Tonya Harding vs. Nancy Kerrigan Documentary
5. Since it is the time of the 2014 Winter Olympics, I thought it would be interesting to research and see if there was ever any acts of violence between the Olympians. When I came across the Tonya Harding vs. Nancy Kerrigan documentary I was shocked. Violence between rivals from different countries during the Olympics is horrible enough, but violence between rivals from the same team is just unspeakable. Harding and Kerrigan were both figure skaters on the United States Olympic Team. They were always competitive about being the best female skater on the team even though they had completely different styles of skating. Apparently, Kerrigan was "clubbed in the knee" by a complete stranger who Harding had paid to injure Kerrigan. Unfortunately, Kerrigan's injuries were bad enough that she could not skate in the 1994 Olympic Games. This event is proof that crimes can be driven by intense jealousy or fear. Harding was obviously jealous of Kerrigan's skating abilities and was afraid that she would place higher than her in the Figure Skating portion of the Olympics. Harding felt she had no other choice than to end one of her teammates skating careers in order to stay on top.
The pressure of constantly being the best is placed upon people by society, family or friends. If too much pressure is placed on a person, that person will eventually crack. There is a lot of competitive energy and pressure in sports that could be enough to drive a person insane. Harding got away with her crime for a while, but was eventually caught and ended up pleading guilty. She avoided prison but was forced to perform community service, pay a fine, quit the U.S. Figure Skating Association and was striped of her title. Was injuring her teammate worth all of the consequences she faced? Definitely not. Violence occurs everywhere and can be done by anyone, even admired Olympians who seem to have everything.
Sunday, February 23, 2014
Sunday, February 9, 2014
Violence On Television
Law and Order Clip
4. Law and Order is a popular television series that gives a vivid representation of all different types of legal cases. In this clip, an 18 year old boy is on trial for murdering the owner of a Chinese restaurant. The owner was delivering food to an apartment that turned out to be empty, while the boy and his friends plotted to kill him. I found this clip especially interesting because it discusses the Death Penalty, which is an extremely controversial topic in society today. The jury is trying to decide if the 18 year old boy is too young to be killed, even though he committed such a horrible crime. At the end of the episode, the verdict turns out to be the Death Penalty even though the boy had just turned 18 only a few days ago. The boy's lawyer tries to argue that the boy is so young and still has the opportunity to change and become a better person in 20 years or so. Even if that were true, it is impossible for him to ever take back what he did to his victim, and all the lives he ruined because of it. His action will always be a representation of who he is and what type of character he has.
I personally do not agree with the Death Penalty and I find it to be hypercritical. This video proves that even the youngest most innocent people have the ability to do horrible and irreversible things. Shows like Law and Order depict all different types of crimes and the consequences people receive for committing them. This episode was especially important because the Death Penalty was indeed granted to an 18 year old boy.
4. Law and Order is a popular television series that gives a vivid representation of all different types of legal cases. In this clip, an 18 year old boy is on trial for murdering the owner of a Chinese restaurant. The owner was delivering food to an apartment that turned out to be empty, while the boy and his friends plotted to kill him. I found this clip especially interesting because it discusses the Death Penalty, which is an extremely controversial topic in society today. The jury is trying to decide if the 18 year old boy is too young to be killed, even though he committed such a horrible crime. At the end of the episode, the verdict turns out to be the Death Penalty even though the boy had just turned 18 only a few days ago. The boy's lawyer tries to argue that the boy is so young and still has the opportunity to change and become a better person in 20 years or so. Even if that were true, it is impossible for him to ever take back what he did to his victim, and all the lives he ruined because of it. His action will always be a representation of who he is and what type of character he has.
I personally do not agree with the Death Penalty and I find it to be hypercritical. This video proves that even the youngest most innocent people have the ability to do horrible and irreversible things. Shows like Law and Order depict all different types of crimes and the consequences people receive for committing them. This episode was especially important because the Death Penalty was indeed granted to an 18 year old boy.
Monday, February 3, 2014
Criminal Defense Attorney's View On A Case
Criminal Defense Attorney On Fox News
3. In this video, a reporter interviews attorneys about their thoughts on the popular Trayvon Martin case. Trayvon Martin was only seventeen when he allegedly attacked George Zimmerman, and was shot to death. A major factor in this case was race, Martin was African American while Zimmerman was white. There were many different opinions on whether or not George Zimmerman had the right to shoot him. Was it actually self defense, or just hateful murder? David Schwartz is an attorney interviewed on Fox news, and he reveals some inside information about the case. He talks about the judge and his personal opinion on how the case is going so far. Schwartz personally believes that the judge is not prejudice and that Zimmerman does not appear to be racist or have anything against Martin. He claims that Martin attacked him and gave him no other choice but to defend himself by killing him. Another attorney is featured during the segment named Kirsten Wilson and she completely eliminates the idea that Zimmerman was indeed racist. She talks about different witnesses and the inconsistency of information about what happened the night Martin was killed. Wilson also discusses about how much information was leaked and that eye witnesses are not always trustworthy.
I thought this video was very interesting because it gave a lot of inside information on a popular case. The Trayvon Martin case was debated and talked about through out the country, and people had many different opinions and theories about what actually happened the night he was killed. The one thing that really stuck out at me was the Zimmerman was carrying a gun. I always wondered why he was and why he felt it was necessary. It is scary that people in our society do not feel safe and count on a nonliving object to protect them from the horrors of violence. People do crazy things when they are scared or feel vulnerable. There are two sides to Zimmerman's case, either he killed Martin out of racism and hate or he killed Martin out of fear and self defense. This is one of the most controversial cases and it is almost impossible for people who are not connected to the case to figure out the real story. It is tragic that people rely on guns and violence to protect them, and it is frightening that there are cases like these going on in the lives of people like us.
3. In this video, a reporter interviews attorneys about their thoughts on the popular Trayvon Martin case. Trayvon Martin was only seventeen when he allegedly attacked George Zimmerman, and was shot to death. A major factor in this case was race, Martin was African American while Zimmerman was white. There were many different opinions on whether or not George Zimmerman had the right to shoot him. Was it actually self defense, or just hateful murder? David Schwartz is an attorney interviewed on Fox news, and he reveals some inside information about the case. He talks about the judge and his personal opinion on how the case is going so far. Schwartz personally believes that the judge is not prejudice and that Zimmerman does not appear to be racist or have anything against Martin. He claims that Martin attacked him and gave him no other choice but to defend himself by killing him. Another attorney is featured during the segment named Kirsten Wilson and she completely eliminates the idea that Zimmerman was indeed racist. She talks about different witnesses and the inconsistency of information about what happened the night Martin was killed. Wilson also discusses about how much information was leaked and that eye witnesses are not always trustworthy.
I thought this video was very interesting because it gave a lot of inside information on a popular case. The Trayvon Martin case was debated and talked about through out the country, and people had many different opinions and theories about what actually happened the night he was killed. The one thing that really stuck out at me was the Zimmerman was carrying a gun. I always wondered why he was and why he felt it was necessary. It is scary that people in our society do not feel safe and count on a nonliving object to protect them from the horrors of violence. People do crazy things when they are scared or feel vulnerable. There are two sides to Zimmerman's case, either he killed Martin out of racism and hate or he killed Martin out of fear and self defense. This is one of the most controversial cases and it is almost impossible for people who are not connected to the case to figure out the real story. It is tragic that people rely on guns and violence to protect them, and it is frightening that there are cases like these going on in the lives of people like us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)