Weekly Article 02.11.11

Check out this site that provides information about the Trial of Sacco and Vanzetti. For this weekly article, take on the role of a CSI investigator as if they had been around in the 1920s, and investigate the case. Research the site and the primary documents that are provided to develop a case supporting or one against Sacco and Vanzetti. You must utilize information and resources to back up your case.

Due to evidence and investigation that the CSI have come across we believe Sacco and Vanzetti where involved with the murders. Eye witness place Sacco and Vanzetti in the area at the time of the murder which is hard evidence against the case. One eye witness saw Vanzetti get of a train at East Braintree at 10 o'clock. Another eye witness says they saw Vanzetti in the back of a car near south Braintree square between ten and twelve. After an eye witness heard gun shots he saw Vanzetti driving a car near South Braintree station. All of these eye witness could have been wrong, but one of them has to be correct. It comes to my attention that Sacco was absent from work all day wen the murders occurred. Which is very odd to me. Seven eye witness say to saw Sacco in the area at the time of the murders. While others say he say the bandits and one of them was him but failed to complete a identification. After we arrested Sacco he told us numerous lies about his whereabouts and denied holding anarchist or radical beliefs. This prosecution suggested that theses lies showed consciousness of guilt. The gun found on Vanzetti at the time of his arrested was a 38 calibre Harrington and Richardson Revolver with the hammer repaired. Evidence presented that paymaster guard Berardelli also had a hammer repaired. He told us he bought the gun at a store but could not remember which one, he also lied about how much the gun cost and where the bullets came from. Ballistics expert Proctor testified that bullet 3 was consistent with being fired through Sacco's pistol. Expert Van Amburgh noted a scratch on bullet 3 likely to be made by a defect in the rifling of Sacco's pistol. The picture to the top right shows the ballistic evidence of Sacco's pistol and relates Sacco to the murder. At the time of their arrest Sacco and Vanzetti had just gone to the house of the owner of a car repair shop were a man connected with a stolen Buick that was presumed to be the car used in the murder had taken an overland to be repaired. Due to the evidence i have presented you with i must conclude Sacco and Vanzetti guilty and be up for the death penalty. A map of the murder shows that the murder was conducted on a main road, easy for the murderer to get away in a car. Why would Sacco and Vanzetti lie about were they bought their guns and were they where at the time of the murder. It makes no sense the only reason i can conclude and must use is that they are guilty.


http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/SaccoV/s&vevidence.html

Weekly Article 03

Over the past few weeks a non-profit organization known as WikiLeaks has dropped bombshells with the release (or "leaks) of important classified documents from governments around the world. The argument from the organization is that they want to keep governments "open" about their issues and policy. Read some articlesabout the WikiLeaks debaucle and express your thoughts about the global issue. This post should be in the format of a letter to the editor of a major newspaper expressing your opinion (an OpEd).


To Daily Mail


Due to a non-profit organization known as WikiLeaks has been giving classified information to governments all over the world. This is not a good idea as governments could get very angry and not like what the information is about which could start lots of problems. Such as wars, strikes, and riots in cities and countries. What gives the right to these organization to give out information? There are no rules or laws about giving out information and the organizations are not doing anything wrong. But hurting governments and countries relationships which could possibly start world war III. Keeping governments open about issues and policy's might be a good idea but you do not know how they will react to the information and what consequences will occur due to this information being released. I don't know what the organizations are trying to accomplish but its not right what there doing. Like many people say what governments do not know will not hurt them. Which is right in the case for everyones own good and safety. If governments are open they can help each other much better if they know everything about the government. Then we can all live under one government we wont need countries or branches of government anymore and there would be no more wars. Sort of like Communism, which may not work for todays world. 

idk

Check out the Wordles for the United States Declaration of War and the German Response to the United States. In a short blog post predict what you think was the tone of the US declaration of war. Also, discuss what you think the German response said.


The United States was not yet at war and was one of the first big major wars the United States has been in so the US was more concerned on the military and helping the other nations. Where as Germany was already at war and was pushing to cause the other nations to starve and stop the US entering the war.

World Safety

Your squad breaches the door of a suspected insurgent safe-house. After securing the building and flex-cuffing six people found inside, one of your team members finds materials typically used in making IEDs (bombs) under some floor tiles. There is reliable intelligence that the IEDs are also being assembled in another location nearby. Unfortunately, this location has not yet been specifically identified. Finding this other "bomb factory" is a vary high priority.
a. How should you treat these detained prisoners?
b. What are some potential long and short-term repercussions if any of these detainees are mistreated?


In the matter of war or that people lives are in danger i would treat the matter very seriously. Scaring the prisoners into telling me where the next location is will be my main goal. Killing some of the prisoner to scare the ones that are left. And beating some of them so they know we will not give up until they tell me. Some of the repercussions could be in trouble with your own government and possibly starting a war. Which is not wanted. But I'm sure you would get into some sort of trouble if you killed some prisoners for information. But its for the safety of the world to do so. So it is nesscary. 

Weekly Article 12.10.10

With the introduction of video games such as Call of Duty, and other war shooter games, a controversey has brewed about the violence they recreate. Read the following articles dealing with video game violence. In your weekly article this week, aruge for one side of the video game violence debate. Should games that portray war, such as Call of Duty, be allowed to exist? More importantly do they diminish the violence that actually occurs in real war (keeping in mind there was no "reset" button for soldiers of World War I)?  

Video game violence has been around for years now. Kids and teenagers around the world have seen the violence in movies or video games. So its nothing new to them when a new video game comes out because they have seen it before. I believe that Call of Duty and other violent games should be allowed to exist because they should know what real war is like or can be like. War is a bad thing and for kids to know this early might make them a peaceful person. But the only reason kids that are under a certain age cannot buy the games if it is too violent. A lot of the times the parent buys the game for the child so the parent is in wrong also. I think if you are old enough to buy the violent games there's nothing wrong with playing the game. I do not think they diminish or lessen the violence that happens in real war because when you are in war, you would be very scared and worried for your life. Call of Duty is not going to be in your mind when you are in a war. Also no matter what people are going to fight, a video game is not going to effect the war or the fighting in the war. The video game to the left is called Grant Theft Auto, one of the most violent video games on the market. Many teenagers and kids play this game. As you can see in the bottom left hand conner there is a rating. The rating stands for mature which is 17+. So you have to be 17 to buy the game. But the video game is completely fake to me. It is not even close to reality and a war seen. In the video game you can go around killing people which is not nice. Many people get ideas of video games and do it in real life. This would be the only reason to me as to why they should not be allowed in society. In real life, you do not have a extra life or a pause so you can keep living. If you get shot most of the time it was most certain death, you unless you were lucky and controlled the bleeding and got the bullet out fast enough. In world war one, the great war many times doctor's would have to amputate body parts for the person to live. To me they make violence in war more worst because they have seen what they can do on the video games and want to do it in real person. Most of the time this is not the case, if you live like you do in a video game you will die pretty fast. So i do think violent video games should be able to exist because its the parents choice if the children can play it or not. There is nothing wrong with them because they are not reality and do not lessen the war, nor do they make it worse.

http://www.popfi.com/wp-content/uploads/grand-theft-auto-4.jpg

Air Combat

World War I introduced lots of new technologies on the weapons front, one of them being the airplane. Check out Dogfight (that's what you call two planes fighting air-to-air combat), play it, and write about what you think was going through a pilot's mind while fighting in an air-to-air combat situation. This fighting style continued through the Cold War.


When a pilot takes off his airplane to go into combat with another airplane, the feeling must be terrible. They would try their hardest to move the plane without getting shot at while the other man would defend his plane with a turret gun. The turret gun had to be very smart because he could shoot his own plane up when the pilot moves the plane and the plane could crash. So there are many things you have to think of while you are fighting in a dog fight. Another through that would be on the pilots mind was if he was going to live or not. Also when its time to land the plane and return home would also be running through his mind. Pictures of family members are also placed in the window so they can have their last view of loved ones. Because there was a 50 to 50 chance of getting shot out of the sky. Now a days i would feel more safe in an airplane because the jets are much more fast and safer. They now don't have dog fights anymore they just drop bombs on targets.

Artillery shells

At the time - World War I, the Great War, saw the greatest number of casualties the world had ever seen. Watch the trailer from the remake of Gallipoli (1981) and predict what you think caused the great number of casualties. Be specfic pulling specific examples from the video clip. Also discuss what impact the number of casualties had on society.


From watching this movie trailer and stuff i have already known i predict that most of the casualties where done by disease among the trenches and battle wounds not been treated. Remember that this is in the year of 1915 so there where not many ways too stop bleeding or to survive the bleeding. Many times you would have to cut of arms and legs so that the casualty could live. Another cause of the great number of casualties in world war 1 was the invention of artillery which killed and wounded many people from the shrapnel that the bombs produced. Sinking of battleships and navy fights also killed a lot people because if the boat was hit by artillery from another ship, the ship would sink and it took many people to man a battleship. The last cause of many casualties was because of gun to gun warfare. Which many people where slaughtered in the battlefield.