Was that Brie Felnagle's dad I been watching all over the news lately, from TacomaWA, Judge Felnagle?

Way to start by kissing ass. You mentioned you're a lawywer, right? Shows right through - I can see you in court there lying through your teeth.

There wasn't "room full of witnesses" there was one. And it wasn't his daughter, it was a relative. Small points I guess, but your penchant for making stuff up and getting things wrong is starting to get annoying.

Flight risk? Since when? He allegedly committed the child rape in May, and was arrested in July (after investigators uncovered the evidence while working on another charge.) During those 7 weeks he lived at the same house, didn't leave the country. Some flight risk. Second, he did undergo a psych (not psychE) evaluation and was found competent to stand trial. Third, it's not as if he was arrested one day, posted bail the next. He was arrested in early July and released in...NOVEMBER!

Again, for someone who is supposedly licensed to practice law, you have a piss poor understanding of the actual facts...or seem content to just lie about them.

Again, he never demonstrated himself to be a flight risk. I have no beef considering him to be a menace, but I still fail to see why you have to make stuff up. I guess because it fits your agenda to draw more people to your blog.

They know that violent GUILTY offenders present a danger to the community, that's why they are SENTENCED. People who are ACCUSED of a violent crime, are still afforded protection. I could easily accuse anyone of raping a child. Should the law err and keep those people locked up?

I'm guessing this wasn't taught in your law school, huh?

HALF of all kids are abused? Higher for boys? Now you're just making shit up. By even the most generous estimates - it's about 1% - and this includes neglect - not just physical and sexual abuse:

"During 2007, an estimated 794,000 children were determined to be victims of abuse or neglect"

"In 2006, there were 73.7 million children under age 18 in the United States."

If you want to say that abuse is under-reported, fine. Double the number, triple it. Multiply it by 10...and you still won't have 50% of the kids in this country being abused.

I can't believe that I actually defended this scumbag in this post, but it's posts like yours that show how f***ed up our legal system is. You have no qualms about blatantly lying or misrepresenting things (either that or you just get everything wrong)

It's sad because there is a child-abuse problem and a domestic violence problem in this country. But yelling louder and lying about it doesn't help the cause; in fact, it hinders it.

My advice to you: get things right. Call a spade a spade. Don't jump to conclusions. Be honest. Throw away your law degree.

Shakespeare was right: "the first thing we do..."

KING5 just aired a story about the intense, bitter negotiations between Arkansas and Washington over the outstanding warrant for Clemmons that Arkansas decided to drop. There is some kind of interstate compact which governs the acceptance of paroled prisoners from another state ~ way beyond my scope of expertise. The governor is furious with them and has refused to accept any more parolees from them.

The state is claiming this prevented them from denying bail to Clemmons. This sounds to me like somebody's blowing smoke. The two states where I practiced law have a similar standard to WA's. There's no way in hell they would have granted him pre-trial bail because the evidence was overwhelming that he was dangerous AND a flight risk.

Is there some wonky WA case law out there that creates loopholes in what is black letter law regarding bail in almost every other state? I've heard about a couple of states that allow pre-trial bail unless it is a capital case. I know WA is liberal, but I didn't think the legislature was stupid.

I haven't followed much of this story, but just like it did for Mr Shakespeare, this line of your jumped out at me:

"I don't have exact statistics at my fingertips, but you might be shocked to learn that about half of boys and girls are abused. The statistics are higher for boys. This means there are a whole lot of kids out there who are wishing some judge would protect them. And, I'm willing to bet that most of those kids are scared silent."

One half? Do you have any data to even suggest that this could be true? I am the first to agree that ANY child abuse is too much, but as others have pointed out- you ruin any credibility for yourself-- and more importantly for the cause you're trying to help-- when you lie. If you don't know the number, admit it. Don't make it up. When I get deliberately lied to on one thing, I tend to not trust anything else from the same source.

I'm glad I didn't click on you blog link to boost the visibility of your blog, if this is representative.

I got to see Mr. Felnagle in action for several months while I was going through my pot growing case. He seemed like a fairly hard judge, extremely impersonal, and I distinctly remember him refusing to lower an outrageously high bail amount on a Microsoft employee who ran from the cops. One time I wore a Willamette University XC shirt to court hoping he would inquire about whether I was a runner. Nothing!

I don't respond to cyber-bullying.

If you take the time to click on the links in my post, you will discover that every statement I make comes from a mainstream media source. After you do so, you can apologize.

As for the statistics, I think you are not seeing the cumulative impact of annual statistics. My source is the US Department of Justice.

If my small typo makes your day, I'm more than happy to oblige.

AnneCaroline wrote:

I don't respond to cyber-bullying.

If you take the time to click on the links in my post, you will discover that every statement I make comes from a mainstream media source. After you do so, you can apologize.

As for the statistics, I think you are not seeing the cumulative impact of annual statistics. My source is the US Department of Justice.

If my small typo makes your day, I'm more than happy to oblige.

Please, show us the statistics from the US Dept of Justice. Please.

And if every statement you make comes from a mainstream media source, then the media is more f***ed than I imagine. It took me about 10 seconds of googling to find contradictory information.

This ain't that hard, lady. Wikipedia has all the info on one place.

Cyber-bullying? You came on here and posted crap - most of it self-congratulatory. You posted misinformation on your website (either deliberately or you're a moron who can't do research), and continue to do so here.

Sorry for having to call you out - but when you post bad information, someone needs to correct you. Welcome to LetsRun.

As Shakespeare once said... wrote:

This ain't that hard, lady. Wikipedia has all the info on one place.

You pretty much just lost any and all credibility you might have had.

Listen you make mostly good points. However, your statistics for Child Abuse, or only relevant if you trust the research and the reporting sources. IF you did a whole lot more research, you would realize that the stats are all across the board.

Abuse is a broad term. There's active abuse, passive abuse, neglect, willful neglect, all the way to just plain ignorance.

Your angry attitude, some would say, is evidence that you were abused as a child, and are in denial about it either happening, or the severity of it and its' effects on your life.

And there are some that would say in certain societies (say Islam, or even Capitalism, ALL children are abused in some way in some area, at some time in life.

It is a lot to chew on. I know.

I appreciate your calling Anne out on errors in facts - but remember, statistics are only as good as their sources -- and just because you think your source is respected, does not mean that the entire psychological community does.

And I'll point out one other aspect, often in the social sciences, what was 50 years ago a very fringe, or even derided notion or opinion...becomes standard understanding some decades later.

The government, is one of the last sources I would trust for child abuse estimates. The definition and problem of "abuse" is subjective in the least.

1% of children are abused.

No F***ing way that stat is accurate.

As a planet, we mostly do not know how to "raise" children.

To wit: you could have corrected Anne's mistakes in a factual and moderate tone.

You couldn't do that. You acted like an angry, raging person.

That, my friend, puts you on a chromatic scale with the menaces to society, the violent types, who's crimes much of this discussion is about.

And if you have an emotional reaction and think I am wrong, you need to take a long, lingering, look in the mirror. And while you are doing that, maybe think about how much your mother loved you as a child, and think about when you got your first puppy.

You need to get back in touch with your humanity, dude.

Your reply was NOT a part of the solution Anne infers in her writing.

That said, I too have some problems with her approach; I do however, doubt her good intentions.

"That said, I too have some problems with her approach; I do however, doubt her good intentions."

CORRECTION > I do NOT doubt her good intentions.

DD, since you appear to be sincerely interested in preventing abuse, I spent about an hour replicating the extensive and exhaustive research I did for a post I did in October on domestic violence statistics.

I will acknowlege that my recollection was slightly imperfect:

51.9% of women and 66.4% of men have experienced child abuse

Yes, on its face, this number is shocking. But, if you factor in the cumulative impact of annual statistics, it begins to make sense.

My sources for the post were the web sites of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, the American Cancer Society, US Department of Justice, and the Family Violence Prevention Fund.

Mr. Shakespeare's number is the number of children whose cases were investigated, and abuse was determined to have taken place.

He is correct that the number of unreported child abuse cases is much higher. Following is a sampling of statistics I found this afternoon that you may find similarly shocking:

"About 15.5 million children are exposed to domestic violence every year. (2006, Journal of Family Psychology)"

http://twitter.com/nnedv

"Approximately one in three adolescent girls in the United States is a victim of physical, emotional or verbal abuse from a dating partner - a figure that far exceeds victimization rates for other types of violence affecting youth."

http://www.giverespect.org/about/facts/

"Forty percent of girls age 14 to 17 report knowing someone their age who has been hit or beaten by a boyfriend.21"

http://www.lessonsfromliterature.org/docs/DomesticViolence.pdf

"Of the nearly 500,000 people in state prisons for violent crimes in 1997, 15 percent were there for a violent crime against a family member. Forty-five percent of them had been subject to a restraining order at some time. Seventy-eight percent of their crimes were against a female, most often a child."

http://endabuse.org/content/features/detail/994/

If Mr. Shakespeare had clicked on the link embedded in my post, he would have found this sentence in the Seattle Times:

"Penner, the deputy prosecuting attorney, said Clemmons was turned away by two bail-bond agencies, based on his history of failing to appear in court. But then Clemmons found a taker: Jail Sucks Bail Bonds, based in Chehalis."

It was at the end of a very long article establishing a timeline of Clemmons' case:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2010392869_shootingjustice01m.html

Local news today and yesterday is so loaded with stories of people being arrested for providing resources to enable Clemmons to avoid prosecution that it is an insult to suggest he wasn't a flight risk.

Now, I'm done investing time responding to attacks on my credibility. My posts have been quoted in New York Times and CNN blogs by people who are quite familiar with my credentials and track record.

I came here because I sensed from Appalling's initial post that he/she is as passionate about preventing violence against women and children as I am. I was intrigued by the issue he raised, and I didn't appreciate someone's attempt to diminish the importance of his concerns by raising a point I perceived to be irrelevant and intentionally diversionary. This is what abusive people do to keep the status quo firmly entrenched.

Four dedicated police officers are dead. I do not think this is the time to engage in cyber-games.

NY City cops aggressively jack my Dad's store for free coffee and sandwiches and threaten not to patrol unless they get free stuff every day.

I wonder if more ex-cons and crazies are planning to copy Clemons et. al and take out groups of cops as the sit at the donut shop, Denny's, Starbuck's, McDonalds, etc.

I hope not.

Thank you for defending my honor, Perfect Answer. I'm sorry you are offended by my approach.

Huckabee doesn't deserve the blame for this. The assailant was convicted of robbery and burglary as a 16 year old and sentenced to over 100 years. Per request of people in the judicial system, he commuted the sentence to 47 years to make him eligible for parole. How many of you would let a 16 year old rot in prison for the rest of their life for these transgressions? We'd have more prisons than libraries. The tragedy is obviously unfortunate and horrific and my prayers go out to the families of the cops who were murdered, but put the blame on the twisted mind of the killer, not on the man who provided a 16 year old a second chance.

People hate Huckabee and think all Ozark boys belong at Oil Changers as opposed to the Capitol house.

Clemmons certainly proved to not be a flight risk- shot in the gut and an army of cops after him, and he obligingly stayed right here in town!

I'm still quite dubious at the claims you're putting out, and again I'd encourage you to think about what it does to your credibility.

First you said "about half of boys and girls are abused," and then you got more specific, climing even higher numbers. You say this data comes from the "Center for Disease Control and Prevention, the American Cancer Society, US Department of Justice, and the Family Violence Prevention Fund." Well, I have no idea what data the American Cancer Society keeps on abuse, but I went for the CDC site, since that's one I use a lot. Their stats for child abuse are much more in line with what Shakespeare posted, and they (unlike you) provide specific citations. They mention the highest reported rates, coming from non-CPS researchers, were 4,300-4,900 per 100,000, and cite well respected journals-

2.Finkelhor, Ormrod, H, Turner, H, Hamby, S. The Victimization of Children and Youth: A Comprehensive National Survey. Child Maltreatment 2005; 10:5-25.

3.Theodore, AD, Chang, JJ, Runyan, DK, Hunter, WM, Bangdewala, SI, Agans,R. Epidemiologic Features of the Physical and Sexual Maltreatment of Children in the Carolinas. Pediatrics 2005; 115: e330-e337.

So where is your eye-popping claim coming from? Rates of 4-5% are too high, but 50 to 60%? Presumably you saved the url from your "extensive and exhaustive research."

I can navigate the CDC site fairly well, and I find nothing even remotely close to the the claim of "51.9% of women and 66.4% of men have experienced child abuse". A link to your reference would be appreciated, but I really can't believe it exists.

dd, this lady is nuts. And the "Shakespeare..." guy(and others) was(were) 100% right to call her out. Look, of course I feel bad for her if she was abused, but now it appears she thinks (like a lot of victims of a lot of things) that almost everyone had the same thing happen to them. Because of her experience, judges fail because they don't take domestic violence seriously. That's a pretty blanket statement.

Her numbers are nonsense. I wonder how she feels about the H1n1 flu vaccine. Something gives me the feeling that she thinks it is harmful and no one should get it. That is my latest litmus test for testing one's sanity.

Anne? Any blog entries on vaccines? Got any stats to prove that they are really more harmful than the diseases they are intended to protect us from?

(this should be interesting)

AnneCaroline wrote:

I spent about an hour replicating the extensive and exhaustive research I did for a post I did in October on domestic violence statistics.

I will acknowlege that my recollection was slightly imperfect:

51.9% of women and 66.4% of men have experienced child abuse

My sources for the post were the web sites of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, the American Cancer Society, US Department of Justice, and the Family Violence Prevention Fund.

Four dedicated police officers are dead. I do not think this is the time to engage in cyber-games.

It's not about "cyber-games" it's about misrepresenting facts - either deliberately or because you're too dumb to actually read the statistics themselves.

This "fact" you just repeated is nonsense. NOWHERE does it say that those numbers of people are victims of child abuse.

You obviously didn't read the paper...

Here it is, for the LetsRun community:

I'll give you the highlights:

...the National Institute of

Justice and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention jointly sponsored...a national survey that was

conducted from November 1995 to May 1996. The... Survey sampled both women and men and thus provides comparable data on women's and men's experiences with violent

victimization.

So far, so good. Looks like a good piece of research. Moving on...

Respondents to the survey were asked about:

o Physical assault they experienced as children by adult caretakers.

o Physical assault they experienced as adults by any type of assailant.

o Forcible rape and stalking they experienced at any time in their life by any type of perpetrator.

(Key point in bold for those that might have glossed over it...)

Key Findings: ( the "goods" for those still reading )

o Physical assault is widespread among adults in the United States: 51.9 percent of surveyed women and 66.4 percent of surveyed men said they were physically assaulted as a child by an adult caretaker and/or as an adult by any

type of attacker.

AH-HA! So when you count ALL types of assault, through your ENTIRE life...you find the statistics you cite. It's NOT a statistic about child abuse, it's a statistic about ASSAULT in general.

This is exactly the kind of academic dishonesty that you are perpetuating. Your statistics about child abuse are no where near true, and as I said above, you are doing your cause a disservice by presenting them as such; you get into a case of the "boy who cried wolf." Keep spouting phony facts, and people stop listening to you. And at that point you're forced to yell louder and inflate more statistics.

I'll spare you the embarrassment of exposing the other "facts" you presented here, because you seem to be trying to do the right thing. (Needless to say it took about a half hour of actual research in the University library to refute them.)

I thought I'd be a bit shocked that someone with a law degree could have such poor investigative skills, but I guess not. The sad thing is, you don't even need to inflate statistics. They're shocking enough in their own right. But if you can't properly read a statistics paper, it's easy to draw the wrong conclusion.

Good luck to you. I hope you learn to do things the right way, instead of crying wolf. Stop doing sloppy research.

Excuse me?

I thought this was a web site for runners.

I'm not an academic defending a dissertation here.

My credibility is well-established. If I thought those criticizing me were sincerely interested in preventing domestic violence, I would gladly invest a couple of days ferreting out the link to the statistic I cited.

But, it is clear to me this has degenerated into cyber-bullying. Some are more gentile and sophisticated at it than others.

If someone wants to engage in serious debate and discussion about WAs very wonky bail enforcement procedures, I will come back and join in.