You are browsing the archive for Uncategorized.

Reeva Steenkamp: To the living we owe respect but to the dead we owe only the truth

12:28 pm in Uncategorized by Masoninblue

Saturday, September 13, 2014

Good afternoon:

A Pistorius-ügy - mi történt valójában?

Reeva Steenkamp & Oscar Pistorius

The Guardian is reporting today:

The parents of Reeva Steenkamp expressed anger and disbelief on Friday after Oscar Pistorius was formally acquitted of their daughter’s murder, insisting: “Justice was not served.”

Amid growing discontent in South Africa at the verdict, the Steenkamps criticised judge Thokozile Masipa for being too lenient on the athlete, who was instead convicted of culpable homicide, the South African equivalent of manslaughter, and granted bail.

“This verdict is not justice for Reeva,” her mother, June Steenkamp, told NBC News. “I just want the truth.”

I agree.

Yesterday, I identified the core weakness in Judge Masipa’s decision acquitting Oscar Pistorius of murder and convicting him of culpable (manslaughter) homicide.

Under South African law, however, a judge cannot base a verdict on circumstantial evidence alone unless no inference except guilt can reasonably be drawn from it.

Her conclusion makes sense when viewed through the prism of the legal rules that she applied. However, it makes no sense to be forced into accepting a liar’s statement about his knowledge and intent when it is contrary to common experience and he has a powerful motive to lie.

I did not believe Oscar Pistorius because he lied during much of his testimony and I do not believe his story about shooting into the cubicle without making certain she was not there. He should not benefit because he killed the only witness who could contradict him.

1. The door to the cubicle was locked;

2. She had her phone with her;

3. Her bladder was empty;

4. There was no urine in the toilet bowl; and

5. Pistorius never mentioned hearing the toilet flush.

That’s all the circumstantial evidence that I need to confirm my belief that he lied.

“To the living we owe respect, but to the dead we owe only the truth.”

Voltaire
Read the rest of this entry →

Pistorius Guilty of Manslaughter and Unlawful Discharge of a Firearm in Public

3:37 am in Uncategorized by Masoninblue

A gavel

Pistorius is guilty of culpable homicide.

Judge Masipa found Oscar Pistorius guilty of culpable homicide, which we call manslaughter, and guilty of unlawful discharge of a firearm in public for shooting a gun in a restaurant. She found him not guilty of unlawfully discharging a firearm through the sunroof of a vehicle and not guilty of unlawful possession of ammunition.

This case is more about the presumption of innocence and the absence of evidence, rather than the evidence that was presented at trial. When all is said and done, Pistorius fired 4 shots through a locked door into a toilet cubicle that was not much bigger than a stall in a public bathroom.
He testified that he believed that an intruder was in the cubicle and he fired his gun in self-defense believing he was in imminent danger of death or serious injury.

In other words, he admitted committing the acts that caused Reeva Steenkamp’s death. The disputed issues concerned his knowledge and intent.

Did he really believe an intruder was in the cubicle or did know she was in there?

Did he intend to kill the person when he fired the shots?

As Judge Masipa pointed out, there was no evidence that Pistorius had physically abused or threatened Steenkamp or any other woman in the past and there was no evidence that any serious problems existed in their relationship.

No direct evidence contradicted what he said about his knowledge and intent when he fired the shots, although the prosecutor caught him in many inconsistencies and lies during cross examination.

Even though he lied about other matters and his story about an intruder did not make any sense, Judge Masipa was unwilling to conclude that he knew she was in the cubicle and he intended to kill her when he fired the shots.

Notwithstanding his lame story and his strong motive to lie about the shooting, she concluded instead that the prosecution failed to overcome the presumption of innocence regarding his knowledge and intent by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

There is a legal presumption that a person intends the natural and probable consequences of his acts. However, this presumption cannot substitute for actual evidence and overcome the presumption of innocence.

Circumstantial evidence is a form of evidence that can be more powerful than direct evidence, depending on the circumstances.

Under South African law, however, a judge cannot base a verdict on circumstantial evidence alone unless no inference except guilt can reasonably be drawn from it.

Her conclusion makes sense when viewed through the prism of the legal rules that she applied. However, it makes no sense to be forced into accepting a liar’s statement about his knowledge and intent when it is contrary to common experience and he has a powerful motive to lie.

That’s the core weakness of her decision.

As I said yesterday,

Keep in mind that there is a difference between forming an opinion about what really happened and deciding whether the state overcame the presumption of innocence by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

That difference is a key to understanding this verdict.

Also key to understanding her verdict is the South African rule that a verdict may not be based on circumstantial evidence alone unless the evidence is inconsistent with any other conclusion.

That used to be the rule in most jurisdictions in the US but has gradually been rejected as a comment on the evidence, which is forbidden by most state constitutions.

Instead, most instructions tell the jury that evidence is either direct or circumstantial and one is not necessarily better or more reliable than the other. It’s up to the jury to decide how much weight to assign to the evidence.

I think he probably is looking at a total sentence for the two offenses of somewhere between 8-12 years.

Read the rest of this entry →

Judge Masipa Finds Oscar Pistorius Not Guilty of Premeditated Murder

3:16 am in Uncategorized by Masoninblue

A gavel

Though cleared by the judge of murder, Pistorius will likely face a lesser charge.

Judge Masipa has been summarizing the evidence in a manner that suggests she may conclude that Oscar Pistorius is guilty of culpable (i.e., negligent) homicide, which is punishable by a sentence of up to 15 years in prison.

I base my prediction on the following comments, as reported by The Guardian:

1. Judge accepts defence timeline of events and rejects neighbours’ evidence.

2. It ‘makes sense’ that screaming was Pistorius, not Steenkamp.

After finding that Pistorius “was a very poor witness,” she warned that “an assumption that because an accused is untruthful, he must be guilty, “must be guarded against.”

Masipa says Steenkamp was killed under “peculiar circumstances” that do not make sense. Why did Pistorius not check where she was before making his way to the bathroom? Why did Steenkamp not call the police, as Pistorius said he shouted to her to do, as she had her cellphone with her in the toilet?

Why did Steenkamp not hear him shout “at the top of his voice” for the intruder to get out of his house?

Unfortunately, these issues remain an issue of conjecture, the judge says.

Masipa says Pistorius was “not truthful” about his intention when arming himself with a loaded gun before approaching the bathroom. This doesn’t necessarily mean he is guilty, she adds.

On the count of premeditated murder, the judge says the evidence is “purely circumstantial”.

She says the state failed to prove that Pistorius is guilty of premeditated murder.

She says there is no doubt that when the accused fired shots at the door he acted unlawfully (this statement suggests she’s going to find him guilty of culpable homicide).

Masipa says evidence does not support the state’s case that this was dolus eventualis (he must have known he was likely to kill the person by firing). He believed Steenkamp was in the bedroom. Pistorius’ account of this has remained consistent since the night of the shooting. It is “highly improbable the accused would have made this up so quickly”.

The question, she says, now is whether Pistorius proceeded “recklessly”, with reasonable foresight that the person behind the door would be killed?

She says the answer has to be no.

May the record reflect that there were audible gasps in the courtroom.

On that happy note, she recesses for lunch after ruling out premeditated and intentional murder.

Looks like she may find him guilty of culpable homicide.

Pins-and-needles time.

Photo by Keith Burtis released under a Creative Commons license.

Over Easy: Whither Thou Goest Oscar Pistorius

3:47 am in Uncategorized by Masoninblue

3 dimensional walk-through of Pistorius bedroom/bathroom

Good morning:

Crane-Station’s efforts to resuscitate her computer have been unsuccessful so I am subbing for her today.

Tomorrow morning at 3:30 am EDT, Judge Thokozile Masipa will announce her decision in the Oscar Pistorius case. He is the famous disabled South African paralympian known as the Blade Runner. An audience of millions will be watching.

Both legs were amputated below the knees when he was 11 months old because he was born with detached fibia and tibula bones. He competed by wearing a curved metal prosthesis that functioned like a spring permitting him to compete against the fastest sprinters in the world. He won a gold medal in the 100 meter sprint at the paralympics and barely missed qualifying for the 100 meter final in the Olympics.

Pistorius is accused of murdering his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp, by shooting her to death through the locked door of the toilet cubicle that is next to the bathroom in his upstairs master bedroom suite.

His home was located in a gated community protected by a 24/7 security staff.

Steenkamp was a lawyer, model and actor who was on the verge of international fame and fortune with her role in a South African reality show.

They were a beautiful couple supposedly involved in a fairytale romance that ended with four gunshots through a locked toilet door on Valentine’s Day last year.

Pistorius testified at trial that after he and Steenkamp went to bed around 10 pm, he was awakened around 3:30 am by the sound of the bathroom window opening. He said he thought that an intruder had entered the bathroom by climbing a ladder. He grabbed his gun and without putting on his regular everyday prosthesis he proceeded down a short hallway on his stumps to the entrance to the bathroom. After hearing a sound like someone bumped the magazine rack in the toilet stall, he fired his gun four times through the door.

When he returned to the bedroom, he discovered that Steenkamp was not in bed and only then realized that she might have been in the toilet stall.

Steenkamp was hit three times. First, in the hip. Second in the arm and chest. Third, in the forehead. He was using an especially deadly form of ammunition that releases little metal hooks tucked into the side of the bullet that pop out as the bullet spins out of the muzzle of the gun.

She could not have survived the wounds to her hip and head.

The prosecution’s theory of the case was that she locked herself in the toilet stall with her cell phone during an argument with Pistorius. He lost his temper and shot her to death through the locked door.

Several neighbors, including a woman who lived next door, testified that they heard loud voices and a woman’s terrified screams followed by four shots. She said she awakened to the screams and looked out her bedroom window at Pistorius’s bathroom window and noticed that the light was on.

He testified that it was off when he fired the shots. Like George Zimmerman before him, he claimed that the neighbor heard him screaming, not Steencamp.

He claimed she never said anything and he admitted that he did not call out to her to make sure she was not in the toilet before he fired his gun.

The medical examiner testified that Steencamp had consumed a stir fry meal approximately an hour and a half before the shooting, based on an analysis of her stomach contents.

Read the rest of this entry →

Update for Crane-Station and Mason

8:07 am in Uncategorized by Masoninblue

Sunday, September 7, 2014

Good morning:

Crane-Station and I were hacked rendering our computers inoperable. Our place was burglarized, our property vandalized and stolen. Our bank account was breached and money stolen.

Our lives were threatened.

We left Kentucky in a hurry to avoid a worse fate.

I have kind of, sort of, gotten my computer to work but still have problems.

Crane is planning on posting her Over Easy segment on Wednesday.

I am still unable to access my site and would appreciate it if someone would go there and post a comment advising my readers about the situation.

http://frederickleatherman.com/2014/08/27/open-thread-discussion-8272014/

Thank you,

Fred

#Ferguson: Darren Wilson’s prearrest silence may be admissible

10:36 am in Uncategorized by Masoninblue

Cross posted from Frederick Leatherman Law Blog

Saturday, August 23, 2014

Good afternoon:

BettyKath asked the following question in the comments to yesterday’s post, Grand Jury should indict Darren Wilson because his claim of self-defense is contradicted by autopsy results and all eyewitnesses.
05a.StopOpenSeason.WhiteHouse.WDC.13August2014

Didn’t the Supreme Court rule that maintaining silence before the Miranda warning, i.e. before being arrested, can be interpreted as a sign of guilt?

This is an excellent question regarding the admissibility of prearrest silence and my answer is the subject of today’s blog.

Yes, prearrest silence can be interpreted as evidence of guilt unless the suspect/defendant specifically invokes his fifth amendment right to remain silent. In Jenkins v. Anderson, 447 U.S. 231 (1980), the defendant did not report the killing to the police until he turned himself in to police two weeks later. He told them that he stabbed the victim to death in self-defense. At trial, the prosecutor cross examined him regarding his failure to report the killing and to claim self-defense when it happened. He also commented on his silence in closing argument claiming that it was evidence of guilt.

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) affirmed his conviction rejecting his argument that the comments on his prearrest silence violated his fifth amendment right to remain silent. The Court held that his silence was admissible because a defendant must expressly claim his right to remain silent for it to apply.

See also Salinas v. Texas, 133 S. Ct. 2174 (2013).

Pursuant to Jenkins and Salinas, Wilson’s failure to fill out the incident report (i.e., his silence) will be admissible against him at trial unless he expressly refused to do so citing his fifth amendment right to remain silent.

Apparently, he did not do that because the cover sheet is filled out, but the section where his narrative report should be is blank.

If he orally invoked his right to remain silent when he turned in his blank incident report, his prearrest silence will not be admissible.

In any event, the prosecutor doesn’t have to comment on Wilson’s silence to get an indictment because, as I stated yesterday, he can obtain it by merely calling the eyewitnesses and presenting the autopsy report.

Although Wilson’s prearrest silence will not be admissible at trial, assuming he expressly invoked his right to remain silent, we also have to consider whether his oral statements to others that he shot in self-defense will be admissible.

No, they are not admissible because they constitute inadmissible self-serving hearsay.

That leaves Darren Wilson between a rock and a hard place.

He must testify in order to get his ‘bum-rush’ defense into evidence and a self-defense instruction. However, if he testifies, none of the eyewitnesses saw a ‘bum rush’ and if he tells a different story, he can be confronted with his ‘bum rush’ story.

Not an enviable situation to be in even with $225,000 in donations for his defense.
Read the rest of this entry →

Should we tolerate shooting through locked doors in self-defense

9:03 am in Uncategorized by Masoninblue

Cross posted from Frederick Leatherman Law Blog

Friday, August 1, 2014

Good morning:

A Pistorius-ügy - mi történt valójában?

Reeva Steenkamp and Oscar Pistorius

With the Theodore Wafer trial on hold until Monday at 9:00 am, we return our attention to Oscar Pistorius.

You Magazine is reporting that he sold his house for R4.5 million ($420,000) to pay his escalating legal bills. The buyer is Louwtjie Louwrens, a Boksburg mining consultant who plans to rent it out.

Prosecution and defense have submitted their written closing arguments and Judge Thokozile Masipa has set aside Thursday and Friday next week for their oral summations.

We are fortunate to have the opportunity to witness a conjunction of two media intensive criminal cases that present the same issue:

Whether a person can justifiably kill another person in self-defense when that other person is on the other side of a locked door.

In the Pistorius case, the other person was his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp. Pistorius claims that he mistook her for an intruder after he was awakened by the sound of the bathroom window opening and the door to the toilet cubicle closing.

In the Wafer case, the other person was Renisha McBride, an intoxicated 19-year-old girl who had crashed her car into a parked car about 1 mile from Wafer’s house and walked away from the scene of the accident dazed and bleeding approximately 3 hours earlier. Wafer was awakened by McBride banging on his door. He unlocked and opened his inner front door and fired his shotgun through his locked outer screen door. Wafer first claimed that the gun fired accidentally and later switched to self-defense.

Neither Pistorius nor Wafer said anything to the person on the other side of the door before shooting.

In the Pistorius case, the prosecution claims Pistorius killed Steenkamp in a rage after she locked herself in the toilet cubicle to get away from him during an argument. Then he lied about it to escape responsibility for killing her.

The law of self-defense is similar in both cases. A person may justifiably use deadly force in self-defense, if they reasonably believe they are in imminent danger of death or serious injury.

The word “reasonable” in both cases refers to whether a reasonable person in the same situation as the shooter would have believed he was in imminent danger of death or serious injury.

In both cases, a locked door separated the victim from the shooter. The situation differs in that the victim in the Pistorius shooting could unlock the door whereas the victim in the Wafer shooting could not.

Both victims were unarmed.

Race is a probable factor in the Wafer case. He is white and she was black. Many people believe, myself included, that he would not have feared imminent death or serious injury, if she had been white.

South Africa does not have jury trials. Judge Theokile Masipa will decide the case assisted by her two assessors who can overrule her verdict, if they disagree with her conclusion.

The 12-person jury will decide whether Wafer is guilty or not guilty.

Join us in the comments below and let us know whether you believe we should tolerate shooting through locked doors in self-defense.
Read the rest of this entry →

Over Easy: #TheodoreWafer Will Have to Testify During Defense Case

4:14 am in Uncategorized by Masoninblue

A gavel

Wafer will be forced to testify about the death of Renisha McBride.

I will be covering for Crane today. T am updating you on the Theodore Wafer trial

There is no live stream coverage.

For reasons that follow, I believe defense motions to dismiss the charges in the Theodore Wafer trial, after the prosecution rests, will be denied and he will have to testify during the defense case.

The prosecution might conclude its case-in-chief late today, although tomorrow is more likely. I say this because the standard operating procedure for presenting evidence in a murder trial is to close with the medical examiner’s testimony. I see no reason for the prosecution to vary from that practice.

We teach trial lawyers to finish their case with a knockout punch and the best way to do that in a murder trial is to call the medical examiner.

The medical examiner’s opinion regarding cause of death must be based on the evidence obtained during the autopsy. Graphic color photos taken during each step of the autopsy are used to document what the medical examiner did in order to establish the necessary foundation for the opinion regarding cause of death.

Autopsy photographs are gruesome and difficult to look at because of the injuries displayed with their associated trauma. People who have have never seen a dead body are usually traumatized when they look at autopsy photos because a violent death, as opposed to a cleaned-up cinematic version of death presented in film, is graphic, shocking and disturbing. The emotional storm triggered by viewing autopsy photos can be upsetting and difficult to forget.

After the prosecution rests, Judge Hathaway will send the jury to the jury room so that she can hear argument from counsel regarding what I have previously described as a defense “halftime motion” to dismiss the charges. We use the word halftime to describe it because the defense raises it after the prosecution rests and before the defense presents its case.

This motion is a standard practice, regardless of the strength of the prosecution’s case, because a failure to raise it at that time precludes a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence at a later time. The motion is rarely granted because the prosecution need only have presented some evidence that, if assumed to be true together with all of the reasonable inferences that flow from it, would be enough to support a verdict of guilty. In other words, the motion raises a threshold question by asking the judge to decide if enough evidence has been admitted in support of a particular charge to allow the jury to consider and decide whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty of that charge.

Much of the witness testimony and evidence admitted in the case so far is not very helpful in determining whether Wafer is guilty or not guilty. For example, I do not believe McBride’s intoxication and conduct banging on doors is helpful to deciding Wafer’s guilt or innocence because, if we assume for the sake of argument that it was so loud that everyone in the City of Detroit was awakened by it, Wafer’s use of deadly force would still not be justified.

Why?

Read the rest of this entry →

Theodore Wafer Did Not Fear Death Or Injury When He Killed Renisha McBride

10:47 am in Uncategorized by Masoninblue

Cross posted from Frederick Leatherman Law Blog

A judge's gavel

An upcoming trial will determine whether the shooting of Renisha McBride was self-defense or murder.

Theodore Wafer did not fear imminent death or serious injury on November 2, 2013 when he opened his locked front door and shot 19-year-old Renisha McBride in the face through a locked screen door with a 12 gauge shotgun, killing her.

She was alone and unarmed.

She had collided with a parked car about a half mile from his house approximately 3 hours earlier and left the scene of the accident before police arrived. No one knows where she was or what she was doing until she started knocking on Wafer’s door around 4:30 am.

Witnesses who saw her at the scene of the accident, described her as dazed and bleeding from an apparent head injury.

The Detroit Free Press reports:

McBride’s blood alcohol level was 0.218%, and marijuana was detected in her system, according to the toxicology report released today by the Wayne County Medical Examiner’s Office.

Wafer is charged with second degree murder. He claims self-defense. The trial, which is expected to last three weeks, is scheduled to start July 21st.

Wafer is white and McBride is black.

Police officers who investigated the crime scene at Theodore Wafer’s residence neglected to seize the screen door, which is one of the most important items of evidence in the case. Fortunately, they photographed it before leaving the scene and returned later to recover it.

The Voice of Detroit explains how that happened:

Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy had to order the Dearborn Heights police, who first released Wafer without charges, to do a more thorough investigation of the case. They did a second crime scene review Nov. 11, during which they discovered a key piece of evidence, the perforated front door screen, in Wafer’s basement.

The exact condition of the screen door is important because the racist right-wing-hate-machine has been spreading a false story over the internet that McBride was ripping the screen door off its hinges when Wafer opened the inner door and shot her in the face, killing her, to prevent her from breaking into his house.

Here’s the police officer’s report describing the condition of the screen door when he arrived at Wafer’s residence in response to Wafer’s 911 call:

Northern most West side door was locked and no obvious sign of tampering to that door (partially collapsed wooden steps leading up to door).

The front entry door was open (no signs of prying, kicking or tampering) and the front screen door was closed/locked. The front screen was popped out with a tear in the screen (Cpl. Zawacki had photographed that upon arrival).

On the carpet near front door lay a Mossberg Model 500A 12 ga. pistol grip pump shotgun, black in color. I unlocked screen door while ME took photograph of shotgun through screen door. ID for Renisha Marie McBride on her person. TOT DHPD at scene. I popped screen back in place (held in loosely by one screwed in tab at the top and rested in the channel at the bottom of storm door) so Cpl Zawacki could photograph it in place with a tape measure, as shotgun blast could have blown screen out of place.

[Emphasis supplied]

Here’s the photograph of the screen door displaying the rip caused by the shotgun blast.

As everyone can plainly see from the officer’s report and the photograph, the door frame was intact, closed and locked when the officers arrived.

Furthermore, here’s a photograph of the inner door and front porch. A peephole is visible in the expected position and a white globe-style porch light is visible above and to the right of the door.

I believe we can reasonably assume that Wafer would have turned on the light, unless it was on, and looked through the peep hole before he opened the door.

Why did he open the door, if he feared imminent death or serious bodily injury?

Why did he claim the gun went off by accident, if he feared imminent death or serious bodily injury?

Read the rest of this entry →

Where are we 60 years after SCOTUS decided Brown v Board of Education

6:54 am in Uncategorized by Masoninblue

US Supreme Court building - July 1976
Photo of the United States Supreme Court by Don Taylor Creative Commons flickr

Cross posted from the Frederick Leatherman Law Blog

Sunday, May 18, 2014

Good morning:

Yesterday was the 60th anniversary of the SCOTUS decision in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).

Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote the unanimous court decision. He said,

These cases come to us from the States of Kansas, South Carolina, Virginia, and Delaware. They are premised on different facts and different local conditions, but a common legal question justifies their consideration together in this consolidated opinion

In each of the cases, minors of the Negro race, through their legal representatives, seek the aid of the courts in obtaining admission to the public schools of their community on a nonsegregated basis. In each instance, they had been denied admission to schools attended by white children under laws requiring or permitting segregation according to race. This segregation was alleged to deprive the plaintiffs of the equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment. In each of the cases other than the Delaware case, a three-judge federal district court denied relief to the plaintiffs on the so-called “separate but equal” doctrine announced by this Court in Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U. S. 537. Under that doctrine, equality of treatment is accorded when the races are provided substantially equal facilities, even though these facilities be separate. In the Delaware case, the Supreme Court of Delaware adhered to that doctrine, but ordered that the plaintiffs be admitted to the white schools because of their superiority to the Negro schools.

/snip/

Today, education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments. Compulsory school attendance laws and the great expenditures for education both demonstrate our recognition of the importance of education to our democratic society. It is required in the performance of our most basic public responsibilities, even service in the armed forces. It is the very foundation of good citizenship. Today it is a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for later professional training, and in helping him to adjust normally to his environment. In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.

/snip/

We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of “separate but equal” has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. This disposition makes unnecessary any discussion whether such segregation also violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

We have the following comment to consider, in response to this PBS News Hour article, Have we abandoned the goals of Brown v. Board of Education?

What we are seeing today should be more aptly termed separation, not segregation. of course those of us who actually lived through segregation, Selma, and MLK being assassinated, who remember seeing these atrocities on the nightly news; we are glad for the progress that has been made. it is important to describe what is going on today accurately, and it is not segregation by law, it may be de-facto segregation, but let’s call it what it is.

Today’s new segregation is a result of socio-economic circumstances, and more importantly how schools are funded. people get a good address for their kids to go to better schools because schools are generally funded by property taxes, so therefore better neighborhoods have better schools. a solution to better schools for poor children may be found in reforming the way schools are funded, or in revitalizing poor neighborhoods.

What do you think?