redh22htch

No? Not you?

redh22htch

U went to hayfield to and now you go to Nova

White Devil

Youre not thinking with your dipstick.... Jimmy.

http://www.photoshop.com/users/jimmy...133bdf698b169a

And no wonder you got pulled over... shitty-assed car probably pissed off the cop so much he had to get you off the road.

Computer_Nerd

POS DSM

The Abraham Lincoln School for Social Sciences of Chicago, Illinois was a "broad, nonpartisan school for workers, writers, and their sympathizers," aimed at the thousands of African-American workers who had migrated to Chicago from the American South during the 1930s and 1940s.[1][2]

It was founded by prominent civil rights activist and attorney William L. Patterson, who had organized the defense of the Scottsboro Boys.

The school was among the first to offer a jazz history course, taught by Frank Marshall Davis, in 1945. In April 1947, it sponsored “Chicago Salutes Paul Robeson” at the Civic Opera House, where Lena Horne and others paid tribute to famed singer and civil rights activist Paul Robeson. Robeson's outspoken support of civil rights and the labor movement, and criticism of American foreign policy, had led to government scrutiny and resulting in his blacklisting by many concert halls.[3]

Soon afterwards, the school was claimed to be an adjunct of the Communist Party USA by Attorney General Tom C. Clark in December 1947[4] and a target of HUAC during the years leading up to McCarthy Era.[5]

Faculty members included Morris Backall, Michael Baker, Frank Marshall Davis, Horace Davis, David Englestein, Morton Goldsholl, Pat Hoverder, Alfonso Iannelli, Leon Katzen, Ludwig Kruhe, Herschel Meyer, Henry Noyes, William L. Patterson, Fred Ptashne, Eleanore Redwin, Boris M. Revsine, Frank Sokolik, William Rose, Herman Schendel, Bernice Targ, and Morris Topchevsky. A notice appearing in a catalog of the school stated that "prominent citizens participating in our efforts" include Paul Robeson, Rockwell Kent, Lee Pressman, Howard Fast, Albert E. Kahn, and Henrietta Buckmaster.

White Devil

Floyd Allen

Born July 5, 1856
Carroll County, Virginia
Died March 28, 1913 (aged 56)
Conviction(s) Murder
Penalty Death
Status Executed by electrocution

Floyd Allen (July 5, 1856 – March 28, 1913) was an American landowner and patriarch of the Allen clan of Carroll County, Virginia. He was convicted and executed for murder in 1913 after a sensational courthouse shootout that left a judge, prosecutor, sheriff, and two others dead, although doubt has been expressed about the validity of the conviction.[1] He was accused with triggering the shooting at the Carroll County Courthouse in Hillsville, Virginia on March 14, 1912, in which five people were killed and seven wounded. The affair represents one of the rare incidents in American history when a criminal defendant attempted to avoid justice by assassinating the trial judge.

Contents
1 Early Life and Activity
2 Arrest of the Edwards Brothers
3 Trial and shooting
3.1 Investigation of the Shootout and Subsequent Trials
4 Aftermath
5 List of the dead and wounded
6 Cultural impact
7 References
8 External links

Early Life and Activity
Allen was born in 1856 and spent much of his life living in Cana, below Fancy Gap Mountain in Carroll County, Virginia. Floyd Allen was the chief patriarch of Carroll County's leading family, which in addition to owning large tracts of farmland and a prosperous general store, were also active in local politics, illegal liquor manufacture, and bootlegging. A fixture of the community, Floyd Allen was noted for his generosity, quick temper, and easily-injured pride.[2]

The Allens were proud Democrats and were active in local politics in Carroll County. As a result many of the Allens held local offices such as constable, deputy sheriff, tax collector, or deputy sheriff, and supported various political friends for office.[3]

Floyd had a history of violent altercations, including shooting a man in North Carolina, beating up a police officer in Mount Airy, and later shooting his own cousin.[3] In May 1889, Floyd's brothers, Garland and Sidna Allen, were tried for carrying concealed pistols and assaulting a group of thirteen men.[4] In July 1889 the Carroll County court indicted Floyd for assault as well, but in December of that year the Commonwealth's Attorney dropped the case.[5] In September 1889, after pleading no contest to the assault, Garland and Sidna were fined $5 each plus court costs, and the prosecutor dropped the weapons charges.[6]

Judge Robert C. Jackson, an attorney in Roanoke and Judge Thornton Massie's predecessor in the Carroll County courtroom, stated that "Floyd Allen was perhaps the worst man of the clan--overbearing, vindictive, high tempered, brutal, with no respect for law and little or no regard for human life. During my term of office Floyd Allen was several times charged with violations of law. In several instances he escaped indictment, I am satisfied, because the witnesses were afraid to testify to the facts before the grand jury."[6]

Judge Jackson recalled a trial in 1904 in which Floyd was convicted of assaulting a neighbor, Noah Combs.[1][6] That year,Floyd wanted to buy a farm owned by one of his brothers, but could not agree on a price.[1] Noah Combs wanted the land badly enough to pay the asking price and bought it despite Floyd’s warnings not to “butt in.”[1] Not long afterward Floyd shot Combs (who recovered), and was indicted and tried on charges of assault.[1] Sentenced by the jury to an hour in jail and a $100 fine, plus costs, Floyd immediately posted bail pending an appeal.[6] His defense team included former Commonwealth's Attorney Walter Tipton and recent County Court Judge Oglesby.[6] At the next term of court, Floyd produced a pardon from Governor Andrew J. Montague suspending the jail sentence.[6]

In another instance, arguing over the administration of their father's estate, Floyd Allen got into a gunfight with his own brother, Jasper (Jack) Allen, a local constable. In a fusillade of shots, Floyd hit Jack in the head, which struck a glancing blow on Jack's scalp, while one of Jack's bullets hit Floyd in the chest.[3] His pistol empty, Floyd proceeded to beat Jack with the butt of his empty revolver.[3] Sentenced to a $100 fine and one hour in jail for wounding his cousin, Floyd refused to go, saying that he "would never spend a minute in jail as long as the blood flowed through his veins".[7] Floyd's body bore the scars of thirteen bullet wounds, five of them inflicted in quarrels with his own family.[8]

Despite their history of violence, the Allens held considerable political power, and Floyd had a reputation for courage.[9] In 1908, while serving as special deputies, Floyd and H.C. (Henry) Allen, a relative of Floyd, were charged with unlawful assault upon prisoners held in their custody who had reportedly resisted arrest.[10] On February 1, 1908 the Allens were convicted of the charge and sentenced to ten days in jail and a fine of $10.[11] Only a month later, their petition for executive clemency was granted by Governor Claude A. Swanson, restoring their political rights to hold office.[12]

In 1910 Sidna Allen, Floyd's brother, was tried in the United States court at Greensboro, N. C., for making twenty-dollar counterfeit coins.[3] The federal court in Greensboro, North Carolina found him not guilty, while Sidna's alleged accomplice, Preston Dickens, was found guilty and sentenced to serve five years in federal prison.[5] Sidna was retried and found guilty of perjury in his trial testimony, and was sentenced to two years' imprisonment.[5][13] Sidna promptly appealed and gained a new trial on the perjury charge.[5][13] The next year, after the Allens complained that they could not expect justice from William Foster, the Republican Commonwealth Attorney of the county (who had recently switched parties), Judge Thornton L. Massie had appointed both Floyd and H. C. (Henry) Allen to the post of police officer for the New River section of the county.[14][15]

However, times were changing. Virginia's judicial structure was altered in a series of legal reforms, particularly the county court system, which was replaced by circuit courts. The new system appointed a full-time judge to hold court at scheduled intervals in a circuit of several counties. While the state legislature still appointed circuit judges, the new system reduced the ability of individual delegates to ensure that their own preferred judge was selected for their particular county. Furthermore, Judges could no longer practice law for private clients while on the bench, and as regional judges their susceptibility to local influence and public opinion was reduced.[6]

Arrest of the Edwards Brothers
One night in December 1910 (some sources[1] say 1911), two of Allen's nephews, Wesley Edwards and Sidna Edwards, attended a corn shucking bee in Hillsville. While there, Wesley kissed a girl who was romantically linked to a local youth, Will Thomas. This soon led to an altercation between Thomas and Edwards. At a church service the next morning conducted by Wesley Edwards' uncle, Garland Allen, Will Thomas reportedly called out Wesley Edwards into a fight. According to Wesley Edwards, Thomas and three friends assaulted him and he defended himself with the help of his brother Sidna, who rushed to join the fight. Following a complaint lodged by Wesley Edwards' father, George, Wesley and his brother Sidna Edwards were charged with disorderly conduct, assault with a deadly weapon, disturbing a public worship service, and other violations.[16] Rather than face arrest, the two men fled over the state line to Mt. Airy in Surry County, North Carolina, where they found jobs in a granite quarry. The Deputy Clerk of Carroll County, Dexter Goad, obtained a new warrant for the brothers' arrest, notifying the sheriff in Surry County, who soon arrested both men. Deputy Clerk Goad then sent a deputy (Thomas F. Samuel) with a driver (Peter Easter) to the North Carolina border to receive the Edwards brothers.

Upon reaching the state line, Deputy Thomas F. Samuel and Peter Easter traveled in Easter's four-seater buggy to the state line and received the Edwards boys from Sheriff Haynes and Deputy Oscar Monday, who had arrested the brothers at work.[17] There was only one set of handcuffs, and because Sidna Edwards had tried to escape a couple of times, Wesley was handcuffed in the front seat of the buggy beside Easter and Sidna was tied in the back seat beside Samuel.[17] On the way to the courthouse, the buggy passed by several properties owned by the Allens.[3] Floyd Allen met the buggy south of Sidna Allen's home as he was on the way to his own home.[13] Deputy Samuel pulled a gun (later determined to be inoperative) and ordered Floyd to move away, and Floyd rode back past the buggy to Sidna's store where he then blocked the narrow road with his mare.[13] Samuel again pulled his gun on Floyd. A fight ensued and Floyd beat Samuel with his own pistol.[13] Wesley Edwards tried to grapple with Easter, but Easter got away and fired a shot at Floyd as he did so, wounding Floyd in the finger.[13] Floyd then released the Edwards brothers. Easter escaped on foot to the home of an acquaintance, where he telephoned the sheriff at Hillsville.[13] Deputy Samuel was left lying unconscious in a ditch, and his horses were run off.[18] Floyd Allen later stated that he never intended to have the boys set completely free, he just wanted them to be released from their manacles and treated as humans instead of animals. Some[who?] say that the boys were not only manacled but being dragged behind the buggy.

On the following Monday, Wesley and Sidna Edwards were turned over to the court by Floyd Allen, and the two Edwards brothers were soon tried and convicted of their crimes. Wesley was sentenced to sixty days and his brother thirty, which were served outside jail on work-release. Floyd Allen, Sidna Allen, and Barnett Allen were all indicted for interfering with the deputies, and Floyd Allen was indicted for assault and battery. Sidna Allen was never tried for his part in the altercation, while Barnett was tried and acquitted. Floyd Allen's case was set for trial.

Shortly before trial, a rumor that the Allens were intimidating witnesses was called to the attention of the court. Judge Massie called Constable Jack Allen and Floyd Allen to the bar and proceeded to question them about the alleged intimidation. Jack Allen denied all responsibility for the allegations of intimidation, which he stated were not true and both he and Floyd were not guilty of any wrongdoing. In response, the judge told the two men that if the law could not be enforced in Carroll County by the county officers (meaning Jack and Floyd) that he would get rid of the officers and bring in state troops if necessary to maintain order. A witness later testified that Floyd Allen had remarked that he "would not let any man talk to me that way."[19]

Trial and shooting
After close to a year of delays, Floyd was finally brought to trial on March 12, 1912. The trial was presided over by Judge Thornton L. Massie, the same judge who had appointed Floyd to the post of county police officer six months before. Floyd Allen was well represented by a team of two attorneys, Walter Scott Tipton and David Winton Bolen, both of whom were retired Carroll County judges.

Rumors arose in the community that Floyd Allen had reportedly sent word to Deputy Samuel that he would kill Samuel if the deputy testified against him. Allen later denied this, but the threat, whoever sent it, was sufficient to cause Deputy Samuel to leave the state the same night the threat was delivered.[20]

Samuel's departure forced the state's Commonwealth's Attorney (prosecutor) William M. Foster to rely on testimony from Deputy Easter. Foster had been Commonwealth’s Attorney of Carroll County for eight years, having been first elected on the Democratic ticket. Later, he changed to the Republican party, and by 1912 was a prominent leader in the GOP in Carroll County, being elected the last time on the Republican ticket. Foster was a political enemy of the Allens, as they had supported Constable Jack Allen's son Walter as Democratic candidate for Commonwealth's Attorney against Foster in the last election last (Walter had lost in a bitterly-fought race).[21] In the grand jury testimony, Floyd Allen admitted 'roughing up' Samuel, but not with the intent of releasing the prisoners: "That there Samuel[s] was abusing the boys. He had them handcuffed and tied up with a rope. I just can't bear to see anyone drug around."[20]

Fearful of the Allens' reaction, and having received death threats, many officials of the court armed themselves. At least two of the participants, Judge Massie and Sheriff Webb, had told friends that they expected trouble. There were many of the Allen clan among the spectators in the courtroom, most of them armed with pistols. Sidna Allen and Claud Allen were in the northeast corner of the courtroom, standing on benches to see over the crowd. Friel Allen sat in the back of the room, and the Edwards boys stood on benches next to the north wall. When the jury returned a guilty verdict against Floyd, sentencing him to one year in the penitentiary, Floyd Allen is reported to have said to Judge Massie: "If you sentence me on that verdict, I will kill you."[22] Judge Massie at once proceeded to sentence Floyd to one years' imprisonment.[22]

According to Floyd Allen's defense attorney, David Winton Bolen, "[Floyd] hesitated a moment, and then he arose...He looked to me like a man who was about to say something, and had hardly made up his mind what he was going to say, but as he got straight, he moved off to my left, I would say five or six feet, and he seemed to gain his speech, and he said something like this, 'I just tell you, I ain't a'going.'"[17][23] At this point, shots broke out in the courtroom.

Accounts differ as to who actually fired the first shot. Many accounts claim that Allen initiated the confrontation by pulling a gun in court. In his defense testimony, Floyd Allen stated that Sheriff Lew F. Webb fired first, but that the shot missed Allen, at which point Deputy Clerk Goad, the Clerk of Court, fired and hit Allen, causing him to fall. (When Floyd fell, wounded, he landed on top of his lawyer David Bolen, who is reported to have said, “Floyd, they are going to kill me shooting at you!”)[1] Floyd Allen stated that only then did he draw his own revolver and begin shooting. After a fusillade of shots, the Allen clan left the courthouse, armed with both pistols and 12-gauge pump shotguns, and shooting as they ran.

Judge Massie, Sheriff Webb, Commonwealth's Attorney Foster, the jury foreman (Augustus C. Fowler), and a nineteen-year old girl (Elizabeth Ayers) were all hit and died of their wounds sustained in the crossfire. More than fifty bullets were later recovered from the shooting scene. Elizabeth Ayers, a subpoenaed witness who had testified against Floyd Allen, was shot in the back while trying to leave the courtroom, and died the next day.[24] Seven others were wounded, including Deputy Clerk Goad and Floyd Allen. Floyd, wounded too badly in the hip, thigh and knee to leave town, instead spent the night in the Elliott Hotel accompanied by his eldest son, Victor, who was later found not to have been involved in the shootout. Upon his arrest by deputies at the hotel, Floyd attempted to slash his own throat with a pocketknife, but was overpowered before he could complete the job.[25]

Virginia law held that when a sheriff died his deputies lost all legal powers, so Carroll County was left without law enforcement by the shooting. Recognizing the need for immediate action, Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney S. Floyd Landreth sent a telegram to Democratic Governor William Hodges Mann which read:

Send troops to the County of Carroll at once. Mob violence, the court. Commonwealth's Attorney, Sheriff, some jurors and others shot on the conviction of Floyd Allen for a felony. Sheriff and Commonwealth's Attorney dead, court serious. Look after this now.[1]

Governor Mann immediately called on the Baldwin-Felts Detective Agency to find those responsible for the shootings and arrest them. Rewards ($1000 for Sidna Allen, $1000 for Sidna Edwards, $800 for Claude Allen, $500 for Friel Allen, and $500 for Wesley Edwards) - dead or alive - were posted by the State of Virginia.[26] Within a month, all parties were in custody, save for Sidna Allen and Wesley Edwards. A manhunt then commenced for the remaining Allen fugitives, and several posses of detectives and local deputies searched the surrounding countryside. The U.S. Revenue Service sent an agent, Deputy Agent Faddis, to investigate reports of illegal liquor trafficking by the Allens.[27] Agent Faddis and four men raided Floyd Allen's property, seizing illegal stills and fifty gallons of moonshine.[27] Two more illegal stills were found at Sidna Edwards' house.[27]

Claud Allen and Sidna Edwards were placed into custody after a brief search. Friel Allen gave himself to detectives in the company of his father Jack Allen, who was apparently concerned his son might be killed while being apprehended. However, Sidna Allen and his nephew Wesley Edwards fled the state. After several months' chase, the two were located by Baldwin-Felts detectives in Iowa after a tip from an informant. Sidna Allen maintained until the end of his life that this informant was Maude Iroller, Wesley's fiancee, who provided information on the fugitives' location in exchange for $500 from the detective agency. Others state that Miss Iroller’s father, who had never approved of his daughter’s romance with Wesley Edwards, tipped off the detectives that Maude was going to Des Moines to marry him. Knowing the two men were now in Des Moines, Baldwin-Felts detectives soon located the men, arrested them, and returned them to Carroll County to stand trial.

Investigation of the Shootout and Subsequent Trials
Floyd Allen was the first to be brought to trial on a charge of murdering Judge Massie, Sheriff Webb, and Commonwealth's Attorney Foster. Judge W.R. Staples presided over the courthouse shooting trials, which were prosecuted by State's Attorney General Samuel W. Williams. The prosecutor's case was based on the formation of a conspiracy by the Allens to kill the trial judge, local law enforcement, and others who had wronged them in the event of a guilty verdict. J. E. Kearn, a travelling salesman from Roanoke, testified to having sold Sidna Allen a lot of ammunition at the March term of the Hillsville court. He sold the defendant 500 each of .32 and .38 caliber pistol cartridges and 500 12-gauge shotgun shells.[28]

There remains considerable dispute even today over who fired the first shot.[1] The prosecution attempted to show that Floyd and Claud Allen prompted the gun battle by standing and pulling their pistols and opening fire. One of the prosecution's witnesses was none other than attorney Walter S. Tipton, who was in the court at the time of the shooting, and was representing Floyd Allen at the time. Tipton testified to seeing Claude Allen in the court house and saw him with a pistol raised in both hands as if he had just fired it. Looking at him the second time he again saw Floyd with his pistol raised, and holding it in both hands, saw Floyd Allen fire his pistol.[29]

For their part, Floyd Allen and his relatives claimed that it was Deputy Clerk Dexter Goad who fired first, prompted by a long-standing vendetta he and Foster held against the family. The defense next attempted to show that Deputy Clerk Goad shot Elizabeth Ayers in his exchange of fire with the Allens, a charge Goad denied.[30] Years later, an allegation surfaced that Deputy Clerk H.C. Quesinberry confessed on his deathbed to starting the shooting; two men swore an affidavit to that effect in 1967 (for which each man was reportedly paid $25.00).[1] Others hold that the hearsay affidavit, made years after the event transpired, is worthless, and that Floyd Allen probably began the shooting.[1] Still others claim that Sheriff Webb accidentally discharged his own revolver, instigating the fusillade.

Former judge David Winton Bolen, who had been present during the shooting as one of Floyd Allen's defense attorneys, was the first witness examined by the prosecution at Floyd Allen's murder trial. Bolen had been standing next to Floyd Allen, and was facing Judge Massie when the first shots struck the judge's robes. Bolen testified that the first shot fired was by Claud Allen, and that Claud Allen's pistol shot, together with a second shot fired by Sidna Allen killed Judge Massie.[31]

Yet another lawyer who witnessed the shooting, W.A. Daugherty of Pikeville, stated that several young men were standing on court benches at the back of the room firing their pistols "like Custer's cavalrymen at the Little Big Horn".[32]

In his testimony at his murder trial, Floyd Allen admitted that he had fired at Deputy Clerk H.C. Quesinberry and again twice more at other unknown persons once he had left the courthouse.[33]

Deputy Sheriff George W. Edwards, who became the sheriff of Carroll County after Sheriff Webb's death, was a deputy sheriff at the time of the shooting. He testified that in a conversation with Floyd Allen just after he been indicted, Floyd said that Commonwealth's Attorney Foster would not give him a show; but that if he did not there would be a "big hole put in the court house." The next witness was Sidney Towe, who largely corroborated the testimony of Sheriff Edwards, his statements being along the same line. On a different occasion, he heard Floyd Allen make the same threat of putting the biggest hole in the court house that any man ever had seen.[34]

By his own admission in court, Deputy Clerk Dexter Goad fired the second shot at Floyd, striking him in the pelvis. His stated reason was that he thought Floyd's fumbling with his sweater buttons was a prelude to drawing his pistol. However, he denied firing the first shot in the fusillade.[34] Though wounded by four bullets himself, Goad recovered.

S. E. Gardner, a Hillsville undertaker who prepared the body of Sheriff Webb for burial, testified that the Sheriff was shot no less than five times. One bullet entered the back and ranged upward, lodging directly under the collarbone. A second shot entered the back about four inches lower, while a third shot cut the sheriff across the chin. Another entered the body at the cap of the left hip and passed through the abdomen. The last and fifth shot went into the calf of the leg and when his trousers were removed, a .32 caliber bullet was discovered.

Attorney Howard C. Gilmer, of Pulaski Virginia, was at Hillsville Courthouse at the time of the sentencing. He was in a room adjoining Judge Massie's courtroom when the shooting broke out.[34] Gilmer testified he heard two shots in quick succession, after which there was a slight interval and then a great volley of firing.[34] He also testified that he saw the crowd come out of the court house, and recognized Floyd and Sidna as the last to leave the court room, both of them following and firing as they backed out, apparently in response to fire coming from within the courthouse.[34] Gilmer stated he heard Floyd Allen say two or three times, "I am shot, but I got the damn scoundrel."[34]

County Treasurer J. B. Marshall testified that when the shooting started he turned to escape the courthouse. After getting down the steps he leaned against the window of his office when two girls, Dora and Elizabeth Ayers, passed him.[35] He testified that one of the girls pointed out some of the Allens leaving the court house, when Sidna Allen came toward him, pointed his pistol toward him, and fired.[35] Marshall then related that Sidna Allen's bullet buried itself in the window about six inches above his head.[35] Marshall also testified before leaving the court room he was standing near Sheriff Webb, but did not see any pistol in the Sheriff's hand.[35]

A witness to the courtroom shooting, Walter Petty, also testified that the first shots were fired from the northeast corner of the courtroom, where Claud Allen was standing, and that he witnessed a pistol duel between Sidna Allen and Deputy Clerk Dexter Goad.[36]

At Claude Allen's trial for the murder of Commonwealth's Attorney Foster, Judge David W. Bolen was again the star witness for the prosecution. Judge Bolen confirmed his prior testimony that he saw Claud Allen fire the first shot at Judge Massie from the northeast corner of the court room, whereupon Claud advanced in the direction of the court officers to where Commonwealth's Attorney Foster was standing.[37]

For his part, Claud Allen admitted to firing his pistol while in the courtroom.[38] Claud testified that he saw Sidna Allen firing just about the time he saw Deputy Clerk Goad fire.[38]

According to Victor Allen, whose pistol was used in the courthouse shooting, he saw Wesley Edwards from outside the courtroom firing a revolver through the courthouse window and over the heads of spectators just after the shooting began, and later saw him run from the courthouse together with Sidna Allen. Victor Allen also asserted that Claud's shooting must have done with his gun, since Claud had taken possession of Victor's handgun as the two were leaving their hotel in Hillsville on the morning of the tragedy. Claud Allen verified this part of Victor's testimony.[38]

Sidna Edwards testified that he was not armed the day of the shooting and that he did not like to carry guns.[39] Sidna Edwards denied firing a gun during the courthouse shootings, and stated that he did not see who fired the first shot, but thought that it came from the vicinity of Deputy Clerk Goad's desk.[26] Sidna Edwards had scalded his foot some years before and was partially lame, and limped out of the courthouse, riding his mother's horse back to his home.[26]

Sidna Allen denied that he shot Judge Massie, or that he fired at Commonwealth's Attorney Foster, Sheriff Webb, or at Juror Fowler.[40] Sidna claimed that when the shooting commenced, he drew his own revolver and fired five times at Deputy Clerk Goad and Deputy Sheriff Gillespie, for the reason that both men were firing at him. After shooting five times he dropped to his knees and reloaded his revolver.[40] Sidna stated that when he left the courthouse, Deputy Clerk Goad followed behind him, shooting him through the left arm, the bullet lodging in his left side.[40] He stated that he fired back at Goad on the court house steps, but denied shooting at Treasurer J. B. Marshall.[40] After the shooting Sidna stated that he went to Blankenship’s Livery Stable, where he met the other members of the family, leaving Hillsville in the company of Claude Allen, Wesley Edwards, and Sidna Edwards.[40] They did not travel the public roads, but returned to their homes by traveling cross-country through the farm fields.[40] Sidna Allen later left the state in the company of Wesley Edwards, eventually reaching Des Moines, Iowa.

Aftermath
Floyd Allen was tried for the first-degree murder of Commonwealth's Attorney Foster. On May 18, 1912, Floyd Allen was found guilty by the jury. His stoic exterior gone, Floyd Allen wept freely as the verdict was read.[41] In July 1912, after three separate trials, Claud Allen was convicted of first-degree murder for the killing of Commonwealth's Attorney Foster, and for second-degree murder for the killing of Judge Massie.[42]

For their roles in the shooting, Floyd and Claude Allen were sentenced to death by electrocution.[43] Sidna Allen received a total of 35 years in prison for the voluntary manslaughter of Commonwealth's Attorney Foster, and for second-degree murder of Judge Massie. Sidna Allen also pled guilty to second-degree murder for the shooting of Sheriff Webb, and was sentenced to 18 years' imprisonment. Wesley Edwards drew nine years for each count of murder for the slaying of Foster, Massie, and Webb for a total of 27 years' imprisonment. Sidna Edwards pled guilty in August 1912 to second-degree murder, and was sentenced to 15 years in the penitentiary. Friel Allen was tried in August 1912 and after confessing to shooting Foster, was sentenced to 18 years in prison. Friel Allen and Sidna Edwards were pardoned by Democratic Governor Elbert Lee Trinkle in 1922, while Sidna Allen and Wesley Edwards were pardoned by Governor Trinkle in 1926.[44] Victor Allen and Barnett Allen were acquitted. Burden "Byrd" Marion, a cousin and neighbor, had all charges against him dropped. Accounts differ as to whether this was for a lack of evidence, or because Marion became a state's witness and admitted his role in aiding the Allens.[45][46] Shortly after the Allen trials, law enforcement officers found a still in an old house on Burden Marion's farm, and he was arrested for making illegal liquor. He was tried in federal court, found guilty, and sentenced to a year in federal prison at Moundsville, West Virginia. He began his sentence in August 1913, and died (officially) of pneumonia in prison on November 25, 1913.[47]

Allen's death sentence was deeply unpopular with Allen supporters in the county, but many other residents were shocked by the deaths of so many people over Floyd Allen's refusal to serve a year in prison, and were not sympathetic. Governor Mann, who had received death threats in the same handwriting as the threats previously delivered to the trial judge, had to cut short a trip to Pennsylvania after learning his Lieutenant Governor, James Taylor Ellyson (1847–1919), had attempted to commute the Allens' sentences in his absence, instigating a brief constitutional power struggle between the two men.[8] Governor Mann refused a request to commute the death sentences to life imprisonment, and Floyd Allen was electrocuted on March 28, 1913 at 1:20PM, with his son going to the electric chair eleven minutes later.[8]

After a public display of the bodies at Biyle’s Funeral Parlor, the Allens were buried in the Wisler Cemetery in Cana, Virginia. For years it was alleged that the men were buried under a headstone that read in part, "Judicially Murdered By The State Of Virginia Over The Protests Of More Than 100,000 Of Its Citizens." However, photographic proof of this headstone inscription has never surfaced, though hundreds of photos exist of other items relating to the event, and despite a reward offered for a photograph of the inscription.

The Carroll County prosecutor placed liens on all property owned by Floyd and Sidna Allen for the heirs of the victims.[27] As a result of three wrongful death lawsuits by the victims' estates and survivors, the property of Sidna and Floyd Allen was confiscated and sold at auction, forcing Sidna Allen's wife and two small daughters to live in rented quarters and work at menial jobs until Sidna's pardon. Floyd Allen's son, Victor, bought his father's house so that his mother would not have to move. In 1921, however, he moved his family to Tabernacle, New Jersey.

Floyd Allen's brother Jasper (Jack) Allen lost his job as constable as a result of the Hillsville shooting, but that did not end matters. On March 17, 1916, Jack Allen had stopped for the night in a roadhouse near Mt. Airy, North Carolina where he encountered Will McGraw, a moonshine hauler.[17][45][48][49] A dispute between McGraw and Jack Allen arose about the Hillsville tragedy and during the confrontation McGraw drew a gun and shot Allen twice, killing him on the spot.[45][49] Jack Allen was buried near his home in Carroll County, in the presence of a thousand mourners.[49]
[edit] List of the dead and wounded

Dead

Thornton Lemmon Massie, judge
Lewis Franklin Webb, Carroll County sheriff
William McDonald Foster, Commonwealth's Attorney
Augustus Cezar Fowler, juror
Nancy Elizabeth Ayres, witness



Wounded

Floyd Allen, defendant
Sidna Allen, defendant
Dexter Goad, Clerk of Court
Christopher Columbus Cain, juror
Andrew T. Howlett, spectator
Elihue Clark Gillespie, Deputy
Stuart Worrell, spectator

Cultural impact
Both Claude and Sidna Allen were the subject of ballads for their actions; Sidna was referred to as "Sidney".[50] In addition, Virginia State Senator Joseph T. Fitzpatrick reportedly once wrote the screenplay for a film based on the case.

The Sidna Allen House still stands in Fancy Gap, Virginia; it is listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

Stea1thy

What Is ACTA And Why Is It A Problem?
from the a-little-explainer dept
Yesterday I noted that the anti-SOPA/PIPA crowd seemed to have just discovered ACTA. And while I'm pleased that they're taking interest in something as problematic as ACTA, there was a lot of misinformation flowing around, so I figured that, similar to my "definitive" explainer posts on why SOPA/PIPA were bad bills (and the followup for the amended versions), I thought I'd do a short post on ACTA to hopefully clarify some of what's been floating around.

First off, ACTA, unlike SOPA/PIPA, is not "a law." It's a trade agreement, in which a variety of countries agree to deal with intellectual property infringement in a similar fashion. It does have some similarities to SOPA/PIPA -- such as the conflation of counterfeiting physical goods with digital copyright infringement. This is a very common tactic for folks trying to pass massively draconian, expansionary, copyright laws. You lump them in with physical counterfeiting for two key reasons: (1) If you include physical counterfeiting, even thought it's a relatively small issue, you can talk about fake drugs and military equipment that kill people -- so you can create a moral panic. (2) You can then use the (questionable) large numbers about digital copyright infringement, and then lump those two things together, so you can claim both "big and a danger to health." Without counterfeiting, the "danger" part is missing. Without copyright, the "big" part is missing. The fact that these are two extremely different issues with extremely different possible solutions, becomes a minor fact that gets left on the side of the road.

Unfortunately, much of the information and fear-mongering about ACTA is extremely dated. People are asking me why the text of ACTA is hidden away as a state secret. Yes, during negotiations, there was an insane amount of secrecy -- much more than is standard. But the final text of ACTA has been public for quite some time now. We can complain about the process, but saying that the document is still secret is false.

Unfortunately, so much of the focus on ACTA was about the secrecy of the process, and the lack of actual stakeholders being involved (entertainment industry and pharma lobbyists had full access... everyone else? Not so much.), that the actual problems with the agreement have been clouded over. It is worth noting that the final ACTA text was very much improved from what was leaked out early on. In fact, it seems clear that, despite the attempts at secrecy, the fact that the document kept leaking really did help pressure negotiators to temper some of the "worst of the worst" in ACTA.

For example, ACTA initially tried to establish much stronger secondary liability for ISPs, including effectively requiring a "graduated response" or "three strikes" plan for ISPs, that would require them to kick people accused (not convicted) of infringement multiple times offline. One of the key problems with ACTA has been how broadly worded it is and how open to interpretation it is. For an agreement whose sole purpose is supposed to be to clarify processes, the fact that it's so wide open to interpretation (with some interpretations potentially causing significant legal problems) seems like a big issue. For example, while the original draft never directly required a three strikes program, it required some form of secondary liability measures, and the only example of a program that would mitigate such liability was... a three strikes program. To put it more simply, it basically said all signers need to do something to help out the entertainment industry, and one example is a three strikes program. No other examples are listed. Then they could pretend that it doesn't mandate such a program, but leaves little choice for signing countries other than to implement such a thing. However, thankfully, that provision was struck out from the final copy.

So why is ACTA problematic?
While it probably does not change US law (with some possible exceptions, especially in the realm of patents), it certainly does function to lock in US law, in a rapidly changing area of law, where specifics are far from settled. Supporters of ACTA continue to insist that not only does it not change US law, but that it cannot change US law, since it's an "executive agreement" rather than a treaty (more on that later). The reality, however, is that to be in compliance with this agreement, the US needs to retain certain parts of copyright law that many reformers believe should be changed. At the very least, it ties Congress' hands, if we want to be in compliance with our "international obligations."

An example of this is on the question of inducement theory for copyright law. Within copyright law there is direct infringement (you did the infringement) and indirect or secondary infringement (you had a hand in making someone else infringe). In general we should be wary of secondary liability issues, because they can create chilling effects for new innovations. It's why the Supreme Court allowed the VCR to exist, despite the fact that it enabled infringement. Contributory infringement (in which you're more actively involved) has been illegal, but there has been some question about inducing infringement (i.e., leading or pushing others into infringing). There was an attempt by Congress nearly a decade ago, under the INDUCE Act, to make inducement a violation of copyright law, but it failed to go anywhere in Congress. Of course, the Supreme Court then stepped in with its Grokster decision that made up (pretty much out of thin air) a standard for "inducement" to be a violation of the law.

Normally, if Congress decides the Supreme Court got something wrong, it can pass a law to clarify. However, under the terms of ACTA, countries need to consider inducement a violation of copyright law. There's no way to read this other than to tie Congress' hands on the question of inducement. That's a big issue because we're still sorting through the true impact of considering inducement as against the law. I know it's tough to believe Congress could ever push back on ever more draconian copyright law, but with the SOPA/PIPA backlash, there's at least a sliver of hope that some are aware that these issues impact innovation. Should Congress realize that greater liability through inducement is a mistake, under ACTA, their hands are mostly tied if they want to fix it. That's a problem.

Beyond just locking in parts of copyright law, ACTA also expands it. First, it takes things that would normally be considered non-commercial file sharing (which is potentially against the law), and turns it into commercial scale criminal infringement. Similarly, it appears to broaden the definitions around inducement/secondary liability to make what had been a civil (between two private parties) issue into criminal aiding and abetting. Basically, there are parts of ACTA that effectively seek to take what would normally be civil infringements, dealt with between two private parties, and allow the entertainment industry to offload the policing to government law enforcement (paid for by tax payers) and leading to a higher likelihood of jail time.

Copyright law is, by its very nature, a bundle of forces -- some that incentivize good behavior, and some that are bad. There should be no question that copyright has some good effects and some bad effects. The real question is in weighing the good and the bad and making sure that that the bad don't outweigh the good. Often, copyright law has used exceptions (fair use, public domain, de minimus use, first sale, etc.) to act as a "safety valve" in an attempt to make sure the bad doesn't outweigh the good.

However, ACTA pretends that copyright is only good and there's no need to minimize the bad effects. That is, it only talks about the enforcement side, and completely ignores the necessary exceptions to copyright law that make it function. Basically, it exports the punishments from the US, but leaves out the safety valves. That's pretty scary. It may be (well, not really) okay in the US where fair use is clearly established, but most other countries don't have fair use at all (if they have anything, it's a much weaker system known as "fair dealing"). Exporting strict enforcement without exceptions is dangerous and will lead to unnecessary limitations on creativity and speech.

There are serious health risks associated with ACTA, especially in the developing world. In this case, Europe pushed strongly to include patents under ACTA (something the US actually preferred to leave out). This has complicated matters for some countries. Under existing international agreements, countries can ignore pharmaceutical patents to deal with health emergencies. That is, if you have an outbreak and need a drug that pharmaceutical companies are unwilling to supply at a reasonable price, governments can break the patent and produce their own. That becomes much more difficult under ACTA, which could be a real threat to health around the globe.

Similarly, there are very reasonable concerns that ACTA will be used to crack down, not on actual counterfeit medicines, but on "grey market" drugs -- generic, but legal, copies of medicines. Some European nations, for example, already have a history of seizing shipments of perfectly legal generic drugs in passage to somewhere else. For example, say that a pharmaceutical company in India is shipping drugs to Brazil that are legal in both countries. However, those drugs violate a patent in Europe. If, during transit, those drugs pass through Europe, customs agents may seize them. That's already been happening, but the fear is that there's greater power to do so under ACTA.

ACTA presents certain requirements for border patrol agents in determining what is and what is not infringing. This is a big issue for a variety of reasons. First, as we've seen in the US, ICE/border patrol isn't very good at figuring out what is and what is not infringing. Traditionally, there are significant questions of fact to be explored in determining if something is infringing, but under ACTA, border patrol often will be in a position to make a snap decision. Believe it or not, Homeland Security itself was worried about ACTA, because of fears that it would actually make it more difficult to be effective on intellectual property issues -- and might require them to spend more time trying to figure out if something is infringing, rather than if there's a terrorist trying to get into the country.

Again, while ACTA supporters insist that it won't require changes to US law, there are a few parts of ACTA that are so vague that you can definitely see how they could be interpreted to require changes to US law. One key example is where certain kinds of patent infringement cases protect against either injunctions or damages... whereas ACTA would require one or the other.

Even the signing parties don't agree on the purpose, scope and nature of ACTA. This may be the scariest part. Part of the debate in the US is over the USTR and President Obama's claim that ACTA is not a binding treaty, but rather a sole executive agreement that doesn't need Congressional approval. Many believe that this is unconstitutional, and Senator Ron Wyden has asked the President to explain what certainly appears to be a violation of the Constitution. However, over in Europe, they're insisting that it is a binding treaty. The US, on the other hand, has already said that it can ignore anything it doesn't like in ACTA. If you think that's a recipe for an international problem, you get a gold star.

Finally, international trade agreements are a favorite tool of the copyright maximalist. You see it all the time. If they can't pass legislation they want, they resort to getting these things put into international trade agreements, which get significantly less scrutiny. This also allows for two tricks: the first is leapfrogging, where you get each country to implement the laws required by these agreements in slightly different ways, and then push other countries to match (or better yet, exceed) the rules in the other countries to stay in compliance. Then you use those agreements to demand the same thing from other countries to "harmonize" international laws. It's already been admitted that ACTA was done outside of existing structures for IP-related international agreements (like WIPO and the WTO) because a few countries wanted to negotiate it without input from Brazil, Russia, India and China... but the plan has always been to get ACTA approved, and then pressure those other countries to join.

The sneaky part is that once you have some of these "international obligations," it's almost impossible to get out of them. Copyright maximalists love to shout about how we must absolutely respect our "international obligations" on these kinds of treaties, to limit the government's ability to fix copyright law.
All that said, for folks who have just discovered ACTA, it's important to note that this is pretty much done. Many of the countries involved, including the US, have already signed on, and ACTA will go into effect soon (even if the other countries don't sign on). It's a bad agreement, but it's pretty late in the ball game to step in. If the EU can be convinced not to sign, that would be a big deal, but at this late stage, that seems unlikely.

In the meantime, for folks who are just getting up to speed on ACTA, you really should turn your attention to the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (TPP), which is basically ACTA on steroids. It's being kept even more secret than ACTA, and appears to have provisions that are significantly worse than ACTA -- in some cases, with ridiculous, purely protectionist ideas, that are quite dangerous.

knitemare

Defend yourself, ask the cop a few of the usual questions. "What was the weather like, where did you pull me over, what time was it, why did you pull me over". You want to prove his credibility, so that later on if he can't answer a simple question, it's all revoked. Then when he answers that he pulled you over for running a stop sign, ask him to define running a stop sign, he's gonna tell you your car must come to a full and complete stop or something among those lines.

Ask him if your car came to a full and complete stop, he should say no (duh). Ask him how he knew you hadn't fully stopped, but lead him to mention your car tires. Something among the lines of "officer, did my wheels stop revolving, and rest at a stop." or something among that.

However you word it, you need him to admit to watching your wheels continue to move. Then ask him what color your rims were, and to describe them. He's not going to remember which dismisses his credibility that he actually saw you roll through a stop sign. After all, if he saw your wheels and they never actually stopped moving, he was looking right at them. You could argue that the body of your car is still in motion even after your wheels have stopped moving.

I'd also recommend that before you move for the kill you try to get the cop to admit noticing one or more of your violations before he pulled you, ask him if he noticed anything wrong with your car or illegal about it before he saw you run the stop sign. Also make sure you always word it so that he is claiming you ran the stop sign don't admit to it (duh again). if he does it just helps that the stop sign was him fishing for tickets.

I'm not a lawyer, this isn't fool proof, but it's a pretty good defense, a friend of mine had a rolling stop violation and we came up with this, he got off of it but I think it was more because the judge got a chuckle out of it, or maybe just because it showed that he was prepared.

I'm not advising law breaking or anything, but neighborhood stop signs should mostly be yield signs anyways in my book. Drive smarter and good luck in court. A lawyer is going to cost you more than it's worth.

Lord Humongous

Stfu.

Computer_Nerd

no. trying to escape justice on a technicality or ignorance weakens the entire system to the point of oj simpson madness.