |
|
|
|
Post by Emily Wheeler on Sept 19, 2016 16:41:32 GMT -6
I agree with Lexi's statement that the police did the right thing by shooting him. Anyone who can shoot a 25 year old woman seven times in the torso and then go on to kill more people would probably not be talked down enough to be apprehended very easily. When Commissioner Richard Ross said "Right now we have a lot of questions. This is completely a bizarre situation", I was able to connect with that because I don't understand why anyone would want to go on a shooting spree to try to hurt as any people as they can and how someone can have that mindset to where they aren't bothered by it. I think it is a very strange occurrence and I would have questions for the man that did it too if he were still alive. I was able to connect this story to the Black Lives Matter movement and the Blue Lives Matter movement because it was about someone trying to hurt a police officer and innocent people for no reason.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ian Fleming on Sept 19, 2016 16:50:59 GMT -6
I agree that it was the right decision for the police to shoot the man after cornering him in the alley. Clearly if he was willing to attempt to kill several police officers along with a few civilians, he was beyond the point of correction. Even after the police had him backed into the alley, he was still attempting to kill the University Police Officer. This man was not afraid of death. I found it interesting how in January there was a similar case of someone in Western Philadelphia who shot and wounded a police officer and then later went on and pledged his allegiance to ISIS. Even though it does not directly say that the man was affiliated with any terrorist group, maybe he has similar ideas and beliefs as a member as them. This is also interesting because when a terrorist group like ISIS or al qaeda commits a mass murder, they also firmly believe that was they are doing is the right thing to do and are even willing to give up their life for their personal beliefs.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ian Fleming on Sept 25, 2016 20:53:52 GMT -6
Obama Vetoes 9/11 lawsuit billBy Kevin Liptak- September 23, 2016www.cnn.com/2016/09/23/politics/september-11-bill-saudi-arabia-veto/Summary: On Friday, September 23, in Washington, President Obama vetoed a bill that would let victims of 9/11 to sue Saudi Arabia. While Obama had stated that he had "deep sympathy" for the families of the 9/11 victims, he decided to veto the bill because he feared it may hurt US National Security interests and possibly strain important alliances with not just Saudi Arabia, but the entire middle east. Obama also spoke of having concerns that by passing the bill, Americans abroad, especially those serving military, would no longer be protected from prosecutions under reciprocal agreements. On the other hand, however, both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump disagree and want the bill to be passed because they believe that victims should be able to hold those accountable who caused them harm. It is said that Congress is expected to override the President's veto this following week. How it Connects: This connects to our class because we spoke about checks and balances in the three branches of government. This clearly displays the concept of checks and balances because the president had vetoed an act of congress. After President Obama had vetoed the bill, Congress spoke of overriding the Veto which would be considered a check on the executive branch. These checks and balances are between the executive and legislative branches. Reflection: In my opinion, I could see why one may support either side. Without clear evidence to connecting Saudi Arabia to the attacks on September 11th, I feel that I am unable to come out clearly on either position. While I do believe that those responsible for the 9/11 attacks should be held accountable for their actions, I also believe that passing the bill could potentially create dangerous situations for Americans abroad.
|
|
|
|
Post by Garrette on Sept 27, 2016 11:06:21 GMT -6
I agree with lexis opinion, on how the police officers had every right to shoot the man because he went on a killing spree for no apparent reason. I would also have many questions for the man, if he were still alive, as to why and how you could do such horrendous things to somebody and continue to want to do it. He tried to kill multiple people but ended up injuring more than killing, which is good but still shouldn't have happened in the first place. I can connect this article to the Dallas, Texas incident, in which two men started attacking and open firing on police officers and killing quite a few in the process. A lot of gangs are teaming up to try and go after law enforcement's in Texas, when all they want to do is help. So i agree if a police officer has to shoot the man that is threatening not only their lives but everyone's lives around them, then they should.
|
|
|
|
Post by Connor Canova on Sept 29, 2016 9:25:27 GMT -6
i disagree with what Lexi stated. i believe that although it was just to shoot the man, other action could of been taken before a fatal shot was landed. In my opinion if you were to commit such a crime as going on a rampage and leaving 5 injuring and one young lady dead deserves much more than death. Not everything from this situation is gonna be taken completely negative tho. A section of the texts state "officers will be riding two to a car until further notice" with officers now riding two per car the chance of them being caught off guard is a lot less. this can and will protect both the other officer in the car and the people walking the streets. Someone shouldn't just go around shooting people but the fact they were killed before they stood trial to me is way to easy of a way out. shooting someone who does something bad isn't a way to punish them. to me sitting in a cell for the rest of your life is way worse then being shot on sight.
|
|
|
|
Post by Quentin Vandenberg on Sept 29, 2016 21:48:27 GMT -6
I agree with Ian's statement about how it's hard to take a side on this issue due to the lack of evidence pinning Saudi Arabia to these attacks. President Obama vetoed congress but now congress has the option to override the veto which they would have to get a two-thirds vote in each chamber. I also thought thought it was fascinating how Clinton and Trump both disagree with the president's veto and how they want families to be able to sue Saudi Arabia.
|
|
|
|
Post by Luc Lockhart on Sept 29, 2016 22:35:43 GMT -6
I agree with Lexis statement. I believe law enforcement has every right to protect their lifes by any means, even if that means cornering a man into a alley and killing him. His killing was justified by the 5 people he injured and the one woman he killed, also in the letter he wrote how much he hates law enforcement. This gives him motive to kill the officers. This is a example of a man with a mental illness going on a rampage with a deadly fire arm. The second amendment promises right to bear arms, but the US has strong gun laws. Such as extensive background checks and if you have a mental illness one will be denied access to a firearm. This leads me to my next point, how did this man get a gun? Well I disagree with lexis statement that ISIS and other known terrorists organizations are not to blame for this disaster. I believe ISIS recruits US citizens and gives them weapons to create chaos on our own soil. In conclusion, I believe the cops handled the situation well and that man deserved to die, not sit in jail and waist tax money.
|
|
|
|
Post by Connor Spensley on Sept 30, 2016 10:59:35 GMT -6
In response to Ian's article on Presidents Obama's decision to veto the 9/11 lawsuit bill, I agree with Obama's decision. I feel like this would just cause a lot of trouble between the middle-east and United States relations. Obama says that, "the move would open Americans abroad, especially those serving in the military, to prosecutions by foreign countries". This pretty much is because if the U.S starts filing lawsuits on other foreign countries, whats gonna stop them from filing lawsuits on our own citizens. However, I also agree with Ian's statement of those who were responsible for the 9/11 attacks should still be held accountable for their actions.
|
|
|
|
Post by Connor Canova on Oct 2, 2016 23:09:30 GMT -6
Trump brings up Clinton's health, questions if she's 'loyal' to Bill
Article
On Saturday even the Donald Trump we all love came back out in the spot light. Trump has brought back the pure, raw, uncensored Donald that kicked him into one of the main spot lights of this race for election. During the debate, which had predetermined prompts, trump seemed to ignore all sense of order and surly stretched his right of free speed to the limit. Directing comments and insults at his rival Hillary Clinton. Trump made statements towards her mental and physical state of health. "She's got bad temperament. She could be crazy. She could actually be crazy," Trump said, turning away from his teleprompters" is one of trumps crude statement directed at Clinton. Not only does he direct verbal insults but also mimics Hillary on her leaving a 9/11 convention. The one comment catching everyone off guard is Trumps attack on Hillary being 'loyal' to Bill. He claims that he would not be surprised if he found out their marriage was not healthy. Trump goes on with the debate, if it can be called that by now, and wraps it all up with a statement about Clinton being an incompetent woman.
This article is a strong example of the expressed right of our Freedom of Speech. Donald Trump may not be a man people like but he sure does know how to use the first amendment, Freedom of Speech. Although a majority of the things that come out of his mouth make you stop and go, Uh Excuses me, he is able to say what he says because of this amendment.
In my opinion although Donald Trumps is giving the right to say what he is saying he could do so in a more subtle way the putting it all out there on national television, brutally humiliating his opponent. I believe that even thought the election is getting nearer and nearer to the end Trumps comments will not slow. He is a man that likes talking bad about other people and although what he is saying my be wrong and unneeded the first amendment protects him and will continue doing so.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lexi Bakerinnk on Oct 3, 2016 11:12:26 GMT -6
In reply to Connor, I believe that although this may be a freedom of speech matter, that Trump has overstepped his limits with personal attacks to Clinton. I am a Trump supporter, however, this stunt is more like an act of verbal violence than a freedom of speech matter. I know that Trump funds himself, so he can say what he wants while in the campaign, but I feel as if someone should be able to monitor his speeches ahead of time. Overall, it's a pretty cool stunt to pull to say whatever you want on national TV and have supporters as you run for a national leadership role but he needs to have a filter when it comes to such personal attacks.
|
|
|
|
Post by Heather Frommelt on Oct 4, 2016 14:07:11 GMT -6
In reply to Ian's article, I believe Obama was in the right to veto the 9/11 lawsuit bill. Allowing Americans to sue the government of Saudi Arabia for the 9/11 attacks would create far more problems than it would solve. I also agree with his fears that passing such a bill would leave American troops open to prosecution by foreign countries, and I also think this could damage our relationships with Saudi Arabia and other nations. I also don't think it would be quite right to allow Americans to sue the government of another country, when they most likely had nothing to do with the extremist groups that carried out the actual attacks. Overall, though it may be overridden, I personally think Obama was in the right to veto such a bill. The possible repercussions aren't worth the few who may be offered some closure through suing the other nation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Emily Wheeler on Oct 10, 2016 16:50:56 GMT -6
Palm Springs shooting: Suspect in killing of 2 officers arrestedwww.cnn.com/2016/10/09/us/palm-springs-police-shooting/index.htmlSummary: 63 year old Jose Gilbert Vega and 27 year old Lesley Zerebny were the victims in a shooting that took place on October 8th. The shooter, 26 year old John Felix, was arrested on October 9th. What had started out as a house call to respond to a family disturbance turned fatal for two officers. Vega was due to retire this year and Zerebny had just returned to work after maternity leave with her now 4 month old daughter. The mother of Felix called to report him and when police arrived, he refused to open the door and began to fire his gun at them through the closed door. After many hours of trying to communicate to Felix through the door, the police called in the SWAT team which threw in chemical agents. Felix fled through the back door and was apprehended. Riverside County district attorney Michael Hestrin said he will be charged with two counts of first degree murder and the death penalty will be considered because he murdered police officers in the line of duty. How it connects: We have been comparing Democrat vs. Republican opinions on controversial topics such as "gun control" and "crime and punishment" which includes the death penalty. Typically democrats would see this situation as an example as to why there should be stricter gun laws. Many republicans would argue the 2nd Amendment and blame the person not the gun. Both parties agree that their should be extensive background checks on anyone interested in purchasing a gun. Reflection: I personally think that the death penalty should be considered or the families should have the right to sue Felix because one of the officers was a new mother of a 4 month old baby that will grow up without her mother now so his actions go beyond the lives of the two officers. I would have some questions as to what the disturbance was about in the first place and if it was worth two police officer's lives and why he felt the need to shoot at them instead of talking because maybe the situation could have been settled with no violence.
|
|
|
|
Post by Heather Frommelt on Oct 10, 2016 22:17:05 GMT -6
In response to Emily's post, I am surprised that gun control nor opinions on gun control were mentioned anywhere in the article. Usually, when shooting-related deaths occur, the parties involved tend to speak out on their views of "controlling" the 2nd Amendment, but in this case, the article rather focused on those affected by the deaths of these two officers and the statistics of law enforcement officer deaths in the line of duty. Also, I don't personally believe the death penalty should be considered in this case, mainly because it is proven to be cheaper to keep someone in jail for the rest of their life, and it's far more humane and seems less of an "eye for an eye" situation. I do agree with Michael Hestrin, and believe the perpetrator, however, should be sued.
|
|
