Days Black People Not Re-Enslaved By Trump

Wednesday, July 11, 2018

Reminder: You Have No Expectation Of Privacy In Public Places

The EFF has a post in which they raise an alarm about license plate readers being used by a private company in private malls.
Automated license plate recognition is a form of mass surveillance in which cameras capture images of license plates, convert the plate into plaintext characters, and append a time, date, and GPS location. This data is usually fed into a database, allowing the operator to search for a particular vehicle’s travel patterns or identify visitors to a particular location. By adding certain vehicles to a “hot list,” an ALPR operator can receive near-real time alerts on a person’s whereabouts.
OK. I may not "like" this, but I have no expectation of privacy when I am in public. Your license plate is in clear view of anyone who has line of sight. Not only that, but most if not all mall parking lots have cameras that record your comings and goings. You may think that because the mall parking lot is "private property" that somehow YOU have an expectation of privacy. No. The owner of said private property has an expectation of privacy. You, the guest do not.

You know where else does this kind of thing? Casinos. Many advantaged players who are known to a Casino are spotted in the parking lot and 'security" can be waiting for them at the entrance. Is the EFF interested in this? Of course not. Why? I.C.E.

In December 2017, ICE signed a contract with Vigilant Solutions to access its license-plate reader database. Data from Irvine Company’s malls directly feeds into Vigilant Solutions’ database system, according to the policy. This could mean that ICE can spy on mall visitors without their knowledge and receive near-real-time alerts when a targeted vehicle is spotted in a shopping center’s parking lot.
EFF has joined other lefty organizations in being against the US enforcing it's immigration laws. This is why this is "news". Of course the actual problem is that there are people who are in the US illegally who have been given a driver's license and other forms of "ID", often fraudulently obtained (fake SS numbers, etc.). That's the real problem. But EFF isn't really worried about all that.

Troubling First Amendment View By Kavanaugh

Read the following yesterday:
Under Supreme Court precedents, "the First Amendment bars the Government from restricting the editorial discretion of Internet service providers, absent a showing that an Internet service provider possesses market power in a relevant geographic market," Kavanaugh wrote. "Here, however, the FCC has not even tried to make a market power showing. Therefore, under the Supreme Court's precedents applying the First Amendment, the net neutrality rule violates the First Amendment."
Now I have my strong issues with proponents of net neutrality but this "editorial discretion" point was new to me. What exactly is "editorial" about data traveling over/through the data connection between a website and it's viewer?
"Internet service providers may not necessarily generate much content of their own, but they may decide what content they will transmit, just as cable operators decide what content they will transmit," Kavanaugh wrote. "Deciding whether and how to transmit ESPN and deciding whether and how to transmit are not meaningfully different for First Amendment purposes."
Um. No.

When you click on a link or enter a location in your browser (for example) the ISP is not generating any content whatsoever. Transmission of content is not the generation of content. When an ISP intercepts traffic and injects advertising then they are creating content. I doubt that Kavanaugh was discussing that. But things such as advertising injection is the only time the ISP is "generating content". The content of a website is not an ISP's editorial content. It doesn't belong to the ISP. The ISP doesn't get ownership rights over that material simply because it travelled over their fibre or copper.

Now the next item, that they may decide what content they will transmit, is the actual crux of the argument. As recent events have shown, many companies are flexing their muscle to censor websites and organizations they do not like from using internet services. I suppose Kavanaugh has no problem with that. I do.

I'll skip over the "decide what content they will transmit" because the article discusses that, but to think that there is no "meaningful" difference between transmitting ESPN the channel which (ESPN app aside) cannot be viewed by those without a TV and cable subscription, and which is accessible by anyone, anywhere without a subscription to any "reception provider" is certainly a "meaningful difference". I'm troubled that Kavanaugh would not recognize that.

Kavanaugh's argument did not address the business differences between cable TV and Internet service. Cable TV providers generally have to pay programmers for the right to carry their channels, and cable TV providers have to fit all the channels they carry into a limited amount of bandwidth. At least for now, major Internet providers don't offer a set package of websites—they just route users to whichever sites the users are requesting. ISPs also don't have to pay those websites for the right to "transmit" them, but ISPs have argued that they should be able to demand fees from websites.
I would hold that this argument by Ars authors holds water even if cable providers did not have limited bandwidth.
Srinivasan and Tatel also provided the two votes supporting the FCC's right to impose net neutrality rules in the 2016 version of the case. "Because a broadband provider does not—and is not understood by users to—'speak' when providing neutral access to Internet content as common carriage, the First Amendment poses no bar to the open Internet rules," they wrote at the time.

The net neutrality rules forbid ISPs from blocking lawful websites and did not apply when ISPs cooperated with emergency communications and law enforcement officials, public safety agencies, and national security authorities.

And this is where I depart with most net neutrality people. If we are to agree that ISPs do not speak when providing "access" to information or services, then the same should apply to any other website offering "access". That PayPal can cut off financial services (though claimed not to be financial services) to websites it objects to is "speech" by PayPal and it suppresses the "speech" of those seeking to do legal financial transactions. Similarly when Twitter bans a user for "hate speech" (whatever that is, since SCOTUS says there is no such legal thing) but offers an endorsement (via blue check mark) of others who engage in the same speech, then it is no longer neutral, it is engaging in "speech" and suppressing the speech rights of others. These are not neutral actions. You cannot say that an ISP must grant access to any and everything and then exempt owners of public forums from the same.

The bar needs to be that so long as the speech is legal, those providing public services must allow it or ban it equally or be subject to civil liability. To do otherwise would be to make a [continued] mockery of things such as DMCA's safe harbor rules that ONLY apply if the actor is neutral.

Monday, July 09, 2018

Jimmy Carter: You Are Dead Wrong

Jimmy Carter said on Huffpost live:
Former U.S. President Carter said on Sunday he believes “Jesus would approve of gay marriage.”

“I think Jesus would encourage any love affair if it was honest and sincere and was not damaging to anyone else and I don’t see that gay marriage damages anyone else,” Carter, who describes himself as a born-again Christian, told HuffPost Live.

It is so sad to see so called Christians who are either so unfamiliar with their foundational texts or who are purposely deceitful about said text in order to curry favor with certain groups. Let me clue Jimmy Carter in.



24Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife; and they shall be one flesh. 25And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

Matthew 19:

3The Pharisees also came unto Him, testing {tempting} Him, and saying unto Him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? 4And He answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that He Who made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they two {twain} shall be one flesh? 6Wherefore they are no more two {twain}, but one flesh. What, therefore, God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
Both KJV.

So let's be real here: Jimmy Carter knows not what he speaks. His so called Christian friends and associates should publicly correct him and then he should publicly apologize for misrepresenting "his" faith.

Tuesday, July 03, 2018


[Updated 1:27 PM]

So there's this thing going on where people are discussing why they "walked away" from the Democratic party. This would be my addition to this discussion. First, I cannot say I "walked away" from Democrats because I never was one. I was also not a Republican. Still not either. As the header of this blog indicates, I'm a Pan-Africanist so I have no affiliation with the major US political parties. That said, for much of my life I have been sympathetic and supportive of Democratic politicians because generally speaking they reflected the things I believed in. What were these things?

1) Civil Rights: All American citizens have rights as outlined by the constitution. No govt. entity should be abridging those rights.

2) Economic fairness: Monopoly capitalism is bad. Govt should prevent the excesses of capitalism. Workers should be treated and paid fairly.

3) Freedom of Speech/Expression: A mighty tool that allowed Black people to get out from under Jim Crow. No free speech means no means to change public opinion and government policy.

4) General apathy to warfare: I say general because Dems have never really been anti-war. But generally speaking were against imperial war making.

5) Generally against African exploitation: I say, generally.

I hadn't really even though of immigration even though I lived in an immigrant community. Nor did I really consider finer points of things like minimum wage other than when I was making it I would have gladly accepted more. I did however believe that if you wanted more than minimum wage you should do work that was more valuable.

If you have followed this blog since it's inception you'll notice there has been a distinct change in tone which started somewhere around the time Obama was running for office. The reason for this is that I noticed that when Obama was running for office, that people in my circle suddenly changed their tune in regards to a lot of things. For example, there was an interview in which Obama was commenting on Iranians and said something to the effect that they didn't understand the ramifications of having an atomic bomb. Now, had such a thing popped out the mouth of a white male, he would have been called racist on the spot. However, the people I associated with were quick to brush this off. See, all this time I thought a racist statement was a racist statement was a racist statement. This is when I discovered that certain things only applies to non-blacks.

Really though, I shouldn't have been surprised since I had engaged in this kind of double think. I had actually internalized and propagated silly shit like "blacks can't be racist because we have no [systemic] power" and "racism is [literally] white supremacy." These are two points I have written on (refuting) at length so I won't go into it here.

Indeed what had happened was that I re-evaluated and studied up on the things I believed. I put them to the test and a lot of them came up wanting. Going back to the changes my peers were going through for their "black president", we had the bombing of Libya. Folks were like, Oh well, I'm sure Obama knows what he's doing. Aside from the current fact that Libya now has open slave trading going on as a result of "Obama knowing what he was doing", how did these former "US should stop imperial wars in Africa" come to "US should start an imperial war in Africa"?

On some other matter, I had folks tell me how Obama couldn't do x,y or z because "Republicans in congress would fillibuster". Previously these folks were "any means necessary". Besides at the time Democrats controlled the executive and both houses.

But that was just the beginning. Ferguson was what really opened my eyes to what was really going on. I've written extensively on that situation. The amounts of outright lies told by Democrats (including the media) was staggering. Never mind that the actual grand jury testimony, by black witnesses no less, confirmed that Mike Brown not only assaulted the store owner, but had assaulted the police officer. Every left wing talking head was against the facts. On top of that you had black people actually carrying signs calling for lynchings.

Black. People. Calling. For. Lynchings.

It was at this point that I realized that Democrats and the left had gone into orbit. Facts and truth did not matter. BLM (sic) rose up and made all kinds of easily disprovable claims yet no one on the left would call them on it. BLM would say shit like "Black on Black Crime isn't really a thing" which is not only demonstrably wrong but a massive FUCK YOU to the families of thousands of dead black people killed by other black people. BLM literally got people killed with their bullshit and yet to this day they have not been cast out by Democrats.

Then we had Obama use the power of the state to bully North Carolina into "accepting" gender dysphoria over the objections of the voters of that state. So I saw that the Democrats had no respect for the voters. It was about power. Raw power. They had an agenda and you will go along with it whether you like it or not.

Not satisfied with that abuse of power, Democrats went along with persecuting Christians. I'm a former Christian. Seventh Day Adventist to be specific. When the whole homosexual marriage thing came about, I knew it was a direct attack on freedom of religion. The reason being that if one rejected homosexual marriage and such a rejection became codified in law as a [fill in the blank] crime, then Christians were at risk (among others). Not only was SCOTUS wrong in it's decision since there is no right in the Constitution to same sex marriage, or marriage of any kind, but also that English common law, which US law is based upon (often stated right in state constitutions) recognized marriage as only between a husband and wife. Man and woman...distantly related at worst. When Christian bakers were prosecuted by state agencies on behalf of homosexuals who had no numerated right to demand any Christian (or anyone else for that matter) attend to their wedding in any capacity caught to abridge the numerated right of a Christian (or any other religion) to freely practice his faith, the left had abandoned any pretense of adherence to the rule of law. This was about power (and revenge). Nothing more. Then came the treason. While we can understand regular internal disputes that citizens of a country can have, there should never be a case where citizens prefer or organize on behalf of foreigners. Period. The government of a country acts for the benefit of it's citizens above everyone else. Not only do leftists spend an inordinate amount of time and money on people who have no legal right to be in the country but they have used the government to do so. Not a few "representatives" have outright claimed that they will use their [elected] office to the benefit of foreigners. This is treason.

This doesn't even include the negative effects of both legal and illegal immigration (trespassing) on the source countries who are brain drained. No person who cares about the "third world" can justify brain draining poor countries so America can be "more diverse". No person who claims that they care about the working poor in America can also be for importing low wage workers to compete with citizens for jobs. If nothing else has shown how far out the Democrats and the left has gone (Past orbit, we're in interstellar territory here) it is the immigration issue. When a political party cannot bring itself to publicly state that it is working for it's citizens and that trespassing will simply not be tolerated, it is no longer a political party but a foreign occupying power.

Just the other day, some lefty publication declared that Bernie Sanders was not really a Socialist because he doesn't want to abolish ICE. Seriously. They've turned on a declared Socialist because he still has a bit of sense.

In the end the Democrats have painted themselves out of serious consideration. If we can't talk about immigration without being called a Nazi, then we can't talk. If we can't talk about the real threats to black lives without being called Nazis, then we can't talk. If we cannot have free speech, without being called a Nazi, then we cannot talk. If we cannot state that men and women and state the fact that tranny's are mentally ill, then we cannot talk. If everything you don't like is "phobic" then we don't have anything to talk about. We can do what the song says, You see me on the street, walk on by.

Thursday, June 28, 2018

Reflection on The SCOTUS Union Ruling

If I were a Justice I suppose I would have concurred in part and dissented in part. On the one hand I clearly understand and agree with the court's First Amendment finding. Because public sector unions are dealing with state employees and employers that have higher First Amendment bars than private organizations, compelled speech is a serious issue. Since it has already been determined that financial transactions are a form of speech, the court really didn't have any other choice, if it wanted to follow the law.

On the other hand unions, including public sector ones, provide a service. Employees who are beneficiaries of the services provided for by a Union should compensate those unions for their efforts. To do otherwise is theft of services, IMO. When a union negotiates a raise for employees at, say, a university, even those who oppose the union's political shenanigans benefit. They should contribute towards the union. Otherwise, it would be proper for those employees to NOT get the benefit of the pay raise. Same goes for other benefits. Thus, if I understand the ruling, employees who do not pay into the unions can still benefit from union activities that benefit them. I think many unions are going to be revisiting this state of affairs and stipulating that anything they negotiate on behalf of their members only apply to their members.

Then we have to deal with why this case came up in the first place: Union political activity. I've seen for myself that unions are essentially arms of the DNC. This last election showed that there is a disconnect between union leadership and the membership. Many union members were not happy with Clinton and voted for Trump while the union leadership spent union dues on political campaigning in favor of Clinton or other Democrats. I know that I personally received e-mails regularly speaking ill of Trump (some deserved and some not) from the union I belong to. I eventually asked to be taken off the mailing list. I'm disinclined to pay dues to an organization that not only fail represent my political positions but doesn't have the curtesy to recognize that it has dues paying members who do not agree with the politics of the leadership. To that end, my suggestion for unions going forward is that they stick very closely to issues that directly affect it's membership. That unions cease to align themselves with any political party but rather let their members organize among themselves for whatever causes they wish. That dues not be used for any political purposes. Instead members should be asked if they wish to further contribute (or whatever language is appropriate) to the political campaigning done by the union. This would resolve the conflict that created the case and return unions to their primary function.

Wednesday, June 27, 2018

Justice Thomas: Y'all Can Read.

So, in keeping with the law, as passed by congress, The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the executive in regards to the travel ban. There are a couple of points made in the decision that I think should be noted (since the MSM won't do it):

1) Foreign Nationals Have No Constitutional Right to Entry:

Nonetheless, although foreign nationals seeking admission have no constitutional right to entry, this Court has engaged in a circumscribed judicial inquiry when the denial of a visa allegedly burdens the constitutional rights of a U. S. citizen.
Direct blow to the "open borders" crowd. And no, a US Citizen does not have the constitutional right to bring a foreign national into the country. 2) The Courts Cannot Substitute it's Own Assessment for that of the Executive
More fundamentally, plaintiffs and the dissent chal- lenge the entry suspension based on their perception of its effectiveness and wisdom. They suggest that the policy is overbroad and does little to serve national security inter- ests. But we cannot substitute our own assessment for the Executive’s predictive judgments on such matters, all of which “are delicate, complex, and involve large elements of prophecy.”
Justice Thomas deals with this later. 3) The Use of Irrelevant Events:
Finally, the dissent invokes Korematsu v. United States, 323 U. S. 214 (1944). Whatever rhetorical advantage the dissent may see in doing so, Korematsu has nothing to do with this case. The forcible relocation of U. S. citizens to concentration camps, solely and explicitly on the basis of race, is objectively unlawful and outside the scope of Pres- idential authority.
Since foreign nationals have no constitutional right of entry (among other things) internment camp examples, where the rights of citizens were violated are not even relevant. That we have Supreme Court judges that do not understand this, is quite troubling to say the least. Now let's turn to Thomas' concurring remarks:
Section 1182(f) does not set forth any judicially enforceable limits that constrain the President. See Webster v. Doe, 486 U. S. 592, 600 (1988). Nor could it, since the President has inherent authority to exclude aliens from the country.
That is exactly right.
Further, the Establishment Clause does not create an individual right to be free from all laws that a “reasonable observer” views as religious or antireligious.
This too.
The plaintiffs cannot raise any other First Amendment claim, since the alleged religious discrimination in this case was directed at aliens abroad.

It's as if Thomas shares my belief that this case is and was a total waste of time and should have been stopped dead in it's tracks in the lower courts.

District courts, including the one here, have begun imposing universal injunctions without considering their authority to grant such sweeping relief. These injunctions are beginning to take a toll on the federal court system— preventing legal questions from percolating through the federal courts, encouraging forum shopping, and making every case a national emergency for the courts and for the Executive Branch.
Indeed this is the real issue. Even today we have a new ruling with a nationwide injunction against the executive on extremely dubious grounds. This issue takes up most of Thomas' concurrence which I won't repeat here but you should read it. Lastly Sotomayor....

Just weeks ago, the Court rendered its decision in Mas­ terpiece Cakeshop, 584 U. S. ___, which applied the bed­ rock principles of religious neutrality and tolerance in considering a First Amendment challenge to government action. See id., at ___ (slip op., at 17) (“The Constitution ‘commits government itself to religious tolerance, and upon even slight suspicion that proposals for state inter­ vention stem from animosity to religion or distrust of its practices, all officials must pause to remember their own high duty to the Constitution and to the rights it secures’”
Yes. Yes it regard to a US Citizen who's constitutional rights were abridged. Foreign nationals have no constitutional rights. How does she not understand this?

And then we have this footnote:

7 It is important to note, particularly given the nature of this case, that many consider “using the term ‘alien’ to refer to other human beings” to be “offensive and demeaning.” Flores v. United States Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 718 F. 3d 548, 551–552, n. 1 (CA6 2013). I use the term here only where necessary “to be consistent with the statutory language” that Congress has chosen and “to avoid any confusion in replacing a legal term of art with a more appropriate term.” Ibid.
Political correctness in the court system. Never mind that "alien" has been used in reference to any foreign national since before "space aliens" of the "Aliens" franchise kind were stuck into the national consciousness. If I were on the court, I would say "alien" at any and every occasion I could find.

Monday, June 25, 2018

The Left Crow Rises

So we're back to this eh?

I have previously discussed the beginning of The New Left Crow:

In addition to that the New Left Crow has an entitlement complex. Just as Jim Crow operated to keep the undesirables in line, the Left Crow increasingly leverages the law to enforce it's on privileges. No longer is it the case that you should leave those one dislikes or disagrees with alone. One must also endorse that which they do.If you do not you are to be sanctioned. Do you own a store that happens to make wedding cakes. If you don't make one for a gay wedding you get to have a day in court and possibly get run out of business. Is it because you told the gay couple to get out your store?...

That businesses have a legitimate reason to decline services in such a way that is not legally discrimination. A business may not be allowed to decline a person of service because of that person but a business can decline to provide service to behavior they do not wish to be associated with.

Of course what is also entirely different here is that none of the Knights of the KKK would bother to BOTHER such a group to begin with. But not for these folks. The Left Crow says it's OK to purposely invade other peoples spaces and force themselves on them.

Over the weekend The Left Crow upped it's game by refusing service to Trump's spokesperson Sarah Sanders. Many on The Left Crow have made the specious claim that it is not different than the Christian baker who refused to create a wedding cake for a gay couple. So let's review for the hard headed:

The Christian baker, as discussed in previous posts did not decline service to a gay couple. He/they refused to associate themselves with a behavior which the gay couple were asking him to associate with: Their upcoming marriage. The baker told them, which is in all the relevant transcripts, he would sell them (AKA: Provide service) cookies, brownies or anything else in the store. He told them he would gladly make them a birthday cake. In other words, the Christian baker, who was morally opposed to the gay couple's behavior, was in fact willing to provide services to the couple.

In stark contrast, Sarah Sanders was seated in a restaurant and was told flat out to leave. She was declined any and all service, in what should be regarded as a blatant violation of her civil rights. The owner has allegedly claimed that her [gay and supposedly immigrant] wait staff and cooks were bothered (read: being total drama queens), by the prospect of serving niggers, sorry, Sanders. Sanders hadn't asked the restaurant to do anything special for her. She did not ask for a special "immigrant" meal. She did not ask for a special "fuck the gays" meal. She did not enter the premises without a shirt. She did not enter the premises without shoes. She was not being loud and obnoxious (like repeatedly using the word "nigga" in public like so many black people do). No She was denied any and every service because of who she was and for behavior that the restaurant was not a, nor asked to be a party to.

Rather than object strongly to this blatant violation of civil rights, one traitor US representative, Maxine Waters, who should know better, told a crowd of people that Trump staff should be harassed anywhere they are seen in public. So yes, the Left Crow is back to the behavior shown at the head of this post.

I'm just wondering when the lawn burnings start up again.

Monday, June 18, 2018

Runaway Jury

The headline grabbed me:
Jury Awards $45 Million to Woman Struck by Falling Shopping Cart

Falling what? Shopping carts fall? When exactly do they leave the ground? Have you ever seen a shopping cart in the air? Overhead? Ever? This is some "when pigs fly" kind of stuff. So I had to read:

Nearly seven years after two boys pushed a shopping cart off a walkway at a Manhattan mall, severely injuring a woman four stories below, a jury decided to award more than $45 million to her and her family.

So the shopping cart didn't fall. It was pushed off a walkway. But how do you push a cart off a walkway? No city inspector who wants to not only keep his job, but not be sued would sign off on a walkway without a railing or fencing to keep people (as well as things) from falling off the edges. Right?

The woman, Marion Hedges, had just shopped for Halloween candy with her son, Dayton, then 13, at the East River Plaza Mall in East Harlem in October 2011 and was at a parking kiosk when the two boys hoisted the cart over a railing above. It plummeted more than 70 feet and struck Ms. Hedges on the head.
Oh...So the cart was not pushed off the edge. It was picked up and THROWN over a railing.

So let's review:

Woman was minding her business on the ground floor of a mall. Two boys on an upper floor picked up a shopping cart, went to the walkway. Picked up the shopping cart and threw it over the edge, hitting the woman who was minding her business. Quick: Who's at fault?

1) The Boys

2) The Shopping Cart

3) Gravity

4) The Mall owner

5) The security guards

6) Anyone remotely connected with deep pockets

Well if you picked 6. You get the gold star.

Court documents show that Ms. Hedges and her family sued the mall and Planned Security Service, which was under contract to secure the mall’s common areas, including the walkway where the boys pushed the shopping cart over the edge.
Conspicuously absent are the parents of the boys or the estate of the boys who picked up a shopping cart and threw it over a walkway, nearly killing someone.
On Friday, the six-person jury decided to award about $41 million in damages to Ms. Hedges, $2.5 million to her son and $2 million to her husband. It said the boys who threw the cart — ages 12 and 13 at the time of the injury — were 10 percent responsible, the security company was 25 percent responsible and the mall was 65 percent responsible.
So lets understand what this jury thinks: The boys who picked up the shopping cart and tossed it over the edge were only 10% responsible for their own behavior. However, the mall who supplies the shopping carts, for it's customers is 65%m responsible. Because what? They cannot control each and every individual? Because they didn't have the foresight to think that civilized people do not need to be encaged so that they do not throw shopping carts off walkways?

The security company is responsible because it cannot control the actions of every individual who enters the mall?

In his statements to the court, Mr. Moore said the security company knew about repeated instances of objects being thrown from the pedestrian walkways, presenting a danger to passers-by below that was never adequately addressed.
This is common?
Video footage shows that three boys were together on the fourth-level walkway just before the cart was tossed. One appeared to try stop the other two from throwing the cart. Then he ran away, and the other two lifted it over the railing. It got stuck, just for a moment, before one boy gave a final shove to send it hurtling over the edge.
Kudos to the one boy who tried to stop the others and declined to participate. This jury though, got this entire thing wrong. Now when the people (mostly black and "hispanic") end up behind a fence and feel like they are in a cage, they can thank this jury. Imagine, a company had the gall...unmitigated gall to think that they could build a facility where they did not have to worry about the patrons throwing large objects over the guard railing...what kind of neighborhood did they think they were in?