Brooklyn ADA Keeps Job After Facebook Pics Of Him In Blackface SMH, this guy seems real “mature”… An embarrassed Brooklyn prosecutor apologized yesterday after pictures surfaced online of him posing in blackface and a Rasta wig and simulating a jailhouse rape. Assistant DA Justin L. Marrus — whose dad is Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice Alan D. Marrus — took down the offensive photos, which were posted on Facebook in 2006. “This is something he did about six years ago while he was in college,” said DA spokesman Jerry Schmetterer. “He apologized. He admits it was childish and inappropriate.” District Attorney Charles Hynes accepted Marrus’ apology, said Schmetterer. In one picture — from an album called “Halloween” — Marrus mugs it up in a tie-dyed T-shirt, dreadlock wig, shades and blackface, according to the Gothamist Web site, which first reported the story. “What part of Jamaica you from mon? da beach mon,” the caption reads. A second photo — from an album called “Courthouse for 4th of July’’ — shows Marrus, now 25, and another man simulating sex in what looks to be a cell with white bars. “While in prison . . . made me do unspeakable acts with . . .” the tasteless caption reads, with the two names blurred out by the Web site. Marrus, who lives in his parents’ Manhattan Beach home, declined to comment. His father faced a storm of criticism in October 2010 when he gave a DWI cop who killed a woman only 90 days behind bars. The senior Marrus incredibly defended himself by noting that the victim had been boozing herself. And of course he kept his job. Source Pics via Gothamist
Florida Police Officer Arrested For Lewd Acts On 15-Year-Old Girl What the fawk is wrong with people these days???? One by one, the 15-year-old girl went through headshots of suspects. Among them, she knew, was the man dressed as a police officer who she said ordered her to take off her pants and unbutton her blouse, and then spread her legs as he used a flashlight to inspect her. The man she identified: Miramar police Capt. Juan De Los Rios, 46. On Friday, De Los Rios was charged with two counts of lewd or lascivious conduct on an underage girl, according to the arrest affidavit. He was booked into Broward County Jail and held on $30,000 bail. If convicted, De Los Rios could face up to 15 years in prison and up to a $10,000 fine. According to the arrest affidavit, the girl was sitting in the back of a car with a 19-year-old friend parked in the back lot of a business plaza in Miramar after school on Jan. 18, when a man approached the car and looked at them through the window. He asked them to roll down the window. Because he was in a dark-blue uniform and wearing a gold badge, the teens thought he was a police officer and complied. The man then began to question them. At one point, he leaned against the window, looked at them, gave a hard long pause and asked: “Well, were you having sex? What are you doing here?” The girl quickly responded “no, no, no, officer no,” the affidavit said. The girl told police she and her friend were just talking. But the man told the girl he “needed to check.” The girl asked “Check what?” “I need to see inside,” he responded. That’s when he ordered her to take off her pants and underwear so he could look for bruising or other evidence of sexual activity. In fear, the affidavit said, she complied. The girl told police she thought it “was the right thing to do” because he was an officer. Her 19-year-friend turned away, unable to watch, according to the affidavit. He told police he heard the man tell the girl “I need you to spread your legs wider so I can see.” The officer then used a flashlight to “inspect” her and told her to pull down her blouse so he could check for bruising, according to the police report. Then he returned the driver’s license to the boy and told them “Go home.” The teens got into the front seats of the car, “cried, hugged and drove off,” the affidavit said. The youngsters didn’t tell anybody at first because they were afraid and intimidated. But then the girl told her older sister, who insisted their mother be told. When questioned by police, the girl said the man who’d ordered her to remove her clothing had a gold badge and his last name began with the letter “R.’’ She also said she knew she could identify the man if she saw him again. Officials did not release the identities of the teens. As far as evidence, investigators had the girl turn in the clothes she was wearing that day — one pair of blue jean pants, a Ralph Lauren sport sized T-shirt, a beige bra, and one pair of pink and black underwear briefs. They also asked the CVS Caremark near where the teens had parked for its surveillance video. Although the quality of the video was not enough to identify De Los Rios, police say the body language was consistent with the victim’s and witness’ statements. De Los Rios’ gold badge was also paper bagged. The 18-year veteran of the department has been on administrative leave since the complaint was filed in January. Miramar police launched a criminal investigation along with the Broward State Attorney’s Office. A warrant for De Los Rios’ arrest was issued Friday. He later turned himself in to police. “He is now suspended without pay, pending the outcome of the investigation,” said Miramar police spokeswoman Tania Rues. Wow. This guy should certainly be convicted for sure. That is straight up molestation!!! Source
The first photographic proof of Jenelle Evans’ latest arrest has surfaced. The Teen Mom 2 star found herself in a North Carolina jail cell yet again this weekend after allegedly assaulting someone early Sunday morning. Cops have not released the victim’s name, but it is believed to be her fiance Gary Head, who was also reportedly arrested for domestic violence . Whatever happened, Jenelle appears quite sad in her mug shot: According to the Brunswick County (N.C.) Sheriff’s Office, the MTV star was also in possession of marijuana at the time of the incident. Big surprise. Jenelle Evans posted bail and has since been released. Gary Head ‘s status is unclear, but if he attacked Jenelle has some sources have reported, her on/off fiance could be spending a while behind bars. The 20-year-old has been busted more times than we can count, including in January for violating a restraining order and allegedly threatening her ex-roommate, in March for stalking, and of course last year for beating up Britany Truett . Somehow we doubt this mug shot will be her last. UPDATE : Gary’s mug shot has been released:
The first photographic proof of Jenelle Evans’ latest arrest has surfaced. The Teen Mom 2 star found herself in a North Carolina jail cell yet again this weekend after allegedly assaulting someone early Sunday morning. Cops have not released the victim’s name, but it is believed to be her fiance Gary Head, who was also reportedly arrested for domestic violence . Whatever happened, Jenelle appears quite sad in her mug shot: According to the Brunswick County (N.C.) Sheriff’s Office, the MTV star was also in possession of marijuana at the time of the incident. Big surprise. Jenelle Evans posted bail and has since been released. Gary Head ‘s status is unclear, but if he attacked Jenelle has some sources have reported, her on/off fiance could be spending a while behind bars. The 20-year-old has been busted more times than we can count, including in January for violating a restraining order and allegedly threatening her ex-roommate, in March for stalking, and of course last year for beating up Britany Truett . Somehow we doubt this mug shot will be her last. UPDATE : Gary’s mug shot has been released:
This is just horrible… A drunk driver killed this woman’s son last year and she got stuck with the cleanup bill. A South Carolina woman faced tragedy last June when a drunk driver killed her oldest son. But the still-grieving mother, Loretta Robinson, is now being billed for the various charges associated with the accident, including a $50 charge to clean her son’s blood off the road. Justin Walker, Robinson’s deceased son, was not found at fault for the accident. The accused driver, Anna Gonzalez, tearfully pleaded guilty in court last Tuesday, the Daily Mail reported. According to MSNBC, the undocumented woman had been living in the United States for 12 years, but never got a South Carolina driver’s license. Gonzalez was sentenced to 17 years in prison. Robinson was on hand in court to express her outrage at the bills she’s received since losing her son. “I had to pay to have the vehicle towed. I had to pay for the vehicle to be removed and to clean up the street from Justin’s blood,” Robinson said. According to WYFF, Robinson also paid to have the wrecked car stored for months in case there was a trial. The South Carolina State Office of Victims Assistance offers a combined total of up to $15,000 for medical, funeral, counseling and wage compensation for the families of victims of crime. According to NBC Greenville, Robinson received some money from the victim’s assistance office, but it did not cover the costs of cleanup or storage. There has been some recent controversy about the crime rate among undocumented immigrants in the United States. In March, the Scott Gardiner Act, a bill that would authorize the deportation of any undocumented immigrant convicted of drunk driving, was reintroduced to Congress by Representatives Sue Myrick and Mike McIntyre, News 14 Carolina reported. “We have to be able, as a country, to figure out a way with people here who are illegal and commit crimes,” Robinson told WYFF. We really feel for Ms. Robinson. Our prayers are with you. R.I.P. Justin! Source WYFF
This is just horrible… A drunk driver killed this woman’s son last year and she got stuck with the cleanup bill. A South Carolina woman faced tragedy last June when a drunk driver killed her oldest son. But the still-grieving mother, Loretta Robinson, is now being billed for the various charges associated with the accident, including a $50 charge to clean her son’s blood off the road. Justin Walker, Robinson’s deceased son, was not found at fault for the accident. The accused driver, Anna Gonzalez, tearfully pleaded guilty in court last Tuesday, the Daily Mail reported. According to MSNBC, the undocumented woman had been living in the United States for 12 years, but never got a South Carolina driver’s license. Gonzalez was sentenced to 17 years in prison. Robinson was on hand in court to express her outrage at the bills she’s received since losing her son. “I had to pay to have the vehicle towed. I had to pay for the vehicle to be removed and to clean up the street from Justin’s blood,” Robinson said. According to WYFF, Robinson also paid to have the wrecked car stored for months in case there was a trial. The South Carolina State Office of Victims Assistance offers a combined total of up to $15,000 for medical, funeral, counseling and wage compensation for the families of victims of crime. According to NBC Greenville, Robinson received some money from the victim’s assistance office, but it did not cover the costs of cleanup or storage. There has been some recent controversy about the crime rate among undocumented immigrants in the United States. In March, the Scott Gardiner Act, a bill that would authorize the deportation of any undocumented immigrant convicted of drunk driving, was reintroduced to Congress by Representatives Sue Myrick and Mike McIntyre, News 14 Carolina reported. “We have to be able, as a country, to figure out a way with people here who are illegal and commit crimes,” Robinson told WYFF. We really feel for Ms. Robinson. Our prayers are with you. R.I.P. Justin! Source WYFF
When Alec Baldwin appeared on The Late Show with David Letterman Wednesday night, he was in a joking mood, mostly laughing off the altercation he got into with a photographer on the streets of New York City Monday. But Marcus Santos, the victim in this alleged attack by the actor , sat down with Good Morning America yesterday and found the entire incident far less funny. “I feel headaches, and my jaw is hurting me,” Santos told George Stephanopoulos of the aftermath, insisting that he never hit Baldwin with a camera but Baldwin did strike him in the face. “I was trying to move back to soft the blow. He just lunged at me.” Santos says the picture that ended up on the front page of The New York Daily News does not capture the proper “angle” to depict Baldwin’s punch, and that all he wants to do is snap photos in peace. “I’m just feeling so embarrassed to what he did to me. I like to take a picture and my picture be on the front page, not me be on the front page. I’m a news person. I record news, I go there and take my pictures I don’t want to be a part of the news.” But he does want to see Baldwin prosecuted. Along with his attorney, who also appeared on GMA , Santos said he hopes the law gets involved so what happened to him “doesn’t happen to anyone else.” Baldwin, meanwhile, doesn’t seem overly contrite. As the US Supreme Court readies to announce the health care ruling, [Daily News Editor] Colin Myler has ten “reporters” and “photographers” outside my bldg… he Tweeted yesterday.
I was deeply saddened yesterday to hear of the death of Andrew Sarris , a passionate critic and elegant writer who didn’t just change the landscape of criticism; he changed the way many of us think about movies, challenging, with gentle humor and lots of grace, everything we thought we knew. Sarris was at the vanguard of film criticism in the ’60s and ’70s, along with Pauline Kael and Manny Farber. Over the years, there’s been plenty of fuss made over the Sarris/Kael feud, and movie lovers have often felt pressured to choose one camp or the other. But why? As I’ve said elsewhere, criticism isn’t about consensus – what’s most valuable is a critic’s ability to open your eyes, to make you see things that wouldn’t have occurred to you otherwise. The challenge isn’t just part of the bargain – it’s the whole bargain. And especially as we move further into an era of critic-proof big-budget movies – abetted by newspapers and other publications that happily repackage studio hype even as they’ve decided that professional critics are relics – Sarris’ contributions to the tradition and craft of film criticism have come to seem even more precious. In fact, they’re immeasurable. I knew Andrew only a little, but he and his wife, the extraordinary film critic Molly Haskell, have shown great kindness and generosity toward me. It would have been enough for Andrew Sarris to have been a fine critic. But in the end, it’s how you treat people that matters, and Sarris, who was a teacher as well – he was beloved by his students, and I can only imagine he was wonderful – led by example. Those of us who care about film – who continue to care about its guts and innards as an art form, and about the way it opens us to the wider world – owe a great deal to Andrew Sarris. We won’t see his like again. Follow Stephanie Zacharek on Twitter . Follow Movieline on Twitter .
“Somewhere in this block are two judges,” a crime lord declares over loudspeakers in a concrete, locked-down tenement. “I want them dead.” Is this the American remake of Gareth Evans ‘ fantastic silat action pic The Raid ? Nope. It’s the first trailer for Dredd ! As in, the second cinematic coming of Judge Dredd, the futuristic crime fighting officer made famous by Sylvester Stallone , here replaced by a serious-faced, robotic Karl Urban, whose lower jaw we’re going to be seeing a lot of in the September reboot. Pete Travis ( Vantage Point ) directs (after some editing room drama ) the slick-looking Dredd — shot in 3-D — which promises a dirty future ridden with crime, the population under the control of Lena Headey’s drug-pushing villainess. The fictional narcotic “Slo-mo” makes characters feel as if time is moving at a slow crawl, giving Travis the occasion to give things that gorgeous speed-manipulated floating feeling, which should help distract from the glaring familiarity of the film’s set-up. Which brings me to the aforementioned issue; if I hadn’t seen (and loved) The Raid , which exploited the basic premise of a few lone law officers fighting their way through a slum building to get to its big boss with great aplomb, the trailer’s plot reveal would feel a lot fresher. Now I’m just wondering if any of the fights will come close to matching the inventiveness of Evans’ bone-crunching Indonesian picture. And with Urban set to never take off that Dredd mask in the film — and delivering lines like “I’m the law” with no trace of Sly’s charisma — this feels like a precursor to the RoboCop reboot , only with less emotion. And then there’s the Dredd -ness of it all. Olivia Thirlby in that Dredd -ful hairdo will have to work hard to measure up to Diane Lane’s feisty sidekick in 1995’s Judge Dredd , silly as that movie was, even as this Dredd — based more on the comics than its predecessor — is clearly taking a more solemn approach. The most promising element here is Headey and her scarred-but-hot lady crime lord — now there’s something you don’t see often. Verdict: More of a curiosity than a must-see. Dredd hits theaters September 21. [via Machinima ]
The Invisible War by director Kirby Dick and producer Amy Ziering is simply shocking. In this doc, which won the Audience Award at the Sundance Film Festival in January and screened at the recent Provincetown International Film Festival (where it also picked up an audience prize) the filmmaking duo expose a long-brewing scandal in the U.S. military. Sexual assault against both women and men has run rampant throughout the various branches of the military and even up the chain of command. It is, in fact, the chain of command that has, in part, allowed rape and other sexual assault to remain virtually hidden despite its ubiquity. The Invisible War blows the cover off this decades-old (or older) crisis with an emotional and devastating look at the victims of sexual assault and how it can be fixed. Though the film will be released theatrically this weekend, it has already had a major impact. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta screened the film and soon afterward announced some reforms. Though, as Kirby Dick warns in his interview with ML from the recent Provincetown festival, the moves are not enough and the U.S. military still needs to take some cues from its allies in alleviating this scourge. It may be tough to watch, but the film is riveting and the stories of individuals he and Zeiring interview are phenomenal. Dick has screened the film for various groups since Sundance and its subsequent East Coast premiere at Provincetown and, as he explains in his conversation with ML below, audiences have been riveted by what has been uncovered. What led you and your producer Amy Ziering to this topic and ultimately doing a film? Amy and I read an article in by Helen Benedict in Salon and we were astounded by the numbers of people sexually assaulted, and we were equally astounded that nobody had made a feature documentary on this. From a filmmaker point-of-view, that is sort of lucky when that happens. We pretty much decided right then and there that we’d make this film. I remember hearing about the Tailhook scandal in the ’90s when a number of women were assaulted at a U.S. Navy/Marines event in Las Vegas. And despite that, I still thought this was a horrifying yet isolated outrageous incident. I didn’t think it was so pervasive… Yeah, I remember following that situation and the Air Force Academy [situation] and I wondered when I was making this film why I hadn’t done this 15 years ago. It seems so isolated, but then it’s over – but no, it’s systemic. And the military has been very good at conveying that these are isolated. They’ll deny it or then blame the victim or they’ll say it’s been dealt with and it’s in the past. This has been covered up for generations. I would imagine, and I don’t have statistical evidence in this, but I would bet it’s a part of militaries forever and a problem in foreign militaries that have women or even ones that only have men. And that’s one thing we hope that this film will do as it plays around the world, which is to raise the same discussion in those countries as well. Are these people not able to call the police as civilians do or hopefully do? If they’re in the military it’s almost always referred to military authorities. If it happens on base then it automatically is referred to military authorities and if it happens off-base, then yes it is possible to call civilian authorities, but they very often will refer it back to the military. This must’ve been a heart-wrenching experience for both of you filming this doc. My mouth was dropping hearing these stories and I couldn’t help but talk back to the screen. Yeah, it was. Each one of these interviews were equally stunning. Amy did each interview and she did a phenomenal job and she’d be emotionally drained and devastated and be incredibly angry afterward. It was a good combination [for the creation of the film] and I knew we’d get it. The assaults of course were horrifying in and of themselves, but then to see how the institution reacts to these assaults is absolutely incredible. That’s one of the things we hope this film will inspire. Not only the outrage but this sense of responsibility which you’re alluding to that we all have in this country. There’s a sense that there are military families and non-military families and sometimes people without family members in the military think that they’ll simply take care of themselves. We all have responsibility for people in the military. We’re all a part of one society whether we agree with what the military is doing or not. And I’ve seen this happening. One of the things I foresaw was bring together veterans groups and women’s groups. In fact, we’ve set up a coalition to extend the impact of the film together with civil rights groups and sexual assault groups. And what we want to see happen is a push for reform after the film has gone. Did you reach out to any of the people who were accused? We decided not to do that. But what we did try to do is reach out to someone who was convicted. We tried to do that through many defense attorneys. We were interested in getting his perspective. It would be a courageous act for someone to come forward and talk about this, but ultimately we weren’t able to get anyone. Traditionalists may hold all of this up as evidence that women shouldn’t serve in the military or that they shouldn’t serve alongside men in the military and I was curious what your response is to that? Well I think first of all, that’s holding the men in our military with great disrespect. I believe the men in the military are more than capable of taking care of and not assaulting the people who they serve with side by side. And in the second place, these women make amazing soldiers. The women in our film are the people you would want in the military. They are so good at what they do and so idealistic. They’re model soldiers and that’s one of the tragedies. There was this problem with these gay translators being dismissed from the military and that was also a significant loss to the military. How did you get Leon Panetta to see this? Well, it was part of a long campaign immediately after Sundance. This movie was made to change policy. We got this into the hands of high ranking retired officers. We had dozens of screenings for officers’ wives, non profits, other military organizations and corporate leaders to get the discussion going and not only get the military aware of it, but also to get them to react to it. Eventually, it got to the Defense Secretary who saw the film and two days later held a press conference to announce significant policy changes. We later learned from our executive producer Jennifer Siebel Newsom, the wife of California Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom – and all three know each other – that Jennifer saw Leon Panetta at the White House Correspondence dinner and Panetta told her he was really moved by the film and decided to hold the press conference in part because of the film. So the campaign was successful to that degree. But there’s a lot more to do. The changes he announced do not fully take investigation outside the chain of command. It still remains within the chain of command and until that happens, there’s still opportunity for great miscarriages of justice. It should be taken out and there should be no opportunity for a conflict of interest. Take it out like it’s done in every other justice system. There are running sexual themes in many of your films including Twist of Faith and Outrage . Is it fair to say you’re drawn to topics related to sexual taboo – or maybe not “taboo” exactly but you get what I’m saying… Maybe not so much taboo, but yes I think there is. On the one hand sexuality is made for the cinema – any sexuality. But I’m also interested in almost all my films about sexuality and its relationship to trauma. Some more than others, but in some ways trauma is playing some sort of role to sexuality. Certainly as a documentary filmmaker I approach this topic similar to a novelist. The sexuality and the traumatic history of a subject makes for great material to work with. I think it’s something I work with – not always – but do work with [consistently].” Has the audience reaction here in Provincetown and at Sundance been what you have expected? Oh yeah, even more so. I also do these small screenings in various places [between the festivals] and people just wouldn’t get up afterward and I’ve never had that. I saw that they were really affected by this. It’s the experience we had when we were doing these interviews. You’re like, ‘this can’t be true.’ But at the same time you just want to reach out to them. Follow Brian Brooks on Twitter . Follow Movieline on Twitter .
