Bond denied in cabbie's slaying

The Chicago Tribune ^ | February 7, 2005 | Jeff Coen

[ConservativeStatement]

A 37-year-old Chicago city worker and AIDS activist was denied bond today on charges he killed a taxi driver by repeatedly driving the man's cab over him after a quarrel. (Michael) Jackson is a policy and communications specialist for the Chicago Department of Public Health. City officials have said that given the criminal charges pending against Jackson, they were moving to fire him.

[ConservativeStatement]

Another Michael Jackson in trouble.

[truth_seeker]

Faggot?

[GW and Twins Pawpaw]

What makes you think that??:-)

[Abathar]

I like that, short and strait to the point. And yes, probably.

[monkeywrench]

I thought 'gay?' after reading only this short excerpt, too. I reread it to make sure there was nothing in the excerpt that implied it, and there wasn't. I think it's the run-over-repeatedly part that did it. It's like a homicidal hissy fit. It's so gay. Not that there's anything wrong with that...

[taxesareforever]

City officials have said that given the criminal charges pending against Jackson, they were moving to fire him.

Well we will just have to see what Jesse Jackson has to say about that.

[AmericanChef]

-AIDS activist...for the Chicago Department of Public Health-

OK, is he spreading the disease through "word of mouth", or what?

And...WHY HAVEN'T THEY FIRED HIM YET??? Never mind, I already know.

[Tacis]

A tinkerbell was my thought, as well and working for the city, probably a tinkerbell of color, at that and, maybe, a distributor of some of Presidente Fox's finest as well. Let's see if Jesse Jackson (possibly, a relative) comes to his rescue.

[PAR35]

nothing in the excerpt that implied it,

Either you didn't read it as closely the second time as you did the first, or you have had too much indoctrination in being politically correct.

"AIDS activist" Come on, how many straight male 'AIDS activists' have you run across.

[monkeywrench]

2.

[supercat]

WLS played sound clips of this guy's lawyer, claiming "self-defense". Can anyone who's had self-defense training explain the circumstances in which self-defense would require running over someone with that person's car three times? Once I could see, maybe, in extreme circumstances (though the circumstances would have to be pretty weird to justify taking the other person's car). But thrice!?