Kurt Cobain was Murdered Essay -- essays research papers

Kurt Donald Cobain was found dead in the green house of his mansion on March 1994, cause of death â€Å"suicide by self inflicted gunshot wound† or at least what was pronounced and believed by many to this day. It is plain and simple he was murdered.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Kurt Cobain the singer and guitarist of the 90s band Nirvana which was an alternative rock band from 1988 to 1994. Cobain was born in the town of Aberdeen Washington. Aberdeen is a rural white trash town that borders Seattle the birth place of â€Å"Grunge†. Before them at record stores there were special sections for alternative music, they popularized it. However many grunge bands were around such as Mud Honey and The Melvins. Kurt had three times the lethal 225 mgs dose of heroin in his blood system with puncture marks in both arms (Grant). Medical experts and doctors will tell you that with that much heroin in your blood stream if you don’t instantly die you would fall into a coma in a few seconds. Kurt supposedly shot up that insane dosage of heroin, pulled out the needle, put the syringe neatly into a cigar box feet away, then picking up a Remington 20-gauge shotgun he placed it in his mouth and fired. According to Tom Grant and other researchers it is an impossible feat even for a hardcore abuser such as Cobain. Not only did he have heroin in his system he also had valium in his blood. Valium doesn’t mix well with heroin making a small overdose bad; Kurt’s overdose wasn’t a small one. It’s not possible that he shot himself with a shotgun or any gun and if so why? Why would someone shoot themselves when they were on so much junk they would just die in their sleep? He had a daughter Frances Bean that makes it hard enough to believe he did it with out the scientific impossibility. â€Å"Dead Men Don’t Pull Triggers† (Roger Lewis). â€Å"Drug related suicides are often a staged cover up for murder† (RL).   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The police report of the suicide read, there were no legible finger prints on the shot gun, the pen which was used for the suicide note, or on the bow of shot gun shells. Kurt Cobain had finger prints, and it’s not as if he were wearing gloves. If one thinks that’s amazing for supposedly committing suicide, Sergeant Cameron admitted two years later that there wasn’t any sign of Kurt firing a gun there wasn’t any marks on his hands such as Gunshot residue. Why was eve... ...life towards the end of it all he got diagnosed and had surgery many said he was a new man. â€Å"He seemed really clean when we were on tour. In some ways it was really awkward he wasn’t joining in the very mild debauchery that went on† (shelley). Rosemary Carroll, long time friend and lawyer of the Cobains told investigator Tom Grant in April1994 that Kurt wasn’t suicidal over and over when asked. Courtney’s own father has a book in which he expresses how he thinks Courtney knows who killed Kurt or was in on it herself. That is just wrong to accuse your daughter of that. Yes he could be a heartless whacko trying to cash in on his story or he really knows what he is talking about because he can’t let the truth go unknown.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Kurt Cobain's death labeled a suicide by most media and police could not have been not only did people who knew Kurt discredit the suicide lie. There is concrete evidence he didn’t do it and the case should be reopened. I think why the Seattle Police department doesn’t reopen the case is it is a huge embarrassment to the force. A blunder of that size would make them look very badly. Kurt is innocent of Suicide and murderer is out there.

Civil Liberties, Habeas Corpus, and the War on Terror Essay

â€Å"Do we fear terrorism so much that we throw out our Constitution, and are we unwilling and afraid to debate our Constitution? † -Rand Paul We are living in a world that has been overwhelmed with war; a war that many of us will never have to physically fight but one that challenges us mentally every day. A war of terror and the constant battle against it. We have been overwhelmed with events that have led us to feel safety may be unattainable and at some point, when we are no longer able to protect ourselves physically, we have to rely on our legal system to protect us from evil in the world. It is sometimes hard to believe that anyone who acts against us would have legal rights at all but we live in a country that promotes freedom and allows everyone to be innocent until proven guilty. In the United States we are provided civil liberties that protect us, but can those rights get in the way of stopping an enemy and protect the wrong person? In the following paragraphs I will discuss in detail one legal action that was created to protect you and me, but in recent years has raised questions that challenge us to see that protection differently and maybe allow you to answer the question Rand Paul has asked. Habeas Corpus is an English common law that has existed for centuries as a â€Å"fix† of sorts for a legal system to protect a person being kept in custody. When used correctly, it essentially gives that person, or someone directly representing that person, the right to ask why they are being restrained and kept from other common laws and protects them from unlawful imprisonment. If held for reasons that cannot be explained then the law allows them to be released. This right can be suspended for various reasons but was put in place to allow for a balanced court and containment system. (http://legal-dictionary. hefreedictionary. com/Habeas+Corpus). In modern America, it is easy to relate Habeas Corpus to our Sixth Amendment rights that state, â€Å"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense. (http://www. usconstitution. net) For centuries, there have been questions asked about the depth of the right to Habeas Corpus as explained in the constitution but we cannot fully understand it is intended and thorough meaning until we explain its history that lies in the early English legal system. The term Habeas corpus translates from directly from Latin â€Å"You may have the body. † It is commonly thought that Habeas Corpus was first used in the early 1300’s while King Edward I was in power although previous monarchs exhibit the use of similar procedures dating back the 12th century. William Blackstone explains the legal action by saying, â€Å"The King is at all times entitled to have an account, why the liberty of any of his subjects is restrained, wherever that restraint may be inflicted. † While this action had been used for centuries before, the specifics of it weren’t officially defined until the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679 as an Act of the Parliament of England. Since it is definition has been established, Habeas Corpus allows a prisoner or a third party to issue the legal action and petition a superior court against unlawful detention. If the individual is being held unlawfully, that prisoner can be released by the court or as we may explain it today, be offered bail. ( http://www. constitution. org) While Habeas Corpus is most commonly related to English history and has since evolved to its place in American History, it also has been molded for other modern legal systems in Australia, Canada, Germany, India, Ireland, Malaysia, New Zealand, The Philippines, Scotland, and Spain. Each of these countries has altered the original definition to suit their society and legal system but they align somewhat directly. On more than one occasion in United States history, this legal action has been suspended, allowing the legal system to lift the right from the people for the sake of greater safety. Within the United States constitution, specifically Article One, Section 9, Clause 2, it is explained that â€Å"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it. † (www. usconstitution. net) In earlier American history, suspension has occurred often during times of war. During the Civil War President Abraham Lincoln chose to suspend the writ of habeas corpus because he heard mobsters had intended to destroy railroad tracks that connected Philadelphia and Annapolis. These lines were essential for the Union during that war. What is interesting about this instance that we don’t always see is that the president did not lift the right across the board in all legal situations. It was specifically issued to those directly impacting those involved with the destruction of the rail lines. Less than a year after issuing the order, Lincoln ended the lift and allowed most prisoners to be released. Shortly after the Civil War, unrest settled upon the people of the United States and multiple groups were created in the south to fight against the rebuilding of America, Reconstruction. The most notable of these groups was the Ku Klux Klan. To protect the people based on the clause stated in the Constitution, Congress passed the Force Acts. Within them, the president was given the ability to deny habeas corpus if there was the thought that individuals were acting against federal authority and could not be stopped by ordinary means because of their serious violent nature. Directly following the attacks on Pearl Harbor in 1942, habeas corpus was suspended yet again. Martial law was declared because of the nature of the attacks on the United States. It was suspended to protect the American people from individuals who may have been secretly working to allow the attacks in Pearl Harbor to have happened or caused a potential threat again the United States. Nearly two years later, common law was restored and the suspension ended. Once the war ended though, the right to habeas corpus was questioned by the U. S. Supreme Court after multiple German prisoners who were being held in American-occupied German attempted to apply it to their detention. It was later determined that the American court system had no jurisdiction over those individuals who were imprisoned outside the United States and never crossed onto U. S. soil. This decision plays a pivotal role in the future of habeas corpus and its use during times of modern warfare, more specifically the current War on Terror. On April 19th, 1995 a bomb was detonated that completely destroyed the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. This attack killed 168 people and injured hundreds more. The bomb caused millions of dollars’ worth or damaged and remained the worst domestic terrorist act until September 11, 2001. After the Oklahoma city bombing, President Clinton and Congress passed and signed to law an act that was created to â€Å"deter terrorism, provide justice for victims, provide for an effective death penalty, and for other purposes. † the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 limited the use of habeas corpus and the power of federal judges to relieve prisoners. Six years after the bombing in Oklahoma, attacks were made on the U. S. soil on a day that undeniably changed the path of American history forever. The worst terrorist attack in U. S. history claimed nearly 3,000 lives when 4 passenger jets were hijacked by terrorist for the Middle East and crashed. Soon after the attacks, President George W. Bush spoke to the American people. He ended his historical speech saying, â€Å"Fellow citizens, we’ll meet violence with patient justice, assured of the rightness of our cause and confident of the victories to come. In all that lies before us, may God grant us wisdom, and may he watch over the United States of America. † Because of these attacks, the way we go about approaching justice had to be altered. The current legal system did not necessarily provide the best means to handling the situations we were being faced with. Our world changed and we were forced to change with it. (http://georgewbush-whitehouse. archives. gov) Shortly after September 11th, President Bush issued the Presidential military order that allowed the â€Å"Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War against Terrorism. This would allow the U. S. government to indefinitely detain non-citizens with suspected connections to terrorism or terrorists, labeled enemy combatants, without access to the rights available by the U. S. constitution including habeas corpus. The U. S. Supreme Court confirmed that the right the basic principal of habeas corpus would not be taken from citizens of the United States. In January following the terrorist attacks of 2001, the Bush Administration established the highly criticized detention camp, Guantanamo Bay located in Cuba (http://www. thepoliticalguide. com/Issues/Guantanamo_Bay/). This facility was created to detain individuals suspected of participation in the global war on terror. Similar to the ruling made by the U. S. Supreme Court after WWII, Guantanamo, or GTMO, allows the U. S. to essential play by a different set of rules. Bush set up a military commission that could try detainees at GTMO. In 2006 Congress passed the Department of Defense Appropriations Act which states that no court, justice, or judge has jurisdiction at GTMO. This basically strips all captives of their ability to request habeas corpus or have access to any other rights that U. S. itizens would have in any court of the United States. Because the lines drawn in the legal system have become so blurry over the past few years, the U. S. Government, the Commander in Chief more specifically, has found itself under intense scrutiny. There are so many sides to the debate on the War on Terror that it would impossible to discuss in its entirety in this short essay. The role of the President, Co ngress, our military, and the Supreme Court have come to question but it seems as though the clarity that is being sought after only leads to more questions and uncertainty. The media has effected this dramatically with polarized politics that force the citizens of the United States to choose a side. I feel as though fear has divided our nation. Not the fear of being attacked, but the fear of the unknown. It is easy to move passed fear when you can pinpoint the cause of it, but we live in a time where people we do not know want our lives to end and we are allowing the government that we support to bring those people to justice. The question is, how are they going about seeking that justice and many will ask if we should even ask. Do we turn a blind eye and allow the system to take care of those who act against us, or is that system what is creating the problem in the first place. In a sense it’s like asking the question, â€Å"which came first, the chicken or the egg? † Are we reacting to terrorism or is terrorism the cause of our actions? Recently we have been challenged to ask these questions because of the details surround the Boston Bombing that took place only a few weeks ago. For the first time in recent history, a legal U. S. citizen acted with intentions similar and possibly directly linked with those who we would place and try at GTMO. The problem is, while this individual is a U. S. citizen, should he be tried as one? For a few days following the attacks, it was questions whether Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the younger of the two attackers and currently only living suspect directly linked with the bombing, should be treated as a U. S. citizen or an enemy combatant like I discussed earlier. With limited rights, it would make his case difficult but where do we draw the line between using the law to protect us and using the law against others. During the time that these decisions were being made, Tsarnaev did, like many others held captive, attempt to use right to habeas corpus. It was denied after the decision was made to try him under common law with overwhelming evidence proving his association with the attacks. While details are still being brought out daily, I have to believe that our government and legal system are capable of handling this situation in a way that best protects the rights of the rest of us. I cannot explain which came first, the chicken or the egg, but I do know that our world is complicated beyond belief and while we can attempt to use reason and logic to find the best possible outcome, it is that very ability that allows many to hate us. Our rights and freedom is what seems to be causing the conflict and that is something our country, I believe, will never stop fighting for. We fear what we cannot explain. With education of the tools have been put in place we can protect ourselves and others. We need to ask the difficult questions so we can better understand how to find the best possible solution in times like these. We must to use our freedoms to debate, challenge, and change our future not hide behind them and let someone else change it for us.

Should School Uniforms Be Enforced - 1881 Words

President Clinton once said, â€Å"If it means teenagers will stop killing each other over designer jackets, then our public school should be able to require their students to wear school uniforms.† School uniforms vary immensely among different schools with different rules because it can bring up an argument with as simple a side as how expensive they are to an extreme side such as defying someone’s freedom of speech. Both teachers and students are constantly discussing the school dress code and the complications with the system; therefore, a nation wide school uniform system should be enforced in all schools, including public, to prevent distractions from learning, to create a business attired environment, and to treat children the way they want and deserve to be treated in an adult-like manner. A simple dress code is embedded within each school’s completely polished dressing system. Each state can require a little something different for what is considered app ropriate to wear in that environment, but for a majority of the United States, the simplest version of a dress code is in each code of conduct. According to Oregon School Districts, there are twelve basic rules that each school is required to have (Oregon City School District). These include: no see-through garments, backless or strapless dresses or tops, including halter tops or any tops that expose cleavage. No bare-midriff tops. Tops and bottoms must be touching when a student is standing. No muscle shirts orShow MoreRelatedShould Public Schools Require Students?1005 Words   |  5 PagesShould Public Schools Require Students To Wear Uniforms? A Research-Based Toulmin Argument Paper Vondre M. Richardson Lone-Star College System This paper was prepared for English 1302, taught by Professor Oberle. Public school is a huge necessity of a childhood that is affected in many ways, and with dress code being one of them it is imperative to make the right decision. In regards to public school, uniform may or not be required but I believe that it should be. The leniency of uniformRead MoreDress Codes And School Uniforms1248 Words   |  5 Pagesthan being dress coded at school? Enforcing a dress code among children is unfair because it not only discriminates against people but it destroys someone’s whole day. Dress codes and school uniforms are meant to increase student achievement and make everyone equal but instead it only hurts people. Most school dress codes are unnecessary and are sexist. Enforcing dress codes is suppose to boost student achievement but instead is racist, sexist and unnecessary. Schools should take into considerationRead MoreThe Pros And Cons Of School Uniforms791 Words   |  4 Pageshave the school uniform policy (research conducted in 2017). This means that one-fifth of the country’s students who are in school are not allowed to wear their own clothes. The statistics indicate that a majority of the United States disapprove of school uniforms since the percentage remains low. The topic about school uniforms has created two sides of the issue. Some believe that students should wear school uniforms to provide an equal learning environment. Those who oppose school uniforms believeRead MoreSchool Uniforms And Public Schools1303 Words   |  6 PagesUniforms are an identifying outfit or style of dress worn by the members of a given profession, organization, or rank. (Dictionary.com) A typical uniform consist of dark pants or shorts for boys, skirt for girls, and a shirt or a blouse. Students can also buy and wear a T-shirt with the school logo but it is not common. School uniforms first became popular in the United States in the mid 1900’s and originated from England. The major movement towards uniforms in state schools began with PresidentRead MoreThe Effects Of School Uniforms On Schools878 Words   |  4 PagesThe Effects of Uniforms in Schools When it comes to the debate on whether schools should enforce a uniform in school or not, there are two obvious sides: pro-uniform and against uniform. Both sides have their own facts to back up their stance on this topic, but ultimately schools are the ones to decide what type of clothes they will allow their students to wear. The purpose of school uniforms is simple: a way for all students of a particular school to be united under one similar dress. While thereRead MoreThe Pros And Cons Of Uniforms In Schools845 Words   |  4 Pages School uniforms: a debate that has been tossed back and forth for years now. The percentage of schools that necessitate uniforms and the percentage of the ones that do not are approximately equal. This conveys a dispute that is difficult to find a definite solution for, due to the ambiguous negatives and positives being drawn between both arguments. Uniforms being a part of school systems became widespread first after Long Beach, California implement ed them into their elementary and middle schoolsRead MoreSchool Uniforms Should Be Mandatory928 Words   |  4 Pages School Uniforms should be required in school to help eliminate the amount of bulling, help increase unity, and lower the cost. In fact â€Å"many schools have adopted school uniform policies as a solution to these problems(Forster 2). During the time I was in school I always thought uniforms would be terrible. I thought I will not be able to express my style, and the day would just be boring. Now that I have graduated I believe uniforms would be a great thing to have, and be enforced in schools. WhenRead MoreShould Mandatory School Uniforms Be Beneficial?946 Words   |  4 Pagespublic school system, I was allowed to wear whatever I wanted to school from kindergarten till I graduated from high school and that is the way I believe it should be for all schools, public or private. There are arguments that can persuade you to believe that requiring school uniforms is more beneficial to students; however, there are stronger arguments convincing school uniforms not having a beneficial advantage over no school uniforms. It should not matter what a student wears to school, as longRead MorePersuasive Essay On School Uniforms717 Words   |  3 Pages The idea of school uniforms has been a vital point within school districts for a long time now. As a parent with two kids within the school system, it is a popular trend amongst schools as both my children’s schools require for their student to wear uniform. However, more recently, students as well as parents are beginning to di sagree with the enforcement with school uniforms as they believe uniforms are possibly taking away the right of self-expression for students. Although this is a valid complaintRead MoreSchool Uniform Policies Around The World905 Words   |  4 Pages High school students are seen walking down their school’s hallways wearing baggy sweat pants, tight revealing clothing, or outrageous piercings and hair colors. Would you feel confident in your student’s principle wore fitted tank tops and joggers whenever he or she pleased? Approximately one in five schools enforce a dress code, becoming common in America in the mid-1990s (â€Å"School Uniforms.†). Regulating what is acceptable for students to wear is a growing issue, because of the new society based