Unqualified Critic: SUSAN K
Susan K. Imperatrice, aka Susan K., does hatchet pieces for Bill Taylor’s local radio station. She claims to be a champion for citizens, especially in the criminal justice arena.
In truth, Susan K.’s expertise about the criminal justice system is not the result of education, but experience.
On June 23, 1999, Susan Kay Imperatrice, was one (Defendant “C” ) of six people indicted by the Arizona State Grand Jury in Maricopa County Superior Court case number CR 99-08878, (State Grand Jury number 45 SGJ 72). The State Grand Jury accused her of crimes committed between January 1998 and up to and including May, 1998. Those crimes were Conspiracy to Manufacture Methamphetamine, a Class 2 Felony; Illegally Conducting an Enterprise [to make and sell meth], a Class 3 Felony; and Possession of Chemicals and/or Equipment for the Manufacture of Methamphetamine, a Class 3 Felony..
The criminal conduct was of such magnitude that the Chief Counsel of the Drug Enforcement and Violent Crimes Section, Criminal Division, of the State Attorney General’s office, Billie Rosen, took an active role in the prosecution.
Susan K. was arrested on a warrant with a $25,000 bond on July 8, 1999. Her Pretrial Services background reported a “Drug” charge in 1985 with a fine as a consequence and a “Shoplifting” charge in 1990 for which she was granted diversion.
In November of 1999 Susan K. made an Agreement with the Attorney General’s Office.
In the agreement, which was included in her plea bargain, Susan K., received immunity for “any offense she has disclosed to the Arizona Attorney General’s Office or the Phoenix Police Department”, except homicide. Susan K. agreed to “provide information and to testify in multiple trials involving the pending case and in other cases she may have information about”. In return, Susan K.’s charges were reduced from felonies which carried mandatory prison terms to a single misdemeanor with a recommendation for probation.
The presentence investigation report which was filed on December 13, 1999 says that on May 6, 1998 Susan K. was “arrested on an outstanding warrant for failure to pay a fine on a possession of dangerous drugs and marijuana charge”; agents then contacted her concerning their drug manufacturing investigation. Susan K. “admitted using methamphetamine on a recreational basis and on more than one occasion she bought Suphedrine pills for Michael Kibby to make methamphetamine.” As part of the presentence interview, Susan K. admitted she “has previously used marijuana and cocaine on a weekly basis, experimented with psilocybin [hallucinogenic mushrooms] and she believes she is addicted to methamphetamine” …[she] “also admitted using both Soma and Valium on a daily basis when she was twenty-six.”
In her version of her history, Susan K., says she saw the light and turned from her evil ways after an auto accident in July 1998. By her own account, though, she kept up her association with meth dealers for months after the May, 1998 bust of the meth lab she was supplying with materials.
The next time you hear Susan K. rant about criminal’s being treated lightly and not being held accountable, consider the source. She is our local version of a politician who publicly proclaims support for public decency but is later revealed to be a hypocrite or worse.
In truth, Susan K.’s expertise about the criminal justice system is not the result of education, but experience.
On June 23, 1999, Susan Kay Imperatrice, was one (Defendant “C” ) of six people indicted by the Arizona State Grand Jury in Maricopa County Superior Court case number CR 99-08878, (State Grand Jury number 45 SGJ 72). The State Grand Jury accused her of crimes committed between January 1998 and up to and including May, 1998. Those crimes were Conspiracy to Manufacture Methamphetamine, a Class 2 Felony; Illegally Conducting an Enterprise [to make and sell meth], a Class 3 Felony; and Possession of Chemicals and/or Equipment for the Manufacture of Methamphetamine, a Class 3 Felony..
The criminal conduct was of such magnitude that the Chief Counsel of the Drug Enforcement and Violent Crimes Section, Criminal Division, of the State Attorney General’s office, Billie Rosen, took an active role in the prosecution.
Susan K. was arrested on a warrant with a $25,000 bond on July 8, 1999. Her Pretrial Services background reported a “Drug” charge in 1985 with a fine as a consequence and a “Shoplifting” charge in 1990 for which she was granted diversion.
In November of 1999 Susan K. made an Agreement with the Attorney General’s Office.
In the agreement, which was included in her plea bargain, Susan K., received immunity for “any offense she has disclosed to the Arizona Attorney General’s Office or the Phoenix Police Department”, except homicide. Susan K. agreed to “provide information and to testify in multiple trials involving the pending case and in other cases she may have information about”. In return, Susan K.’s charges were reduced from felonies which carried mandatory prison terms to a single misdemeanor with a recommendation for probation.
The presentence investigation report which was filed on December 13, 1999 says that on May 6, 1998 Susan K. was “arrested on an outstanding warrant for failure to pay a fine on a possession of dangerous drugs and marijuana charge”; agents then contacted her concerning their drug manufacturing investigation. Susan K. “admitted using methamphetamine on a recreational basis and on more than one occasion she bought Suphedrine pills for Michael Kibby to make methamphetamine.” As part of the presentence interview, Susan K. admitted she “has previously used marijuana and cocaine on a weekly basis, experimented with psilocybin [hallucinogenic mushrooms] and she believes she is addicted to methamphetamine” …[she] “also admitted using both Soma and Valium on a daily basis when she was twenty-six.”
In her version of her history, Susan K., says she saw the light and turned from her evil ways after an auto accident in July 1998. By her own account, though, she kept up her association with meth dealers for months after the May, 1998 bust of the meth lab she was supplying with materials.
The next time you hear Susan K. rant about criminal’s being treated lightly and not being held accountable, consider the source. She is our local version of a politician who publicly proclaims support for public decency but is later revealed to be a hypocrite or worse.
Ranters have real anger problems
A few weeks ago my daughter called me about the postings on the local radio station’s website - she was concerned for my safety because of the tone of the posts. I shrugged it off as simply ranting by kooky people, especially since they are mostly anonymous.
However, shortly thereafter a major search engine referred to a new study about ranting on the web. I looked up some information and found that both reading and writing on rant-sites tend to be unhealthy practices, suggesting persons with maladaptive expression styles.
A study which focused solely on rant websites that are devoted to back-and-forth virtual screaming has implications for Facebook and Twitter, and even news sites and blogs. The combination of being anonymous by using a screen name and having "social distance" reduce an individual's sense of restraint or caution about how to interact. Websites that function as virtual punching bags reinforce harmful behavior.
For some people, venting online is caused by a sense of powerlessness and a feeling that they just can't make a difference. A survey of users of a number of popular rant sites found that users scored unusually high on trait anger (how anger-prone one is in general) and experienced many negative consequences related to anger, such as verbal and physical fights, damaged relationships, property damage, and dangerous driving. Nearly half reported that someone had told them they had an anger problem, and over a third admitted that this was true.
Published research on the content of rant sites found that "people are angry at big groups of people: Democrats, Republicans, illegal immigrants… People want to feel they're doing something and think just expressing their feelings to the world will help."
"Most of these sites encourage venting as a way of dealing with anger…They think of venting as a healthy adaptive approach, and it's not…. Venting often results in short term feelings of calmness and relaxation; however venting is associated with increases in anger in the long term.”
In spite of the fact that venting is likely to backfire in the long run, belief in its value is widespread and even encouraged. Popular self-help books promote venting, and there was even once a billboard in Missouri that said: “Hit a Pillow, Hit a Wall, But Don’t Hit Your Kids!” Hitting a pillow is obviously preferable to hitting one’s kids, but ironically such advice may actually increase the likelihood of real violence rather than preventing it.
In one study, participants were asked about the benefit of reading other’s rants. Responses included: simple curiosity (78.1 percent), entertainment (56.3 percent), a sense of community (50 percent), and making them feel better about their own lives by comparison (37.5 percent).
In response to an open-ended question regarding why they would go back, participants described the following: found the Web site ‘‘interesting’’ (66 percent), found the posts ‘‘funny’’ (33 percent), thought the Web site would help ‘‘feel less alone’’ (17 percent), and thought the Web site would provide a ‘‘an outlet’’ (17 percent).
1. Brenda K. Wiederhold, PhD, MBA, BCIA, Editor-in-Chief of Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, from the Interactive Media Institute, San Diego, CA.
2. Anger on the Internet: The Perceived Value of Rant-Sites by Ryan C. Martin, PhD; Kelsey Ryan Coyier, BS; Leah M. VanSistine, BS; and Kelly L. Schroeder, BS
3. Internet Ranting and the Myth of Catharsis; Why ranting and venting are terrible ways of handling anger; by Scott A. McGreal published on March 28, 2013 in Psychology Today
However, shortly thereafter a major search engine referred to a new study about ranting on the web. I looked up some information and found that both reading and writing on rant-sites tend to be unhealthy practices, suggesting persons with maladaptive expression styles.
A study which focused solely on rant websites that are devoted to back-and-forth virtual screaming has implications for Facebook and Twitter, and even news sites and blogs. The combination of being anonymous by using a screen name and having "social distance" reduce an individual's sense of restraint or caution about how to interact. Websites that function as virtual punching bags reinforce harmful behavior.
For some people, venting online is caused by a sense of powerlessness and a feeling that they just can't make a difference. A survey of users of a number of popular rant sites found that users scored unusually high on trait anger (how anger-prone one is in general) and experienced many negative consequences related to anger, such as verbal and physical fights, damaged relationships, property damage, and dangerous driving. Nearly half reported that someone had told them they had an anger problem, and over a third admitted that this was true.
Published research on the content of rant sites found that "people are angry at big groups of people: Democrats, Republicans, illegal immigrants… People want to feel they're doing something and think just expressing their feelings to the world will help."
"Most of these sites encourage venting as a way of dealing with anger…They think of venting as a healthy adaptive approach, and it's not…. Venting often results in short term feelings of calmness and relaxation; however venting is associated with increases in anger in the long term.”
In spite of the fact that venting is likely to backfire in the long run, belief in its value is widespread and even encouraged. Popular self-help books promote venting, and there was even once a billboard in Missouri that said: “Hit a Pillow, Hit a Wall, But Don’t Hit Your Kids!” Hitting a pillow is obviously preferable to hitting one’s kids, but ironically such advice may actually increase the likelihood of real violence rather than preventing it.
In one study, participants were asked about the benefit of reading other’s rants. Responses included: simple curiosity (78.1 percent), entertainment (56.3 percent), a sense of community (50 percent), and making them feel better about their own lives by comparison (37.5 percent).
In response to an open-ended question regarding why they would go back, participants described the following: found the Web site ‘‘interesting’’ (66 percent), found the posts ‘‘funny’’ (33 percent), thought the Web site would help ‘‘feel less alone’’ (17 percent), and thought the Web site would provide a ‘‘an outlet’’ (17 percent).
1. Brenda K. Wiederhold, PhD, MBA, BCIA, Editor-in-Chief of Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, from the Interactive Media Institute, San Diego, CA.
2. Anger on the Internet: The Perceived Value of Rant-Sites by Ryan C. Martin, PhD; Kelsey Ryan Coyier, BS; Leah M. VanSistine, BS; and Kelly L. Schroeder, BS
3. Internet Ranting and the Myth of Catharsis; Why ranting and venting are terrible ways of handling anger; by Scott A. McGreal published on March 28, 2013 in Psychology Today
"If you stop telling lies about me, I'll stop telling the truth about you."
- Attributed to Abraham Lincoln, Adelai Stevenson, et al. |