Main Menu

blog advertising is good for you



It’s been a long day and I’m really tired, but I wanted to post these few items before bed.

The latest poll of the Presidential, Gubernatorial, 7th District and 5th District Congressional races are showing some interesting results. The poll conducted by Howey Politics Indiana and Gauge Market Research of shows Hillary and Barack basically tied. Jill with a big lead over Jim and Andre and Danny doing better than Woody, David Carolene and John.

Jill got a letter from angry lawyers telling her to stop using images of schools their client designed in her commercial. It wasn’t Jim’s firm, but the firm of Schenkel and Schultz. I thought the taxpayers owned the schools, not the firms who built them. This will be fun to watch.

Carl, Jim and Mike want to rewrite the state’s fetal homicide laws in the wake of the shooting that killed the unborn twins of a bank teller in Indianapolis. Under the current law the fetus has to be viable outside the womb. This would change that, however the state would still have to prove the defendant knew the woman was pregnant.

  • Anonymous

    If Schenkel and Schultz are the architects of those schools in the letter than why were those schools on the CSO web site. Notice I said ‘were’ on the CSO web site. Two weeks ago the Decatur school and Ben Davis HS were on CSO’s web site under the Portfolio/K-12 section. As a matter of fact, that list of schools in their portfolio section is about half the size as it was. Question: if Schellinger has nothing to hide than why is he hiding? If he claims that what Long Thompson says about making millions off of property isn’t true than why is he pulling CSO signs off of school construction projects and schools off the web site? He said he doesn’t lobby. Than why does CSO hold town meetings to try and convince the people of Meridian-Kesslar and Columbus that schhools need to be added onto and built. Is it the job of the ‘architect’ to convince people that a building project needs to be done? To convince people that three houses in an historic neighborhood need to be torn down so that a school that isn’t even full can be added onto? He claims that the images of the schools in the Long Thompson ad can’t be used without permission but he steals a shot of long Thompson for one of his commercials. Those schools are paid for with tax dollars which makes them ‘public’ schools. I don’t understand why the Schellinger campaign is making such an issue out of something that they say isn’t an issue.

  • Bob Miller

    What is the track record of Howey polls?

  • John

    I’m not a lawyer, but the way I understand copyright law is that all rights to use a photo belong to the person who took the photo, not the subject of it. Even if the pictures were of CSO private property, the rights would still belong to the phtographer.

    This is just an attempt to silence criticism by infringing on first amendment rights. No honest court would side with CSO.

  • http://www.hoosiersforfairtaxation.com Melyssa

    We can see Jen Wagner is hard at work. Anyone else notice how Schellinger’s campaign turned from lame to mean when she got on board?

  • Shorebreak

    My question regarding the killing of the twins:
    If the law is changed so that the fetus does NOT have to be viable outside the womb, why would the defendent have to know that she was pregnant?
    For example, lets assume a defendent is accused of robbing a liquor store. During the commissioning of the crime, the defendant shoots the cashier causing injury, not death. The bullet passes through the defendant, through drywall behind the cash register, and kills the store manager who is sitting in his office.
    The defendant was completely unaware that the manager was present. Is the defendant not subject to a murder charge for this offense?
    If he is, when he was unaware of the victims presence, then why must the defendant in the bank robbery case be aware of a pregnancy if the viability of the fetus outside the womb is no longer a mitigating factor?

  • Jon G

    Shorebreak, it makes sense so it won’t work.

  • Local Lawyer

    Shorebreak: in your store manager scenario it could still be a murder because of the doctrine of transferred intent. For example, if I intend to kill one person by shooting them but I miss and kill another person instead the mens rea, or guilty intent, required for murder transfers from the intended victim to the actual victim. This isn’t exactly the same thing for feticide. The current statute on feticide includes as an element that the defendant must have the intent to terminate a pregnancy. Therefore it is necessary to prove that the defendant actually was aware of said pregnancy in order to prove this specific intent. That is why the charge of feticide is actually very difficult to prove and is normally restricted to cases in which the parties know each other and are aware of the details of each other’s lives. The definition of a “person” under the law requires that the person be born alive, hence a fetus is not a person for criminal law purposes. Therefore a fetus cannot be a murder victim under a theory of transferred intent since murder requires the unlawful killing of a person.

  • J G

    I am one that does not believe that it is a women’s choice to take the life of her own baby or fetus, I do believe it was here choice to use protection to prevent getting pregnant. That being said, this lady’s choice was life and her choice was that her fetuses were babies and therefore, all consequences should be treated as such.

    Before the twins died we were all told the Babies or the Twins seemed to be okay and doing fine. Unfortunately after they died they were no longer referred to life who deserved a choice.

  • ANON

    OOPS. Another double standard by the Schellinger campaign. I just saw another commercial where they stole another shot from a Long Thompson commercial. One SHE paid for. Where as her shots where of a public school taken by a photographer hired by her campaign for use in her own commercials. Talk about lack of integrity, not to mention the legal issue.

  • varangianguard

    No legal issue. Picture of candidate Long Thompson is public domain.

    I know this high-falutin’ thinkin’ is tuff fer some of y’all. But, do try and keep up, eh?

  • ANON

    So varangianguard. What you are saying is that Ford can use a shot from a Chevy commercial in their own ad without permission and without paying for it? I think there are a lot of copyright lawyers who would disagree with you. No difference here. The shots of Long Thompson were payed for her campaign, therefore they are her property. Schellinger didn’t pay for or ask for permission to use them. Schellinger started this when he sent a letter to Long Thompson telling them to stop using video of public schools that they (Long Thompson) payed to have shot. Which is totally legal. If he is so worried about infringments then why would he take her video.

    And another thing. Go to the Schenkel and Schultz web site and you will find this little tidbit: “after identifying many shared values and philosophies, SchenkelShultz and CSO Architects announced a “national strategic alliance with a focus on an Indiana merger and the consolidation of our Indianapolis offices.” Schellinger says that the schools weren’t design by CSO but by , well if that is the case then why were they on the CSO web site as schools designed by them. One way or the other he is lying. So if the schools were designed by SchenkelShultz before the merger than why were they on the CSO web site (and since removed) and if they were designed by CSO, as their web site stated, then why would Schellinger say they were designed by SchenkelShultz? Something’s rotten in Denmark (or is it Indiana?).

  • Robert-NW Side

    Would having a law against killing a fetus have discouraged that scumpuppy from shooting that woman? I think not.

    Isn’t the purpose of ‘laws’ and ‘punishment’ meant to discourage unwanted behavior?

    Since when do criminals obey the laws?

    This smacks of ‘feel-good’ legislation in the heat of the moment — kind of like the Patriot Act.

    Enacting such a law might add TIME to a persons sentence upon conviction, but it won’t do squat to protect a woman or her unborn baby.

  • rmann

    If not viable then are they trying actually cut in to abortion rights. Typical legislators trying to get in the headlines. Is this something that is so prevalent we need a law? Is there any doubt that the person who did this, if ever caught, will spend most if not all of the rest of his life in prison? Lets see robbery while armed causing serious bodily inury, robbery, attempted murder with a deadly weapon, and then go to federal court.