1anger
noun
Definition of ANGER
1: a strong feeling of displeasure and usually of antagonism
LeBron James barely appears to be jumping as his cartoonishly-gifted brain tells his arms to put back a rebound in overtime of the Miami Heat’s Game Two win over the Boston Celtics in the 2012 Eastern Conference Finals. He’s a freak, the best player in the league, and I strongly dislike him. It’s not because he’s the best — I’m a Sidney Crosby fan, a Lionel Messi admirer — rather because he finds a new level of arrogance on a daily basis.
I find LeBron James about as likable as ipecac syrup, but like an emetic he has a potentially sound role in my life. He’s the villain. I want him to lose so very badly. He makes my waking the baby with silly hallelujahs of “KAY-GEE” and “ROOONNNN-DOOOO” louder and worth it. My Celtics are underdogs. It’s wonderful. Wonderdogs.
But there’s LeBron, straight pissing me off by being better than everyone else. There was no greater joy for me late last night than watching James clank his feeble and gutless fallaway jumper at the end of regulation, but — as so often is the case — the best player won out (for now). Sometimes Blondie doesn’t have a quicker shot than Angel Eyes. That’s how Angel Eyes becomes The Bad.
Fifty years from now, when I look back on this anger, it will be with a sick admiration for one of the most-gifted and least PR-savvy basketball players of all-time.
***
2anger
noun
Definition of ANGER
1: a strong feeling of displeasure and usually of antagonism
This one’s gross.
On days when I begin my work shift later than 11a, my son’s morning nap coincides with a few winks for Da. This morning, I was awakened by my 18-month-old son’s cherubic cries of “Maaaa-maaa (half-beat) Maaaa-maaa.” He sounded like the old Maple Leaf Gardens derisive Puuuu-ppppa chants.
Entering the little lad’s room, I found that he had removed his diaper in order to take care of Nos. 1 & 2 inside of his bed. He then invited his stuffed animals to a party where the main attraction was rolling around in the aforementioned digits.
I wasn’t mad at him; He’s a toddler who’s gone in the “potty” exactly once. But I was angry. I would be quite late for work thanks to consecutive baths, stench-removing and well, meddling in other dookie-laden affairs. Throughout, the young boy lived those hours with glee, making only the alone moments angry ones.
Fifty years from now, when I look back on that anger I will upon it as borderline hilarious. I’ll likely use it to embarrass him in front of some lass.
***
3anger
noun
Definition of ANGER
1: rage; uncontrolled and violent behavior
As I post this article, I’ve made a remarkably embarrassing 12,101 “Tweets” on Twitter.com/NicholasMendola. The first time I was unable to stop myself from dropping an f-bomb was late Wednesday night.
Alix Rice, courtesy Facebook
A young lady was killed by a drunk driver. This drunk driver went home and freaked out, presumably because he killed a young girl. Five hours after killing this young girl, his blood alcohol level was still a high .10. In some circles — like all of them — alcohol is considered to impair reaction time, but because this young skateboarding girl he killed may have not been snugly inside the bicycle lane, he’s not guilty of manslaughter. Because experts from his six-figure legal team were able to convince jurors that he might’ve not heard his super fancy powerful car decapitating this young girl — you have to love the arrogance of a “sorry my Beemer is too powerful” humblebrag defense — he’s not guilty of leaving the scene of a crime (even though he freaked out and turned himself into police, you know, because he DIDN’T KNOW HE HIT SOMETHING UNTIL HE SAW THE GIANT EFFING DENT IN HIS HOOD).
It’s become the thing to do in intelligent circles to say “Don’t blame the jurors or the prosecution” when it comes to the Corasanti trial. My friend Alan Bedenko did a remarkable job of laying out an argument here.
Sorry, I don’t buy it. I’m not okay with the jurors. I’m not okay with the prosecutors. Even if I do get to a point where I don’t want to hug my son every time I read a new detail about the trial, I will certainly not ever get myself to a point where I’m okay with the law. Am I angry Corasanti was found not guilty? Yep. Are the jurors those who found him not guilty? Yep. Am I angry at the jurors? Did you take beginners’ level logic?
How many times in your life have you been driving and noticed someone in dark clothes, forcing you to swerve? I have had this happen double-digit times at a bare minimum and I’m telling you as a college kid who swore by Johnny Cash’s “Man In Black,” I’ve been this obstacle several times.
My questions for Corasanti go here:
1) Does your car have lights?
2) Do they work like normal lights do?
3) Oh, so a sober fella would’ve likely been able to swerve out of the way, right?
OBJECTION!! (I watch “Law & Order,” yo. Stricken from the record, for sure).
Life without law is anarchy and our law system is pretty great. It’s the reason Snotboogie’s allowed to play the game. Ultimately, though, his not playing by the rules, gets him murdered. You know why I’ll never be a juror? Because when I’m told to pretend I don’t know a guy who killed a girl while drunk driving has a previous drunk driving issue, I can’t pretend I don’t. Maybe it’s like a pitcher plunking a batter and saying it wasn’t on purpose, but dude goes down in my book. Then again, there’s also a climate that things skateboarders “ask for it.”
Law definitely plays a role. But if any law can be amended, there is precedent to be set every time a court opens for business (and it’s business, folks). Was Corasanti drunk? Yep. Did his actions kill Alix Rice? Yep. Lock him up.
I get the arguments, but everyone has a chance to make a stand. You can tell the jurors had one heck of a time simply by all the questions they asked the judge on law issues. I believe that they tried to follow the letter of the law. Maybe I even buy that they were correct in interpreting the law.
The world’s not a fair place. It may not even be a good place. But even in this messed up world, Corasanti should wind up in jail (and maybe he will. He can still get a year for getting plastered and starting the car, you know, like billboards say).
Here’s what the jury said. That’s right, the experts for the rich guy were better than the experts provided by the State. How fitting. “Experts” get paid, no? SOMEBODY GET THIS STORY TO “THE DAILY SHOW” WRITERS.
Fifty years from now, if I’m forced to recall this anger, there’s going to be one rage-filled 80-year-old.
And that, dear son, is what killed your father.
Email; nicholas.mendola@gmail.com
Twitter
Facebook
Experts get paid, yes. But don’t you dare for one second think that this guy gets better “experts” than poor people. This was not a case of “rich guy gets off” this was a case of “guy with a great attorney gets off.” And as a person who does public defense work, I can tell you that if I wanted to, I could get the exact same experts to testify at my trial and have the county pay for it if my client is indigent.
Blame the prosecutors. In fact, blame Erie County District Attorney Frank Sedita who bullies the defense bar and bullies his own employees into not including lesser-included offenses.
I’m sick of people blaming the system, and I’m sick of people playing the “money” card.
If it was such an open-and-shut case, there would’ve been a plea a year ago. The only reason a case like this goes to trial is because there are proof issues.
Dan, you can’t expect me to buy that it’s part-Sedita’s fault, who is part of the system, and then not think the system played a significant role. World’s imperfect, I know. Doesn’t mean we all have to shrug our shoulders and say c’est la vie.
The defense attorneys and former district attorney (sorry their names escape me) on the channel 2 news just flat out said that clients with money absolutely can get better expert witnesses and can do more investigative work. Money is a deciding factor in all trials whether people want to admit it or not. I’m sorry Dan but your close minded view is part of the problem with our justice system.
what color suits do dr’s and lawyers wear? that’s right black. watch your back while crossing the street next time I’m out on a bender. because. ya know now its ok to decapitate who ever I want right? better start saving up for that beamer
Money buys reasonable doubt. The state has to prove guilt, the defense simply has to make the jury think twice. Doesn’t matter who gets paid more, wht matters is who the jury believes.
The jury foreman cites a Prosecution witness who included details he failed to mention previously to the Grand Jury last summer. That should immediately raise doubt in his testimony. Money has nothing to do with that. The paid Defense witness is obviously a huge factor but not everything in the verdict is about having money, although many I know seem to only point to that.
That happens all the time though. If months go by and you give one version, sometimes witnesses remember things that they didn’t when they were originally giving the testimony. Small details change anytime you tell a story. To hang up on that detail shows a jury that is remarkably (willfully) uninformed.
Recalling that the guy’s car was drifting into the bike lane is much more than a small detail and gives far far less room for doubt in the driver’s mindset. Also, the jury is far more informed than any of us who rely on the media for all our information on the case. Don’t forget that.
Then again, there’s also a climate that things skateboarders “ask for it.”
To me that sums up this case. I think the verdict is a case of an aging city supporting one of their own instead of a young whippersnapper doing some sort of inherently dangerous activity that is completely alien to them and getting her just desserts. Sorry if it’s that harsh, but that’s what it seems like to me. If see people on the side of the road wearing dark clothing all the time. Any driver should know to look out for it. Hell, if Corasanti was driving down Heim, he should have been on the lookout for deer at the very least. I’ve seen dark-clad bikers late in the game, and cursed them for fashion decision, but I still had more than enough time to react. That the jury credited Corasanti not seeing the victim as anything but an indication of how snotted he was is flabbergasting.
I’m a lawyer. I would be interested in becoming a prosecutor. I had a chance to move back to Buffalo, but one of the reasons I didn’t want to was because I would never want to work for that office due to its valuing politics over law. This is not the sort of case that you screw up. They should have nailed this scumbag’s ass to the wall.
About juries – I had the chance to be selected for an Erie County jury empaneled for a criminal case. It was an attempted murder charge for a shooting outside a club by a young, incredibly scared looking African-American youth. Out of all the people selected for the jury panel, maybe one out of the 60 wasn’t white. Yet no objection was made to the panel itself, which should have been the first objection made before jury selection even took place. That panel wasn’t necessarily representative of the population of Erie County as a whole, and like it or not, the race factor would have been important to decide the case. After being selected, more than one juror in the privacy of the jury room said “So this guy’s guilty right?” Everybody more or less nodded. I was completely horrified, but didn’t get a chance to see it play out, as the defendant wisely plead to lesser charges prior to day 1.
I don’t have any suggestions. Just to suggest that anyone who thinks that the jury had a rational discussion and carefully weighed the evidence in light of the charges might be a tad naive. This is not a miscarriage of justice. It’s an abortion.
I love this post, Michael. Let’s be friends.
Well said….
Just want to add that this jury obviously confused “reasonable doubt” with the popular term “beyond a shadow of a doubt.”….in other words they trew common sense aside….
“Reasonable doubt” simply means that, upon weighing the evidence, if you have a doubt, you should have a REASON, not a “feeling” or “presumption”..you’re supposed to leave that stuff at the door as a juror…
ex.) the foreman of the jury has said (paraphrasing)…’the blood work could have been tampered with..’ so they disregarded it…I ask, On what basis did they disregard it?…What precedent shows that county bloodwork comes back “tampered” often enough to cause a REASONABLE doubt…When is the last time you or your primary care MD doubted the results of your own bloodwork at your doctors office?….the fools!
The foreman also said that “the defense’s expert witnesses were…expert.” again no common sense!!! first off…that’s how my 6 year old explains things!
Secondly, what moron doesn’t know that these so-called “experts” are PAID for thier services..many of them have a vague background in their field expertise, and are more expert thespians than anything else..they are getting PAID by the highest bidder to manipulate data to confuse jurors…if they didnt do it well they wouldn’t have jobs…..
From what the foreman of this jury of fools has said, REASON seems to have been absent from their deliberations..they are utter failures who should be grossly ashamed of themselves….
oh and Nick…I’m angry too!
oh and they forgot to consider that…
The “good” doctor TOLD hid neighbors that he thought he did something terrible and he feared he would lose his practice..left the scene…was still drunk hours later…etc…
These ‘experts’ were able to confuse them….
Was David Copperfield in the courtroom?