The Bully-in-Chief has chosen Israel and its Jewish citizens as the target of his irrational and venomous rage
By Lauri B. Regan
American Thinker
February 27, 2015
In Philadelphia in 2008, Candidate Obama threatened his political opponents in stating, “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.” He continued, “Because from what I understand folks in Philly like a good brawl.”
Six years into President Obama’s eight-year tenure we are now seeing him with full guns blazing. Unfortunately, they are not directed at Russia, Iran, North Korea, or ISIS. The Bully-in-Chief apparently believes that the world likes “a good brawl” and has chosen Israel and its Jewish citizens as the target of his irrational and venomous rage.
Despite clear indications well before Obama’s 2008 victory that he would not be a friend of Israel (articulately addressed by many conservative journalists, including AT’s prolific Ed Lasky), watching Obama unchained over the past several months has nonetheless been shocking and disturbing. Obama has aggressively and senselessly sicced his attack dogs on Israel’s Prime Minister. And the efforts to which he is going to block a speech that is intended to prevent the world’s largest purveyor of terrorism from attaining nuclear capability is astounding.
Obama believes, or at least would like the world to believe, that Netanyahu has begun a fight with him. What knives does Obama perceive as having been thrust at him by Netanyahu? The issuance of building permits and the refusal to acquiesce to administration pressure to sign a dangerous deal with the Palestinians top the list. But apparently Bibi pulled out the butcher knife when he accepted an invitation to speak before Congress next week.
Alas, for a guy who supports gun control, Obama’s arsenal of AK-47s with which he has responded to Netanyahu’s actions is quite extensive. Netanyahu has been personally ridiculed, lambasted and yelled at by Obama and other administration officials, given a time out and abandoned to sit for hours in the basement of the White House while Obama dined on food prepared by his private chef, called names that only classless gutter inhabitants would utter, ignored, abused on the world stage, and generally treated like vermin.
Furthermore, the detailed list of anti-Israel steps taken by Obama and his administration maintained at Discover the Networks is currently 36 pages long -- and counting. For instance, Obama has leaked and directly disclosed Israeli classified information and military secrets (including Israel’s involvement in developing the Stuxnet virus, outing Israel’s nuclear weapons program, and disclosing a secret agreement that would allow Israel to use Saudi airspace for an Iranian strike).
Obama reneged on a deal that George W. Bush had made to ensure safe borders in any final deal with the Palestinians. He has blamed Israel for general strife in the region insinuating that if Israel would just make peace with the Palestinians, the civil wars and violence would end. And he has blamed Israel rather than the terrorists when his attempt to ram a two-state solution down Israel’s throat failed. He has not unconditionally supported Israel at the U.N. as the constant threat of a veto of any anti-Israel resolutions hangs over Israel’s head. And he delayed sending rearmaments and weapons shipments that Israel needed during Operation Cast Lead this summer.
But all of that looks like small handgun-style combat in comparison to the automatic weapons that have been drawn over the past couple of months. Obama wants a deal with Iran and will do almost anything to achieve that goal. Netanyahu wants to ensure Israel’s survival and that of the Jewish people. That means that Iran, a country that is ruled by Jew-hating, Holocaust-denying Islamists who almost daily threaten Israel’s survival cannot be permitted to develop nuclear weapons -- period. Based on the way the P5+1 negotiations are proceeding, it appears that Iran’s nuclear program will not be required to be dismantled. Like all of Obama’s empty promises, his vow to do everything in his power to prevent Iran from going nuclear was simply a lie uttered for political gain.
Obama will not be stopped in his quest to ensure Iran’s hegemonic takeover of the Middle East -- and certainly not by the likes of an adversary like Netanyahu. So with all the fire power he can muster, Obama is on the attack as if preventing Netanyahu’s speech before Congress is a life or death matter. He has ordered to combat the big guns like National Security Adviser Susan Rice, who told Charlie Rose that Netanyahu’s speech is “destructive” to the U.S./Israel relationship (ignoring the prior six Obama years of tearing down and destroying what American presidents had recognized as a strategically and morally essential alliance).
A year after threatening Israel with boycotts if she did not accede to a U.S.-mandated peace with the Palestinians, Kerry is back to bashing Israel. Kerry made the unmerited claim that Netanyahu cannot be trusted because he supported the Iraq war “and look how that turned out.” No mention that Netanyahu was not the prime minister at the time, that Kerry also supported the war, and most importantly, that the only reason Iraq is a failure is because Kerry’s boss chose to surrender the victory.
And despite claiming that the only reason that he won’t meet with Netanyahu when he is in town next week is because it is too close to Israeli elections with which he does not want to appear to interfere, Obama’s former campaign operatives were sent to Israel to help defeat Bibi’s re-election. As if a snub from the president is not enough, Obama has also ensured that Kerry and Biden will be out of town when Netanyahu addresses the joint session of Congress and has encouraged Democrats, including the Congressional Black Caucus, to boycott the speech.
In preparation for post-speech spin claiming that Netanyahu has no idea what he is talking about, the administration has stopped sharing information with Israel regarding the P5+1 negotiations. Of course, Congress and Americans are being left in the dark as well. Obama is following Nancy Pelosi’s playbook when she claimed, “we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it away from the fog of the controversy.” Obama wants to sign a treaty allowing Iran to go nuclear before Americans or Netanyahu can stop him.
There has been much conjecture over what motivates Obama in his war on Israel and Netanyahu. Some argue he is a closet Muslim who is anti-Semitic. Certainly he has an affinity for Islam and speaks adoringly of Muslims as he rewrites American history to include them in our founding. Furthermore, Andrea Tantaro questioned whether the White House was in fact anti-Semitic, stating, “I’m asking the question. Because look at the hostility towards Israel. We have never seen an administration more coordinated in their attacks, from Susan Rice to John Kerry to the president, repeatedly, at Netanyahu, calling him, 'destructive".
Obama also has a massive, ever-expanding ego that barely fits inside the White House. He does not take well to anyone who does not adhere to his worldview, bow to his every wish and command, or question his wisdom. Netanyahu’s fears regarding Iran are simply not acceptable to Obama and he will slap him down come hell or high water.
Obama has successfully used Netanyahu’s speech as a distraction moving the narrative away from the substantive issues regarding Iran. Rather than talking about the implications of a nuclear Iran and content of a final status agreement, the media is enthralled with the Netanyahu/Obama spat. Reporting during and after the speech may very well focus on how many Democrats boycotted rather than the content of the speech.
Elliot Abrams concludes that there are three motivations for Obama’s current temper tantrum:
to damage and defeat Netanyahu (whom Obama has always disliked simply because he is on the right while Obama is on the left) in his election campaign, to prevent Israel from affecting the Iran policy debate in the United States, and worst of all to diminish Israel’s popularity in the United States and especially among Democrats.
Obama has found success is turning Israel into a partisan issue. But this was not a challenging endeavor since the Democrats have been moving away from supporting Israel for years. Susan Rice blaming Netanyahu as the cause of the partisanship is just one more Obama administration lie.
Historically speaking, Netanyahu’s speech may very well be the most important since World War II. At this point, only Congress can stop Obama from caving to the Mullahs and forever changing the world. For instead of preventing a nuclear Iran, Obama is going nuclear on Israel. And if he continues to elevate the type of weaponry he uses in his war against Israel, pulling out nuclear missiles in his final years in office, Israel will need all of the friends in Congress that Netanyahu can muster.
Saturday, February 28, 2015
THE END OF LEGACY?
The pundits who demean & disparage law enforcement are the same ones who demand change & better candidates
By Jim Glennon
Calibre Press
February 19, 2015
Wow.
That’s my response to the results of our survey that asked this question of law enforcement officers: Would you recommend law enforcement as a profession to a son or daughter?
Over 3,400 officers responded and a whopping 81% said that they would not! Again—wow! In no way did any of us at Calibre Press predict such a result. Worst-case scenario I said as we posted the survey: 50/50. But, what I really thought was 70/30 with the 70 being on the side of recommending. Boy, was I wrong!
I wrote a book entitled Arresting Communication and at seminars when a young officer, new to law enforcement, asks for a signature I always write on the inside cover “Welcome to the world’s greatest profession!” And I mean it every single time I write it—still do.
I’ve been in the cop world for over 30 years and I believe this is the noblest of noble professions.
What we do, day-in and day-out is something unique. It’s dangerous, fun, sad, joyful, scary, disheartening, devastating … We can be bored, terrified, angry, humored, aghast, heroes and the enemy all in one 8–12-hour shift.
We make mistakes, say the wrong things and—on rare occasion, statistically—dishonor our uniforms. But we are the ones who show up when those calling can’t control their own lives. We respond when people are victims and beg for help. We hold those victims while they implode and we cry when we get home. We run toward the gunfire while everyone else is fleeing in the opposite direction.
In other words: We make a difference! A real tangible difference to real people when it matters most!
The tests to join our profession are difficult, long, and tedious. The training is more difficult than most imagine. It’s months long and involves psychological tests, intense studying, memorization, physical fitness preparation and the understanding of case law that needs to be applied during incredible stress in the blink of an eye. Oh, and the slightest hesitation or foible might have catastrophic consequences.
Which means this: We need the best and the brightest!
However, law enforcement is in the cross hairs right now. It’s misunderstood by people who don’t even know that they know next to nothing about the profession. Yet they wax poetically about what a police officer should have done, shouldn’t have done, why they did something, or why they didn’t …
They make blanket stupid statements about an officer’s motivation and intent. They know nothing about the complexities of the job, yet with the 20/20 vision of hindsight they criticize and condemn from the comfort of a T.V. studio or their blogger’s chair.
They make up—invent—stats and facts that don’t exist to advance an agenda and or expound a belief that’s thoroughly and fundamentally flawed. In short, they demonize everyone in this profession.
And they demand change. Hire better-trained, ethically enhanced, spiritually spotless people of every race, ethnicity and color, all with the best of intentions and superior intellectual aptitudes.
But who is going to want to join law enforcement today? And who currently in the profession is going to advocate it as a career? My fear: Not many, and our survey supports that.
Why do more than 80% of our respondent officers say they would not, today, encourage a son or daughter to become a cop? Well the answers are found in our follow up question that listed a variety of reasons. Not limiting them to just one, here are the results:
Public lack of respect for the profession: 86%
Poor pay and/or benefits: 39%
Dangerous: 40%
The duties of the job have changed for the worse: 57.00%
Media and/or political cynicism: 79%
Lack of department/professional support: 53%
Our next question was particularly interesting: Would you have been more or less likely to recommend this profession five years ago?
The result: A whopping 70% said that they would have been more likely to recommend a loved one join five years ago.
Wow!
The naysayers and cop-haters won’t care or might even applaud that the legacies of law enforcement families will finally end with the current generation. To the haters, this generation of cops is a woeful, corrupt, violent bunch at odds with the populace they are paid to serve and protect. Good riddance.
Yes the clueless will say that, but what else might happen? Will any of them—those who know it all—join?
Note that the Number One reason officers wouldn’t recommend the profession to a child is public lack of respect for the profession (86%).
So, who would be drawn to a profession that—according to many in the mainstream media—is filled with immoral, unethical, crooked and corrupt militarized thugs who inflict an “epidemic of violence on citizens” and participate in “genocidal racism”?
That’s not a job description that normally attracts people with honorable motives. As a friend put it when he heard about the results of our survey: “You think the smartest black and Latino men and women are going to flock to this profession? These cop haters are creating a worst-case scenario for us—and for themselves.”
I’ve cited the stats in other articles and they are incontrovertible, but let’s stay on point. What will be the fallout of demonizing this noble profession over and over in the mass media? The pundits who demean and disparage law enforcement are the same ones who demand change and better candidates.
So where are we going to get them? If the families who have for generations dedicated their lives to public service won’t advocate the profession, who will?
I’m curious to see if these opinions cited in our survey translate into the real world. I know for a fact that people who were considering the profession have changed their minds and are looking to other careers. Officers in our seminars tell us that they’re “done”: disheartened and retiring early. They warn young people to do something else.
I was talking to my friend Lt. Col. Dave Grossman recently as we prepared for our Bulletproof Warrior Seminar at the California Highway Patrol Academy in Sacramento. He believes that the pendulum will swing back and I hope he’s right. If it doesn’t, what will the future look like? Who will step up?
As Edmund Burke famously said: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
Doing nothing may be the final result of disparaging those who do the hard work of doing good. And that would be tragic for our society.
By Jim Glennon
Calibre Press
February 19, 2015
Wow.
That’s my response to the results of our survey that asked this question of law enforcement officers: Would you recommend law enforcement as a profession to a son or daughter?
Over 3,400 officers responded and a whopping 81% said that they would not! Again—wow! In no way did any of us at Calibre Press predict such a result. Worst-case scenario I said as we posted the survey: 50/50. But, what I really thought was 70/30 with the 70 being on the side of recommending. Boy, was I wrong!
I wrote a book entitled Arresting Communication and at seminars when a young officer, new to law enforcement, asks for a signature I always write on the inside cover “Welcome to the world’s greatest profession!” And I mean it every single time I write it—still do.
I’ve been in the cop world for over 30 years and I believe this is the noblest of noble professions.
What we do, day-in and day-out is something unique. It’s dangerous, fun, sad, joyful, scary, disheartening, devastating … We can be bored, terrified, angry, humored, aghast, heroes and the enemy all in one 8–12-hour shift.
We make mistakes, say the wrong things and—on rare occasion, statistically—dishonor our uniforms. But we are the ones who show up when those calling can’t control their own lives. We respond when people are victims and beg for help. We hold those victims while they implode and we cry when we get home. We run toward the gunfire while everyone else is fleeing in the opposite direction.
In other words: We make a difference! A real tangible difference to real people when it matters most!
The tests to join our profession are difficult, long, and tedious. The training is more difficult than most imagine. It’s months long and involves psychological tests, intense studying, memorization, physical fitness preparation and the understanding of case law that needs to be applied during incredible stress in the blink of an eye. Oh, and the slightest hesitation or foible might have catastrophic consequences.
Which means this: We need the best and the brightest!
However, law enforcement is in the cross hairs right now. It’s misunderstood by people who don’t even know that they know next to nothing about the profession. Yet they wax poetically about what a police officer should have done, shouldn’t have done, why they did something, or why they didn’t …
They make blanket stupid statements about an officer’s motivation and intent. They know nothing about the complexities of the job, yet with the 20/20 vision of hindsight they criticize and condemn from the comfort of a T.V. studio or their blogger’s chair.
They make up—invent—stats and facts that don’t exist to advance an agenda and or expound a belief that’s thoroughly and fundamentally flawed. In short, they demonize everyone in this profession.
And they demand change. Hire better-trained, ethically enhanced, spiritually spotless people of every race, ethnicity and color, all with the best of intentions and superior intellectual aptitudes.
But who is going to want to join law enforcement today? And who currently in the profession is going to advocate it as a career? My fear: Not many, and our survey supports that.
Why do more than 80% of our respondent officers say they would not, today, encourage a son or daughter to become a cop? Well the answers are found in our follow up question that listed a variety of reasons. Not limiting them to just one, here are the results:
Public lack of respect for the profession: 86%
Poor pay and/or benefits: 39%
Dangerous: 40%
The duties of the job have changed for the worse: 57.00%
Media and/or political cynicism: 79%
Lack of department/professional support: 53%
Our next question was particularly interesting: Would you have been more or less likely to recommend this profession five years ago?
The result: A whopping 70% said that they would have been more likely to recommend a loved one join five years ago.
Wow!
The naysayers and cop-haters won’t care or might even applaud that the legacies of law enforcement families will finally end with the current generation. To the haters, this generation of cops is a woeful, corrupt, violent bunch at odds with the populace they are paid to serve and protect. Good riddance.
Yes the clueless will say that, but what else might happen? Will any of them—those who know it all—join?
Note that the Number One reason officers wouldn’t recommend the profession to a child is public lack of respect for the profession (86%).
So, who would be drawn to a profession that—according to many in the mainstream media—is filled with immoral, unethical, crooked and corrupt militarized thugs who inflict an “epidemic of violence on citizens” and participate in “genocidal racism”?
That’s not a job description that normally attracts people with honorable motives. As a friend put it when he heard about the results of our survey: “You think the smartest black and Latino men and women are going to flock to this profession? These cop haters are creating a worst-case scenario for us—and for themselves.”
I’ve cited the stats in other articles and they are incontrovertible, but let’s stay on point. What will be the fallout of demonizing this noble profession over and over in the mass media? The pundits who demean and disparage law enforcement are the same ones who demand change and better candidates.
So where are we going to get them? If the families who have for generations dedicated their lives to public service won’t advocate the profession, who will?
I’m curious to see if these opinions cited in our survey translate into the real world. I know for a fact that people who were considering the profession have changed their minds and are looking to other careers. Officers in our seminars tell us that they’re “done”: disheartened and retiring early. They warn young people to do something else.
I was talking to my friend Lt. Col. Dave Grossman recently as we prepared for our Bulletproof Warrior Seminar at the California Highway Patrol Academy in Sacramento. He believes that the pendulum will swing back and I hope he’s right. If it doesn’t, what will the future look like? Who will step up?
As Edmund Burke famously said: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
Doing nothing may be the final result of disparaging those who do the hard work of doing good. And that would be tragic for our society.
Friday, February 27, 2015
PORK AND CELIBACY
The Unconventional Gazette
February 27, 2015
A priest and a rabbi were sitting next to each other on an airplane.
After a while, the priest turned to the rabbi and asked, “Is it still a requirement of your faith that you not eat pork?”
The rabbi responded, “Yes, that is still one of our laws.”
The priest then asked, “Have you ever eaten pork?”
To which the rabbi replied, “Yes, on one occasion I did succumb to temptation and tasted a ham sandwich.”
The priest nodded in understanding and went on with his reading.
A while later, the rabbi spoke up and asked the priest, “Father, is it still a requirement of your church that you remain celibate?”
The priest replied, “Yes, that is still very much a part of our faith”
The rabbi then asked him, “Father, have you ever fallen to the temptations of the flesh?”
The priest replied, “Yes, rabbi, on one occasion I was weak and broke my Faith.”
The rabbi nodded understandingly and remained silent, and sat thinking, for about five minutes.
Finally, the rabbi said, “Beats the shit out of a ham sandwich, doesn't it?”
February 27, 2015
A priest and a rabbi were sitting next to each other on an airplane.
After a while, the priest turned to the rabbi and asked, “Is it still a requirement of your faith that you not eat pork?”
The rabbi responded, “Yes, that is still one of our laws.”
The priest then asked, “Have you ever eaten pork?”
To which the rabbi replied, “Yes, on one occasion I did succumb to temptation and tasted a ham sandwich.”
The priest nodded in understanding and went on with his reading.
A while later, the rabbi spoke up and asked the priest, “Father, is it still a requirement of your church that you remain celibate?”
The priest replied, “Yes, that is still very much a part of our faith”
The rabbi then asked him, “Father, have you ever fallen to the temptations of the flesh?”
The priest replied, “Yes, rabbi, on one occasion I was weak and broke my Faith.”
The rabbi nodded understandingly and remained silent, and sat thinking, for about five minutes.
Finally, the rabbi said, “Beats the shit out of a ham sandwich, doesn't it?”
Thursday, February 26, 2015
WHO AND WHAT TO TRUST MORE THAN PRESIDENT OBAMA
“If you like your doctor and your health plan, you can keep your doctor and your plan.” – President Obama
The Unconventional Gazette
February 26, 2015
Mexican tap water
A porcupine with a "'pet me" sign
An elevator ride with Ray Rice
Taking pills offered by Bill Cosby
A Bigfoot sighting
A Palestinian on a motorcycle
A Hillary Clinton war story
Gas station sushi
Charlie Manson
Jimmy Carter
Bernard Madoff
Brian Williams news reports
Pete Carroll coaching decisions
Eddie Ray Routh
Loch Ness monster sightings
Iran’s word about enriching uranium for peaceful purposes only
Bill Clinton saying “I did not have sexual relations with that woman”
The Unconventional Gazette
February 26, 2015
Mexican tap water
A porcupine with a "'pet me" sign
An elevator ride with Ray Rice
Taking pills offered by Bill Cosby
A Bigfoot sighting
A Palestinian on a motorcycle
A Hillary Clinton war story
Gas station sushi
Charlie Manson
Jimmy Carter
Bernard Madoff
Brian Williams news reports
Pete Carroll coaching decisions
Eddie Ray Routh
Loch Ness monster sightings
Iran’s word about enriching uranium for peaceful purposes only
Bill Clinton saying “I did not have sexual relations with that woman”
WHY ERIC HOLDER WON’T LET GO OF FERGUSON
The attorney general seems intent on taking one more jab at the police before leaving the Justice Department
By Jason L. Riley
The Wall Street Journal
February 24, 2015
When all was said and done, the events that unfolded in Ferguson, Mo., last summer were not extraordinary but rather all too familiar. Eighteen-year-old Michael Brown, a black robbery suspect, resisted arrest, attacked a police officer and was shot dead. We’ve seen this movie many times before. But what might have prompted a helpful discussion about high crime rates in black communities has instead prompted a dishonest debate over police behavior.
Professional agitators in the civil-rights community push false narratives to stay relevant, but we should expect more from the Justice Department. Instead, we have Attorney General Eric Holder channeling Al Sharpton . Last week Mr. Holder said that he will soon announce the results of his Ferguson investigation. CNN, citing “sources,” reported that Darren Wilson, the police officer involved in the shooting, is unlikely to be charged but that Justice is preparing to sue the Ferguson police department “over a pattern of racially discriminatory tactics used by police officers, if the police department does not agree to make changes on its own.”
After months of looking into the incident, the Justice Department seems to have come to the same conclusion as the Ferguson grand jury and found no grounds for a criminal prosecution of Mr. Wilson. Mr. Holder might now be trying to justify his bigfooting by suing the city, but there is probably no basis for that, either. Hence, the leak to the media that a civil lawsuit may be in the works. The leak was an egregious breach of protocol and, in effect, a threat. We’ve seen this movie before, too.
In 1994, Congress passed a bill that made unlawful “the pattern or practice” of conduct by police “that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.” Since the law’s inception, the Justice Department has taken action against more than 50 state and local police departments, and nearly all have opted to settle rather than litigate. Investigations often come at the urging of groups like the NAACP and ACLU. Settlements typically involve a police department adopting “best practices” that can encompass the entire realm of policing—hiring, training, supervision—and are drawn up by Justice Department lawyers with little or no experience in law enforcement.
“This is about expanding federal power in the police departments,” said Hans von Spakovsky, a former Justice Department attorney, in an interview. “The lawyers at Justice believe they are the ones who should be promulgating national standards of how cops should behave. And police departments are so afraid of bad publicity that they agree to settle the case with all kinds of rules that Justice wants to impose.”
Pretending that racist police departments (or prosecutors or sentencing guidelines) are a bigger problem than black criminality may line Mr. Sharpton’s pockets and excite the Democratic base, but it won’t prevent future Fergusons or make inner cities less violent and more hospitable to the mostly law-abiding residents who can’t afford to live anywhere else. And to the extent that federal intervention results in police officers becoming overly cautious, neighborhood delinquents gain the upper hand and the community gets more dangerous. After New York City police cut back on the use of stop-and-frisk—after a judge ruled against the policing technique in 2013 and Mayor Bill de Blasio ’s administration refused to challenge the ruling—gun violence rose dramatically. Over the past year, shootings have climbed by 23%. As one police officer told the Daily News, “Guys know they’re not going to get stopped, so they’re packing more now”—in other words, carrying guns.
The Justice Department lawsuits imply that blacks are disproportionately targeted by police due to their skin color, not their behavior, but most serious research refutes that notion. “Contrary to frequently voiced accusations and despite a voluminous literature intent upon demonstrating discrimination at every turn, there is almost no reliable evidence of racial bias in the criminal justice system’s handling of ordinary violent and non-violent offenses,” Amy Wax, a former Justice Department official who teaches at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, wrote in “Race, Wrongs, and Remedies” (2009). “Rather, the facts overwhelmingly show that blacks go to prison more often because blacks commit more crimes.”
Attorney General Holder accuses Americans of being afraid to talk honestly about race relations, then uses his office to scapegoat police departments for black pathology. The conversation that Mr. Holder wants to have about race assumes facts not in evidence. It is also the wrong message to send to the young black men responsible for so much violent crime. These lawsuits make excuses for behavior that ought to be condemned and distract from a much more consequential debate about black cultural attitudes toward work, marriage, parenting and the rule of law. What ails these black communities are the Michael Browns, not the Darren Wilsons. And Mr. Holder’s war on cops won’t change that.
Mr. Riley, a Manhattan Institute senior fellow and Journal contributor, is the author of “Please Stop Helping Us: How Liberals Make It Harder for Blacks to Succeed” (Encounter Books, 2014).
By Jason L. Riley
The Wall Street Journal
February 24, 2015
When all was said and done, the events that unfolded in Ferguson, Mo., last summer were not extraordinary but rather all too familiar. Eighteen-year-old Michael Brown, a black robbery suspect, resisted arrest, attacked a police officer and was shot dead. We’ve seen this movie many times before. But what might have prompted a helpful discussion about high crime rates in black communities has instead prompted a dishonest debate over police behavior.
Professional agitators in the civil-rights community push false narratives to stay relevant, but we should expect more from the Justice Department. Instead, we have Attorney General Eric Holder channeling Al Sharpton . Last week Mr. Holder said that he will soon announce the results of his Ferguson investigation. CNN, citing “sources,” reported that Darren Wilson, the police officer involved in the shooting, is unlikely to be charged but that Justice is preparing to sue the Ferguson police department “over a pattern of racially discriminatory tactics used by police officers, if the police department does not agree to make changes on its own.”
After months of looking into the incident, the Justice Department seems to have come to the same conclusion as the Ferguson grand jury and found no grounds for a criminal prosecution of Mr. Wilson. Mr. Holder might now be trying to justify his bigfooting by suing the city, but there is probably no basis for that, either. Hence, the leak to the media that a civil lawsuit may be in the works. The leak was an egregious breach of protocol and, in effect, a threat. We’ve seen this movie before, too.
In 1994, Congress passed a bill that made unlawful “the pattern or practice” of conduct by police “that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.” Since the law’s inception, the Justice Department has taken action against more than 50 state and local police departments, and nearly all have opted to settle rather than litigate. Investigations often come at the urging of groups like the NAACP and ACLU. Settlements typically involve a police department adopting “best practices” that can encompass the entire realm of policing—hiring, training, supervision—and are drawn up by Justice Department lawyers with little or no experience in law enforcement.
“This is about expanding federal power in the police departments,” said Hans von Spakovsky, a former Justice Department attorney, in an interview. “The lawyers at Justice believe they are the ones who should be promulgating national standards of how cops should behave. And police departments are so afraid of bad publicity that they agree to settle the case with all kinds of rules that Justice wants to impose.”
Pretending that racist police departments (or prosecutors or sentencing guidelines) are a bigger problem than black criminality may line Mr. Sharpton’s pockets and excite the Democratic base, but it won’t prevent future Fergusons or make inner cities less violent and more hospitable to the mostly law-abiding residents who can’t afford to live anywhere else. And to the extent that federal intervention results in police officers becoming overly cautious, neighborhood delinquents gain the upper hand and the community gets more dangerous. After New York City police cut back on the use of stop-and-frisk—after a judge ruled against the policing technique in 2013 and Mayor Bill de Blasio ’s administration refused to challenge the ruling—gun violence rose dramatically. Over the past year, shootings have climbed by 23%. As one police officer told the Daily News, “Guys know they’re not going to get stopped, so they’re packing more now”—in other words, carrying guns.
The Justice Department lawsuits imply that blacks are disproportionately targeted by police due to their skin color, not their behavior, but most serious research refutes that notion. “Contrary to frequently voiced accusations and despite a voluminous literature intent upon demonstrating discrimination at every turn, there is almost no reliable evidence of racial bias in the criminal justice system’s handling of ordinary violent and non-violent offenses,” Amy Wax, a former Justice Department official who teaches at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, wrote in “Race, Wrongs, and Remedies” (2009). “Rather, the facts overwhelmingly show that blacks go to prison more often because blacks commit more crimes.”
Attorney General Holder accuses Americans of being afraid to talk honestly about race relations, then uses his office to scapegoat police departments for black pathology. The conversation that Mr. Holder wants to have about race assumes facts not in evidence. It is also the wrong message to send to the young black men responsible for so much violent crime. These lawsuits make excuses for behavior that ought to be condemned and distract from a much more consequential debate about black cultural attitudes toward work, marriage, parenting and the rule of law. What ails these black communities are the Michael Browns, not the Darren Wilsons. And Mr. Holder’s war on cops won’t change that.
Mr. Riley, a Manhattan Institute senior fellow and Journal contributor, is the author of “Please Stop Helping Us: How Liberals Make It Harder for Blacks to Succeed” (Encounter Books, 2014).
Wednesday, February 25, 2015
COPS WANT MULTIPLE KILLER PAROLED AS REWARD FOR RATTING OUT FELLOW GANG MEMBERS (UPDATE)
Rene ‘Boxer’ Enriquez, who murdered and ordered the murder of numerous victims, has been recommended for parole after cops praised him for being a rat
Gov. Jerry Brown did right by the people of California when on Friday he blocked the parole of multiple-murderer Rene ‘Boxer’ Enriquez. The former Mexican Mafia gang leader had been recommended for parole by the state’s parole board. Several police agencies, including the FBI, had advocated and supported his parole because he had ratted out his former gang members.
The Associated Press reports that:
Enriquez drew attention last month when elite Los Angeles Police Department officers cleared a downtown Los Angeles building so Enriquez could speak to a gathering of police chiefs and business leaders about the growth and operations of a prison gang that has evolved into a transnational criminal enterprise.
The Los Angeles District Attorney's Office opposed his parole request, although he had letters of support from the FBI; several deputy district attorneys; a deputy state attorney general; three assistant U.S. Attorneys; and several officers from local forces and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
Enriquez had been convicted of two murders, multiple assaults and drug trafficking conspiracy. Even after Enriquez took the Fifth during his parole hearing when asked about any other murders he may have committed, the parole board still recommended this filth for parole.
Dr. Richard Krupp says, “I guess inmate Enriquez will still be able to continue his consulting job. Will this extend his lecture schedule? What about book signings? Things are probably up in the air now after this temporary setback.”
I hope Dr. Krupp is wrong when he calls the blocked parole a temporary setback. The courts could overturn the governor's decision.
Let’s give Jerry Brown a well-deserved pat on the back for this one.
And shame, shame on the cops for advocating and supporting the parole of this murderous slimeball! Even if Enriquez had ratted out and brought down the whole Mexican Mafia, he still would not deserve to be paroled … ever!
Gov. Jerry Brown did right by the people of California when on Friday he blocked the parole of multiple-murderer Rene ‘Boxer’ Enriquez. The former Mexican Mafia gang leader had been recommended for parole by the state’s parole board. Several police agencies, including the FBI, had advocated and supported his parole because he had ratted out his former gang members.
The Associated Press reports that:
Enriquez drew attention last month when elite Los Angeles Police Department officers cleared a downtown Los Angeles building so Enriquez could speak to a gathering of police chiefs and business leaders about the growth and operations of a prison gang that has evolved into a transnational criminal enterprise.
The Los Angeles District Attorney's Office opposed his parole request, although he had letters of support from the FBI; several deputy district attorneys; a deputy state attorney general; three assistant U.S. Attorneys; and several officers from local forces and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
Enriquez had been convicted of two murders, multiple assaults and drug trafficking conspiracy. Even after Enriquez took the Fifth during his parole hearing when asked about any other murders he may have committed, the parole board still recommended this filth for parole.
Dr. Richard Krupp says, “I guess inmate Enriquez will still be able to continue his consulting job. Will this extend his lecture schedule? What about book signings? Things are probably up in the air now after this temporary setback.”
I hope Dr. Krupp is wrong when he calls the blocked parole a temporary setback. The courts could overturn the governor's decision.
Let’s give Jerry Brown a well-deserved pat on the back for this one.
And shame, shame on the cops for advocating and supporting the parole of this murderous slimeball! Even if Enriquez had ratted out and brought down the whole Mexican Mafia, he still would not deserve to be paroled … ever!
POLICING THE BLACK COMMUNITY
According to liberals, there are two ways to police America, one for the white middle class and one for the black underclass
As I mentioned last week, NYPD’s ‘Broken Windows’ approach to crime, also known as ‘Quality-of-Life Maintenance Policing,’ has been criticized by liberals as imposing a white, middle-class morality on urban populations. In other words, according to those liberal critics, there should be two standards of morality in America, one for the white middle class and one for the black underclass.
The term ‘Broken Windows’ arose out of the concept that those who commit minor crimes, like breaking windows in low-income housing projects, should be arrested because sooner or later they are bound to commit serious crimes. Those who commit minor crimes disrupt the lives of the community residents just as those who commit serious crimes. Broken Windows holds that by enforcing all laws, the quality of life for residents is improved and crime is reduced.
New York Police Commissioner William Bratton had been and continues to be a strong advocate and supporter of Broken Windows even though liberals accuse the program of being responsible for the death of Eric Garner, a 350-pound asthmatic with a history of heart disease. Garner, who had a rap sheet of 30 arrests since 1980, had been arrested multiple times for selling single cigarettes, known as "loosies," from cigarette packs which had not been taxed. On July 17, 2014, NY cops responded to a complaint from Staten Island merchants that Garner was selling untaxed cigarettes again. When they attempted to arrest him, the 350-pound giant resisted. When it was all over, he was dead.
Liberals claim Garner should never have been arrested for such a ‘minor’ offense because selling untaxed cigarettes was an accepted way, among other unlawful activities, of earning a living in New York’s black neighborhoods.
Whenever and wherever a white cop shoots a black man it becomes a flashpoint resulting in demonstrations against the police. It seems as though the ‘community’ believes that no shooting of an African-American man by a white cop is justified. It used to be that if a cop believed he faced an imminent threat to his life, he would be justified in resorting to deadly force. Them days are history. Now, unless the officer can prove the threat was for real, as opposed to in his mind, he will find himself in deep trouble, especially if it’s a white cop shooting a black man.
This begs the question: Should America’s minority neighborhoods be policed differently from white middle class neighborhoods? I say yes, but not in the way liberals want to do it.
Liberals want us to stop “imposing a white, middle-class morality on urban populations.“ Now that is absolutely absurd. We cannot have a set of rules for one group of our population and a different set of rules for another. For laws to be justified, they must apply to and be enforced on all citizens. People should not have the right to choose which laws they want to obey and which laws they want to defy.
Here is what Riverside, California experienced in applying a double standard to policing divergent neighborhoods. Back in the ‘70s, Riverside had a very progressive police chief. He had some innovative ideas such as having his officers spend a penniless day and night on L.A.’s skid row and having his officers locked up in a jail overnight. He believed it was important for his officers to know first-hand what it was like to be homeless and to be locked up in jail. He also decided to take a radically different approach to policing Casablanca, a crime infested Mexican-American neighborhood, plagued by the Chagolla (sp.?) gang.
It seems as though the Chagollas convinced the Casablanca residents, probably through intimidation, that they would do a better job of protecting the community than the cops. When the liberal police chief met with some of the residents he agreed that his cops would no longer patrol Casablanca. How did that nonsense work out? No too well. The gang extorted money from the residents in return for their protection. If a cop happened to venture into Casablanca, he was met with gunfire.
Finally, after the residents had had their fill of Chagolla law and order, they asked the cops to return. But it wasn’t all that easy. The cops literally had to fight their way back into the neighborhood. In order to avoid being targeted by the Chagollas, they even changed their uniforms by eliminating badges, shoulder patches and sergeant stripes, collar insignia and other items that could reflect street lights in the darkness, adopting non-reflective cloth materials instead.
How should the black community be policed when its members have a deep mistrust of the cops? Certainly not by letting the Bloods and Crips take over maintaining order like the Chagollas did in Casablanca. And not by ignoring low-level crimes that may be acceptable to the community.
I have previously advocated that only black cops should be assigned to maintain order in black urban neighborhoods. For that I was severely criticized and accused of practicing segregation. My answer to that is: Despite court orders to the contrary we still have all black schools and all black housing. Besides that, I did not suggest that only white cops police white neighborhoods. Furthermore, let me also point out that the tribal lands of American Indians have their own police forces.
So criticize me if you like, but I still believe that only black cops should police our black communities. With black cops policing black neighborhoods, the community will become more trustful of the police and will eventually embrace the Broken Windows concept of enforcing all laws. And if a black cop shoots a black man, no one can say that racism lurked behind the shooting.
If it’s not all black cops in all black neighborhoods, does anyone have a better suggestion?
As I mentioned last week, NYPD’s ‘Broken Windows’ approach to crime, also known as ‘Quality-of-Life Maintenance Policing,’ has been criticized by liberals as imposing a white, middle-class morality on urban populations. In other words, according to those liberal critics, there should be two standards of morality in America, one for the white middle class and one for the black underclass.
The term ‘Broken Windows’ arose out of the concept that those who commit minor crimes, like breaking windows in low-income housing projects, should be arrested because sooner or later they are bound to commit serious crimes. Those who commit minor crimes disrupt the lives of the community residents just as those who commit serious crimes. Broken Windows holds that by enforcing all laws, the quality of life for residents is improved and crime is reduced.
New York Police Commissioner William Bratton had been and continues to be a strong advocate and supporter of Broken Windows even though liberals accuse the program of being responsible for the death of Eric Garner, a 350-pound asthmatic with a history of heart disease. Garner, who had a rap sheet of 30 arrests since 1980, had been arrested multiple times for selling single cigarettes, known as "loosies," from cigarette packs which had not been taxed. On July 17, 2014, NY cops responded to a complaint from Staten Island merchants that Garner was selling untaxed cigarettes again. When they attempted to arrest him, the 350-pound giant resisted. When it was all over, he was dead.
Liberals claim Garner should never have been arrested for such a ‘minor’ offense because selling untaxed cigarettes was an accepted way, among other unlawful activities, of earning a living in New York’s black neighborhoods.
Whenever and wherever a white cop shoots a black man it becomes a flashpoint resulting in demonstrations against the police. It seems as though the ‘community’ believes that no shooting of an African-American man by a white cop is justified. It used to be that if a cop believed he faced an imminent threat to his life, he would be justified in resorting to deadly force. Them days are history. Now, unless the officer can prove the threat was for real, as opposed to in his mind, he will find himself in deep trouble, especially if it’s a white cop shooting a black man.
This begs the question: Should America’s minority neighborhoods be policed differently from white middle class neighborhoods? I say yes, but not in the way liberals want to do it.
Liberals want us to stop “imposing a white, middle-class morality on urban populations.“ Now that is absolutely absurd. We cannot have a set of rules for one group of our population and a different set of rules for another. For laws to be justified, they must apply to and be enforced on all citizens. People should not have the right to choose which laws they want to obey and which laws they want to defy.
Here is what Riverside, California experienced in applying a double standard to policing divergent neighborhoods. Back in the ‘70s, Riverside had a very progressive police chief. He had some innovative ideas such as having his officers spend a penniless day and night on L.A.’s skid row and having his officers locked up in a jail overnight. He believed it was important for his officers to know first-hand what it was like to be homeless and to be locked up in jail. He also decided to take a radically different approach to policing Casablanca, a crime infested Mexican-American neighborhood, plagued by the Chagolla (sp.?) gang.
It seems as though the Chagollas convinced the Casablanca residents, probably through intimidation, that they would do a better job of protecting the community than the cops. When the liberal police chief met with some of the residents he agreed that his cops would no longer patrol Casablanca. How did that nonsense work out? No too well. The gang extorted money from the residents in return for their protection. If a cop happened to venture into Casablanca, he was met with gunfire.
Finally, after the residents had had their fill of Chagolla law and order, they asked the cops to return. But it wasn’t all that easy. The cops literally had to fight their way back into the neighborhood. In order to avoid being targeted by the Chagollas, they even changed their uniforms by eliminating badges, shoulder patches and sergeant stripes, collar insignia and other items that could reflect street lights in the darkness, adopting non-reflective cloth materials instead.
How should the black community be policed when its members have a deep mistrust of the cops? Certainly not by letting the Bloods and Crips take over maintaining order like the Chagollas did in Casablanca. And not by ignoring low-level crimes that may be acceptable to the community.
I have previously advocated that only black cops should be assigned to maintain order in black urban neighborhoods. For that I was severely criticized and accused of practicing segregation. My answer to that is: Despite court orders to the contrary we still have all black schools and all black housing. Besides that, I did not suggest that only white cops police white neighborhoods. Furthermore, let me also point out that the tribal lands of American Indians have their own police forces.
So criticize me if you like, but I still believe that only black cops should police our black communities. With black cops policing black neighborhoods, the community will become more trustful of the police and will eventually embrace the Broken Windows concept of enforcing all laws. And if a black cop shoots a black man, no one can say that racism lurked behind the shooting.
If it’s not all black cops in all black neighborhoods, does anyone have a better suggestion?
Sunday, February 22, 2015
GUANTANAMO VS. ANDERSONVILLE
Guantanamo is a Club Med resort compared to the hellhole that was Andersonville
President Obama is determined to shut down the terrorist detention camp at the U.S. Naval Base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Obama and his liberal supporters are upset that suspected Islamic terrorists are being held there without charges and under inhumane conditions.
It is true that most of the remaining detainees have been held at Guantanamo since shortly after 9/11. We are at war with Islamic terrorists, a war they started when they flew those airliners into New York’s World Trade Center and into the Pentagon. It is a dirty war fought without any international rules of engagement. That is why I believe that we are justified in imprisoning suspected terrorists without any formal charges. A few of the detainees may even be innocent.
By holding the terrorists outside our country, they are not subject to the Constitutional rights and protections granted to people within the United States.
If Obama thinks those Islamic terrorists are being held under in humane conditions, then he does not know the meaning of ‘inhumane.’ The prisoners at Guantanamo are well-fed, clothed and sheltered. They receive good medical care.
I just got through watching a rerun of the TV movie ‘Andersonville.’ Compared to the hellhole that was Andersonville, Guantanamo is a Club Med resort.
The Confederates held 45,000 Union soldiers at the prisoner-of-war camp in Andersonville, Georgia. The only shelter they had were some makeshift tents. The only clothing they had were the clothes they were wearing when captured. They were not given enough to eat. The camp had an inadequate water supply. There was no sanitation. The prisoners were given no medical care. 13,000 prisoners died of scurvy, diarrhea, and dysentery.
Mr. President, Andersonville was inhumane, not Guantanamo!
President Obama is determined to shut down the terrorist detention camp at the U.S. Naval Base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Obama and his liberal supporters are upset that suspected Islamic terrorists are being held there without charges and under inhumane conditions.
It is true that most of the remaining detainees have been held at Guantanamo since shortly after 9/11. We are at war with Islamic terrorists, a war they started when they flew those airliners into New York’s World Trade Center and into the Pentagon. It is a dirty war fought without any international rules of engagement. That is why I believe that we are justified in imprisoning suspected terrorists without any formal charges. A few of the detainees may even be innocent.
By holding the terrorists outside our country, they are not subject to the Constitutional rights and protections granted to people within the United States.
If Obama thinks those Islamic terrorists are being held under in humane conditions, then he does not know the meaning of ‘inhumane.’ The prisoners at Guantanamo are well-fed, clothed and sheltered. They receive good medical care.
I just got through watching a rerun of the TV movie ‘Andersonville.’ Compared to the hellhole that was Andersonville, Guantanamo is a Club Med resort.
The Confederates held 45,000 Union soldiers at the prisoner-of-war camp in Andersonville, Georgia. The only shelter they had were some makeshift tents. The only clothing they had were the clothes they were wearing when captured. They were not given enough to eat. The camp had an inadequate water supply. There was no sanitation. The prisoners were given no medical care. 13,000 prisoners died of scurvy, diarrhea, and dysentery.
Mr. President, Andersonville was inhumane, not Guantanamo!
HOUSTON NUMERO UNO!
The Bayou City leads the nation in bank robberies and armored car robberies
My pal Bob Walsh seems to take great pride in his hometown’s homicide rate. While Stockton may rank high in the number of murders, it can’t hold a candle against my hometown in other crime areas.
The FBI notes that Houston leads the nation in bank robberies and armored car robberies. And while Stockton may beat us in homicides per 100,000 people, Houston probably has more murders in one day than Bob’s hometown has in a month.
Texas proud and Houston proud! Bob, eat your heart out.
My pal Bob Walsh seems to take great pride in his hometown’s homicide rate. While Stockton may rank high in the number of murders, it can’t hold a candle against my hometown in other crime areas.
The FBI notes that Houston leads the nation in bank robberies and armored car robberies. And while Stockton may beat us in homicides per 100,000 people, Houston probably has more murders in one day than Bob’s hometown has in a month.
Texas proud and Houston proud! Bob, eat your heart out.
Saturday, February 21, 2015
CRAIGLIST BUYING AT THE FULSHEAR COP SHOP
A small Texas police department provides a safe place for Craiglist shoppers
Shopping on Craiglist and similar social media websites can be a risky business. Not only can you get ripped off while buying or selling on Craiglist, but you are literally risking your life dealing with strangers. Crooks are using the sites to prey on innocent victims. Last month, a Georgia couple was murdered after they drove to a secluded area to buy a vintage car listed on Craigslist. Last year a Houston man thought he was buying a Sony PlayStation when he was robbed and shot to death. Craiglist shoppers throughout the country have been ripped off, robbed and assaulted.
Fulshear, Texas is a small city just west Houston. Its police department is now providing Craiglist buyers and sellers a safe place to conduct their transactions. They are being encouraged to meet in the police station’s parking lot or inside the cop shop’s lobby if they prefer.
Fulshear Police Chief Kenny Seymour says, “You are dealing with the unknown you are meeting people for the first time you don't know, generally these involve cash transactions, the criminal knows that and is where he is taking advantage of these individuals.”
The parking lot is covered by eight surveillance cameras. Those cameras would discourage a crook from attempting to rob his intended victim.
Chief Seymour said his officers will also check to see if any items being bought or sold are stolen. "Just to ensure that everything is kosher with these transactions, we are willing to take the items if they have identification numbers to make sure they are not stolen.”
What a great idea! By providing its parking lot or police station lobby as safe transaction places, the Fulshear Police Department has put real meaning in the police motto: To Protect and To Serve.
Shopping on Craiglist and similar social media websites can be a risky business. Not only can you get ripped off while buying or selling on Craiglist, but you are literally risking your life dealing with strangers. Crooks are using the sites to prey on innocent victims. Last month, a Georgia couple was murdered after they drove to a secluded area to buy a vintage car listed on Craigslist. Last year a Houston man thought he was buying a Sony PlayStation when he was robbed and shot to death. Craiglist shoppers throughout the country have been ripped off, robbed and assaulted.
Fulshear, Texas is a small city just west Houston. Its police department is now providing Craiglist buyers and sellers a safe place to conduct their transactions. They are being encouraged to meet in the police station’s parking lot or inside the cop shop’s lobby if they prefer.
Fulshear Police Chief Kenny Seymour says, “You are dealing with the unknown you are meeting people for the first time you don't know, generally these involve cash transactions, the criminal knows that and is where he is taking advantage of these individuals.”
The parking lot is covered by eight surveillance cameras. Those cameras would discourage a crook from attempting to rob his intended victim.
Chief Seymour said his officers will also check to see if any items being bought or sold are stolen. "Just to ensure that everything is kosher with these transactions, we are willing to take the items if they have identification numbers to make sure they are not stolen.”
What a great idea! By providing its parking lot or police station lobby as safe transaction places, the Fulshear Police Department has put real meaning in the police motto: To Protect and To Serve.
AMERICAN SNIPER’S KILLER SUFFERED FROM CANNABIS-INDUCED PARANOIA
A forensic psychologist testified that Eddie Routh had marijuana-induced psychotic symptoms when he killed Chris Kyle and Chad Littlefield
On Friday, forensic psychologist Randall Price testified that Eddie Routh was not insane when he killed Chris Kyle and Chad Littlefield. Price, who had interviewed the defendant for 10 hours, testified Friday that Routh had "cannabis-induced psychotic symptoms" caused by constant pot smoking, combined with heavy drinking.
Price testified that Routh has a paranoid personality disorder, not a mental disorder. “I think he was experiencing psychotic symptoms, but I think it was because of the drugs, the marijuana.” Price said that is called “voluntary intoxication,” not insanity.
According to WFAA:
Price told jurors that cannabis-induced psychotic symptoms are more visual or smell-oriented, and can last for days or even a month. Jurors have been told Routh was upset by Chad Littlefield's cologne. Price said Routh has a "paranoid personality disorder," or a person who always thinks someone is trying to take advantage of them. He said a disorder is not mental illness. Price testified that marijuana abuse would increase the paranoia. "It heightens their suspiciousness," he said. "He angers easily."
Both Dr. Price and Dr. Michael Arambula, a forensic psychiatrist, agreed that Routh did not suffer from PTSD because as a Marine he never saw any combat during a deployment to Iraq and he never handled any dead bodies of hurricane victims while stationed in Haiti.
During the opening phase of the trial, Routh’s uncle James Watson had told the jury that he and his nephew smoked “strong” pot together just before Kyle and Littlefield picked Routh up on that fateful trip to a firing range. Watson testified that after he and his nephew ended their pot smoking session, his “buzz” lasted for another three hours. It stands to reason that Routh remained high for a similar period of time, thus putting him under the influence of marijuana at the time of the killings.
And they keep saying that smoking pot is harmless. Yeah, right. And pigs can fly.
On Friday, forensic psychologist Randall Price testified that Eddie Routh was not insane when he killed Chris Kyle and Chad Littlefield. Price, who had interviewed the defendant for 10 hours, testified Friday that Routh had "cannabis-induced psychotic symptoms" caused by constant pot smoking, combined with heavy drinking.
Price testified that Routh has a paranoid personality disorder, not a mental disorder. “I think he was experiencing psychotic symptoms, but I think it was because of the drugs, the marijuana.” Price said that is called “voluntary intoxication,” not insanity.
According to WFAA:
Price told jurors that cannabis-induced psychotic symptoms are more visual or smell-oriented, and can last for days or even a month. Jurors have been told Routh was upset by Chad Littlefield's cologne. Price said Routh has a "paranoid personality disorder," or a person who always thinks someone is trying to take advantage of them. He said a disorder is not mental illness. Price testified that marijuana abuse would increase the paranoia. "It heightens their suspiciousness," he said. "He angers easily."
Both Dr. Price and Dr. Michael Arambula, a forensic psychiatrist, agreed that Routh did not suffer from PTSD because as a Marine he never saw any combat during a deployment to Iraq and he never handled any dead bodies of hurricane victims while stationed in Haiti.
During the opening phase of the trial, Routh’s uncle James Watson had told the jury that he and his nephew smoked “strong” pot together just before Kyle and Littlefield picked Routh up on that fateful trip to a firing range. Watson testified that after he and his nephew ended their pot smoking session, his “buzz” lasted for another three hours. It stands to reason that Routh remained high for a similar period of time, thus putting him under the influence of marijuana at the time of the killings.
And they keep saying that smoking pot is harmless. Yeah, right. And pigs can fly.
Friday, February 20, 2015
BACK IN 1879, A FIRING SQUAD MISSED THE INMATE'S HEART
Utah anti-death penalty crowd again is off target
By Greg ‘Gadfly’ Doyle
PACOVILLA Corrections Blog
February 20, 2015
The anti-capital punishment/anti-death penalty folks never cease to amuse and frustrate me. Perhaps it is because the press grants them way too much attention. It is as if those who oppose the death penalty are the only voices that matter in the public discourse over executions.
Does it matter to anyone in the anti-death penalty camp that voters in many states continue to demand, vote for, and affirm the need for State executions of heinous murderers? Are they concerned that the highest court in the country has continued to allow executions to move forward in States where it is sanctioned (hence, it is legally justified)?
The answer appears to be a resounding, “No!” It is very clear that those who oppose capital punishment believe there is no acceptable manner in which any State should dispose of a condemned prisoner, other than to allow that inmate to expire from more compassionate and natural causes.
The question I ask is this: What makes the life of a convicted and condemned criminal (who determined to unlawfully and viciously take someone else’s life) more important than the rest of society? Why do we, who abide by the law and live peacefully among our neighbors, have to endure the existence of heinous, brutal, and brazen killers?
Is it morally unjust to terminate a human life under ANY circumstance? No. Though I find it morally reprehensible, our justice system justifies abortion (killing unborn human life) under general circumstances. Soldiers are permitted to kill their opponents on the battlefield. Peace officers are allowed to engage threats to life with deadly force. And American citizens are allowed to defend their own lives and kill assailants when justified.
And according to the law in most States, executing condemned prisoners (for murder) is completely justified. Morality is about judgment—a determination of what is right and wrong where human behavior is concerned. And if, through the process of a legal proceeding, a jury and judge determine execution is justified, then it is morally sound based upon the law.
What is morally wrong, in my estimation, is the perpetual delay of justice and circumvention of the law through endless and, in most cases, superfluous appeals.
And one of those perpetual appeals from anti-death penalty advocates is focused upon lethal injection and its chemical agents. Wait a minute! Wasn’t lethal injection the alternative to the electric chair, hanging, firing squad, and gas chamber because those methods had the appearance of medieval torture? Weren’t we appalled at the images of condemned men and women writhing at the end of a rope, smoldering in a chair, gasping for one last breath, or shuddering from the report of a bullet?
So the alternative was putting the condemned to sleep, so they would not have to experience outwardly what was coming inwardly. Our sensibilities and consciences could remain in tact using lethal injection.
That argument was nothing more than a scam; forgive the pun—a con job. The condemned are just as dead whether being hanged, electrocuted, gassed, shot, or injected. But how we, as a society, feel about ourselves afterwards is what is at stake.
Didn’t electrocutions just make you feel dirty? Aren’t those hardhearted prison guards just itching to toss Lefty into the chamber and drop the pill on him? How dreadful a sight to see Mugsy walked up the steps of the gallows for a necktie party? Doesn’t anybody have compassion anymore?!
Death is cruel, People—DON’T YOU GET IT?!!! The anti-death penalty people don’t like death. Death sucks. So don’t do it, please.
And because the lethal injection fight is becoming more difficult for States to endure, some states are suspending the execution of condemned prisoners to avoid legal entanglements in the courts. Not the State of Utah. There is serious consideration being given to bringing back the firing squad as a means of execution in their House of Representatives (for the full story see http://tinyurl.com/n3d2apa .)
The article said opponents of the firing squad cited one incident in 1879 where a bullet missed the inmate’s heart and it took 27 minutes for him to die. Hmmmmm. That is well over a century with only one mishap (botched execution.) Sounds like an effective execution method. Let’s sign California up before all our death row inmates die of old age.
If one incident in 1879 is the best they can cite for a reason not to use the firing squad, then the Utah anti-death penalty crowd (again) is off target.
By Greg ‘Gadfly’ Doyle
PACOVILLA Corrections Blog
February 20, 2015
The anti-capital punishment/anti-death penalty folks never cease to amuse and frustrate me. Perhaps it is because the press grants them way too much attention. It is as if those who oppose the death penalty are the only voices that matter in the public discourse over executions.
Does it matter to anyone in the anti-death penalty camp that voters in many states continue to demand, vote for, and affirm the need for State executions of heinous murderers? Are they concerned that the highest court in the country has continued to allow executions to move forward in States where it is sanctioned (hence, it is legally justified)?
The answer appears to be a resounding, “No!” It is very clear that those who oppose capital punishment believe there is no acceptable manner in which any State should dispose of a condemned prisoner, other than to allow that inmate to expire from more compassionate and natural causes.
The question I ask is this: What makes the life of a convicted and condemned criminal (who determined to unlawfully and viciously take someone else’s life) more important than the rest of society? Why do we, who abide by the law and live peacefully among our neighbors, have to endure the existence of heinous, brutal, and brazen killers?
Is it morally unjust to terminate a human life under ANY circumstance? No. Though I find it morally reprehensible, our justice system justifies abortion (killing unborn human life) under general circumstances. Soldiers are permitted to kill their opponents on the battlefield. Peace officers are allowed to engage threats to life with deadly force. And American citizens are allowed to defend their own lives and kill assailants when justified.
And according to the law in most States, executing condemned prisoners (for murder) is completely justified. Morality is about judgment—a determination of what is right and wrong where human behavior is concerned. And if, through the process of a legal proceeding, a jury and judge determine execution is justified, then it is morally sound based upon the law.
What is morally wrong, in my estimation, is the perpetual delay of justice and circumvention of the law through endless and, in most cases, superfluous appeals.
And one of those perpetual appeals from anti-death penalty advocates is focused upon lethal injection and its chemical agents. Wait a minute! Wasn’t lethal injection the alternative to the electric chair, hanging, firing squad, and gas chamber because those methods had the appearance of medieval torture? Weren’t we appalled at the images of condemned men and women writhing at the end of a rope, smoldering in a chair, gasping for one last breath, or shuddering from the report of a bullet?
So the alternative was putting the condemned to sleep, so they would not have to experience outwardly what was coming inwardly. Our sensibilities and consciences could remain in tact using lethal injection.
That argument was nothing more than a scam; forgive the pun—a con job. The condemned are just as dead whether being hanged, electrocuted, gassed, shot, or injected. But how we, as a society, feel about ourselves afterwards is what is at stake.
Didn’t electrocutions just make you feel dirty? Aren’t those hardhearted prison guards just itching to toss Lefty into the chamber and drop the pill on him? How dreadful a sight to see Mugsy walked up the steps of the gallows for a necktie party? Doesn’t anybody have compassion anymore?!
Death is cruel, People—DON’T YOU GET IT?!!! The anti-death penalty people don’t like death. Death sucks. So don’t do it, please.
And because the lethal injection fight is becoming more difficult for States to endure, some states are suspending the execution of condemned prisoners to avoid legal entanglements in the courts. Not the State of Utah. There is serious consideration being given to bringing back the firing squad as a means of execution in their House of Representatives (for the full story see http://tinyurl.com/n3d2apa .)
The article said opponents of the firing squad cited one incident in 1879 where a bullet missed the inmate’s heart and it took 27 minutes for him to die. Hmmmmm. That is well over a century with only one mishap (botched execution.) Sounds like an effective execution method. Let’s sign California up before all our death row inmates die of old age.
If one incident in 1879 is the best they can cite for a reason not to use the firing squad, then the Utah anti-death penalty crowd (again) is off target.
CHRISTOPHER LEE WILLIS FLUNKED BURGLARY 101
After being chased out of a second floor window in a neighboring house, Chris tries another house only to meet a widow with a blazing gun
Christopher Lee Willis, 28, was not a very good burglar. He was a noisy burglar. He is now a dead burglar.
Chris was burglarizing homes in a Columbus, Ohio neighborhood during the early hours of Thursday morning. Instead of being quiet, Chris made a lot of noise by breaking windows to gain entry. Around 5 a.m. he got caught in one house where the occupants chased him out a second floor window. Undaunted, he picked himself up and smashed the window of a neighboring house, climbed in and … bang, bang, bang, bang … his body looked like Swiss cheese.
The house Chris broke into was occupied by a widow. Last week, her son had bought her a gun because he feared for his mother’s safety, living alone in a crime-infested Columbus neighborhood.
When the widow heard the window being smashed, she grabbed the gun, spotted ‘ole Chris inside her house and with the gun blazing away, perforated his body multiple times. The hapless burglar died in a hospital two hours later.
Chris not only flunked Burglary 101, but in his case the saying should go: If at first you don’t succeed … don’t try again!
Christopher Lee Willis, 28, was not a very good burglar. He was a noisy burglar. He is now a dead burglar.
Chris was burglarizing homes in a Columbus, Ohio neighborhood during the early hours of Thursday morning. Instead of being quiet, Chris made a lot of noise by breaking windows to gain entry. Around 5 a.m. he got caught in one house where the occupants chased him out a second floor window. Undaunted, he picked himself up and smashed the window of a neighboring house, climbed in and … bang, bang, bang, bang … his body looked like Swiss cheese.
The house Chris broke into was occupied by a widow. Last week, her son had bought her a gun because he feared for his mother’s safety, living alone in a crime-infested Columbus neighborhood.
When the widow heard the window being smashed, she grabbed the gun, spotted ‘ole Chris inside her house and with the gun blazing away, perforated his body multiple times. The hapless burglar died in a hospital two hours later.
Chris not only flunked Burglary 101, but in his case the saying should go: If at first you don’t succeed … don’t try again!
Thursday, February 19, 2015
BRA-HOLSTER MALFUNCTIONS
Pistol-packing momma shoots herself dead while adjusting her bra-holster
Reports are just now coming to light that on New Year’s Day a St. Joseph, Michigan woman accidentally shot herself to death while adjusting her bra-holster. Christina Bond, 55, was repositioning a handgun inside her brassiere when it accidentally discharged. She was looking down at the hardware when the errand round struck her in the eye.
St. Joseph Public Safety Director Mark Clapp said, "She was having trouble adjusting her bra holster, couldn't get it to fit the way she wanted it to. She was looking down at it and accidentally discharged the weapon.”
Christina, a Navy veteran who served as a shore patrol officer, was taken to Lakeland Hospital, then airlifted to Bronson Methodist Hospital in Kalamazoo where she expired the next day.
Bond had recently been elected as a Republican precinct judge. You could say that her term in office was rather short-lived due to a malfunctioning bra-holster.
Apparently bra-holsters are becoming popular with well-endowed women. However, they rank at the very bottom on my list of handgun holsters. They are absolutely useless in quick-draw situations and are obviously dangerous to women as well. My expertise in this area may be somewhat questionable since my boobs are not big enough to conceal a firearm.
Reports are just now coming to light that on New Year’s Day a St. Joseph, Michigan woman accidentally shot herself to death while adjusting her bra-holster. Christina Bond, 55, was repositioning a handgun inside her brassiere when it accidentally discharged. She was looking down at the hardware when the errand round struck her in the eye.
St. Joseph Public Safety Director Mark Clapp said, "She was having trouble adjusting her bra holster, couldn't get it to fit the way she wanted it to. She was looking down at it and accidentally discharged the weapon.”
Christina, a Navy veteran who served as a shore patrol officer, was taken to Lakeland Hospital, then airlifted to Bronson Methodist Hospital in Kalamazoo where she expired the next day.
Bond had recently been elected as a Republican precinct judge. You could say that her term in office was rather short-lived due to a malfunctioning bra-holster.
Apparently bra-holsters are becoming popular with well-endowed women. However, they rank at the very bottom on my list of handgun holsters. They are absolutely useless in quick-draw situations and are obviously dangerous to women as well. My expertise in this area may be somewhat questionable since my boobs are not big enough to conceal a firearm.
Wednesday, February 18, 2015
ARE OUR PRISONS REALLY FULL OF POT SMOKERS AND HUBCAP THIEVES?
The cost of incarceration and the impact of certain crimes on minorities fuel the demands for criminal justice reform
Recently Bob Walsh noted that because of Gov. Jerry Brown’s prison realignment program, California’s prisons are now “housing ‘real bad guys’ instead of pot smokers and hubcap thieves.” Very clever, that Bob. But it might surprise him that two mortal enemies – liberals and conservatives - are now allied in demanding new criminal justice reforms. Conservatives now agree with liberals that non-violent offenders should not be confined in our prisons. Of course though, each side is doing so for very different reasons.
Let’s start with the conservatives. The former ‘lock ‘em up and throw away the key’ crowd has suddenly come to realize that their philosophy has driven taxes sky high. Apparently it never occurred to conservatives before that someone has to pay for keeping all the criminals locked up. And now that their pocket books are being emptied, they are calling for ‘community based rehabilitation’ and for the release from prison of ‘nonviolent’ criminals.
Liberals, on the other hand, are exercising their intellectual gray matter by claiming that our prisons are full of pot smokers and that incarceration for non-violent drug crimes disproportionally impacts minorities, especially young African-American men. Their solution is to legalize marijuana and, like their now conservative allies, are demanding community based rehabilitation for non-violent criminals.
How about all those pot smokers in prison? I’ll grant you there are a lot of inmates doing time for possession of marijuana, but is that really what they got busted for? The liberals would have us believe the prisons are full of inmates doing time for simple possession of pot. Nothing could be further from the truth! You can bet that the overwhelming majority of inmates doing time for possession were actually busted for sales of marijuana, and it wasn’t for selling just a couple of joints. These dope dealers were able to plea bargain the more serious sales charges down to possession in order to receive a lesser prison sentence. And you can also bet that some of these dealers committed acts of violence, charges for which were dismissed as part of the plea bargain.
Now, what about the disproportionate impact the imprisonment for drug crimes has on young African-American men? Liberals claim that whites get away with selling white powder cocaine while blacks get busted for selling a few rocks of crack cocaine. Even President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder keep bellowing that mantra. I can’t argue with them. But there is a good reason for that. Those white white-powder cocaine dealers are much more sophisticated than those black crack dealers. They sell their dope clandestinely and are much harder to catch. Young African-American men can be found openly selling dope on every street corner in predominantly black neighborhoods. And by the way, many of their customers happen to be white.
Those pot possession prison sentences are not ruining the lives of young black men. Those men are ruining the lives of everyone they sell dope to. They should be locked up, no matter how disproportionate their numbers may be. They have chosen to make their livelihood selling illegal drugs on their own volition and, if caught, should be made to pay the price for their unlawful activities. That price should be incarceration in prison.
One last word about the liberal mantra that our criminal justice system is discriminatory. NYPD’s ‘Broken Windows’ approach to crime, also known as ‘Quality-of-Life Maintenance Policing,’ holds that in [minority] communities contending with high levels of disruption, maintaining order [by enforcing all laws] improves the quality of life for residents and reduces crime. The liberal critics of Broken Windows claim that it imposes a white, middle-class morality on urban populations. Say what? Are they serious? Do they really mean that the black underclass is to be held to a lower law enforcement standard than the white middle and upper classes? Obviously they do. Liberals emphasize that Eric Garner, who died while resisting New York cops trying to arrest him for the illegal sales of untaxed cigarettes, was a victim of Broken Windows because his crime was an accepted way, among other unlawful activities, of earning a living in New York’s black neighborhoods.
To lower taxes, conservatives no longer want to send Bob’s ’hubcap thieves’ to prison, opting instead for community based rehabilitation. Sounds good, but is it? The idea being that low-level non-violent criminals can be rehabilitated better in the community than in prison. Actually, those low-level criminals are not doing time in prison for the first time they got caught stealing hubcaps. Almost all first-time non-violent felons are given probation, a form of community based rehabilitation. And time after time, many of these probationers continue to commit new beefs before the courts have finally had enough and send these career criminals to prison.
Let’s have a look at Texas where a cost-conscious conservative legislature instituted some 'cost-saving’ criminal justice reforms. Here are some excerpts from a January 13 article in the Prison Legal News:
According to a November 2012 report published by the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a conservative think tank, the Texas state jail system is an expensive failure – with 90% of the cost of conventional prisons, but a much higher recidivism rate. The report recommends initially placing all state jail defendants on probation instead of incarcerating them and establishing a system of rehabilitation programs for those on probation and probation violators who are sentenced to state jails.
In 1993, the Texas Legislature sought to reduce the overcrowding in the prison system by creating a new class of offense – the state jail felony. Many crimes which had formerly been third-degree felonies and some that had been Class A misdemeanors were reclassified as state jail felonies. The idea was to divert the low-level drug and property defendants out of a track that led to prison. To accomplish this, judges were required to first place convicted state jail defendants on probation, only sending them to a state jail for 60 days as a kind of "shock" probation or for a maximum term of two years if they violated the probation or were convicted of a subsequent state jail felony.
The state jails were also supposed to be part of the community supervision system and heavy on treatment and education to assist rehabilitation. Perhaps this approach was a little ahead of its time because, before it was fully realized and without any evidence of the success or failure of the state jail concept, the two subsequent Legislatures instituted changes that made state jails little more than warehouses for low level felons. Unlike prisoners in the state prison system, state jail prisoners had no opportunity to earn good conduct time. With no rehabilitation programs, industrial jobs, or good conduct time and few privileges, state jails became difficult to manage.
Eventually, the state jails were folded into the state prison system and prisoners incarcerated there were allowed to earn some good conduct time. Thus, they completed their transformation from an extension the judges' community supervision to a branch of the state prison system.
In 2012, 99.7% of state jail defendants were sentenced directly to state jail incarceration for sentences ranging from 6 to 24 months with no guarantee of rehabilitation or treatment options. State jails cost nearly as much as state prisons, yet state jails releasees recidivate faster and in greater numbers than those released from state prisons.
The reincarceration rate within three years of release for state jail prisoners released in 2007 was 31.9%. The 3-year rearrest rate for 2006 state jail releasees was 64.2%. This contrasts with a reincarceration rate of 26% and a rearrest rate of 48.8% within three years of release for prisoners released from state prisons. In short, the reincarceration rate for state jail releasees was 23% higher than the rate for state prison releasees. This also adds to the overall costs of state jails.
Why didn’t Texas fund any rehabilitation programs to go along with probation and those state jails? The answer is quite simple. The conservative legislators did not appropriate the money needed for such programs. Cost savings, you know.
So, to answer the question: Are our prisons really full of pot smokers and hubcap thieves? No they are not! They are full of career criminals, drug dealers, sexual predators and vicious thugs. And if those locked away in our prisons are disproportionately black, it’s because a disproportionate number of young African-American men chose to follow the path that led them to prison.
Recently Bob Walsh noted that because of Gov. Jerry Brown’s prison realignment program, California’s prisons are now “housing ‘real bad guys’ instead of pot smokers and hubcap thieves.” Very clever, that Bob. But it might surprise him that two mortal enemies – liberals and conservatives - are now allied in demanding new criminal justice reforms. Conservatives now agree with liberals that non-violent offenders should not be confined in our prisons. Of course though, each side is doing so for very different reasons.
Let’s start with the conservatives. The former ‘lock ‘em up and throw away the key’ crowd has suddenly come to realize that their philosophy has driven taxes sky high. Apparently it never occurred to conservatives before that someone has to pay for keeping all the criminals locked up. And now that their pocket books are being emptied, they are calling for ‘community based rehabilitation’ and for the release from prison of ‘nonviolent’ criminals.
Liberals, on the other hand, are exercising their intellectual gray matter by claiming that our prisons are full of pot smokers and that incarceration for non-violent drug crimes disproportionally impacts minorities, especially young African-American men. Their solution is to legalize marijuana and, like their now conservative allies, are demanding community based rehabilitation for non-violent criminals.
How about all those pot smokers in prison? I’ll grant you there are a lot of inmates doing time for possession of marijuana, but is that really what they got busted for? The liberals would have us believe the prisons are full of inmates doing time for simple possession of pot. Nothing could be further from the truth! You can bet that the overwhelming majority of inmates doing time for possession were actually busted for sales of marijuana, and it wasn’t for selling just a couple of joints. These dope dealers were able to plea bargain the more serious sales charges down to possession in order to receive a lesser prison sentence. And you can also bet that some of these dealers committed acts of violence, charges for which were dismissed as part of the plea bargain.
Now, what about the disproportionate impact the imprisonment for drug crimes has on young African-American men? Liberals claim that whites get away with selling white powder cocaine while blacks get busted for selling a few rocks of crack cocaine. Even President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder keep bellowing that mantra. I can’t argue with them. But there is a good reason for that. Those white white-powder cocaine dealers are much more sophisticated than those black crack dealers. They sell their dope clandestinely and are much harder to catch. Young African-American men can be found openly selling dope on every street corner in predominantly black neighborhoods. And by the way, many of their customers happen to be white.
Those pot possession prison sentences are not ruining the lives of young black men. Those men are ruining the lives of everyone they sell dope to. They should be locked up, no matter how disproportionate their numbers may be. They have chosen to make their livelihood selling illegal drugs on their own volition and, if caught, should be made to pay the price for their unlawful activities. That price should be incarceration in prison.
One last word about the liberal mantra that our criminal justice system is discriminatory. NYPD’s ‘Broken Windows’ approach to crime, also known as ‘Quality-of-Life Maintenance Policing,’ holds that in [minority] communities contending with high levels of disruption, maintaining order [by enforcing all laws] improves the quality of life for residents and reduces crime. The liberal critics of Broken Windows claim that it imposes a white, middle-class morality on urban populations. Say what? Are they serious? Do they really mean that the black underclass is to be held to a lower law enforcement standard than the white middle and upper classes? Obviously they do. Liberals emphasize that Eric Garner, who died while resisting New York cops trying to arrest him for the illegal sales of untaxed cigarettes, was a victim of Broken Windows because his crime was an accepted way, among other unlawful activities, of earning a living in New York’s black neighborhoods.
To lower taxes, conservatives no longer want to send Bob’s ’hubcap thieves’ to prison, opting instead for community based rehabilitation. Sounds good, but is it? The idea being that low-level non-violent criminals can be rehabilitated better in the community than in prison. Actually, those low-level criminals are not doing time in prison for the first time they got caught stealing hubcaps. Almost all first-time non-violent felons are given probation, a form of community based rehabilitation. And time after time, many of these probationers continue to commit new beefs before the courts have finally had enough and send these career criminals to prison.
Let’s have a look at Texas where a cost-conscious conservative legislature instituted some 'cost-saving’ criminal justice reforms. Here are some excerpts from a January 13 article in the Prison Legal News:
According to a November 2012 report published by the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a conservative think tank, the Texas state jail system is an expensive failure – with 90% of the cost of conventional prisons, but a much higher recidivism rate. The report recommends initially placing all state jail defendants on probation instead of incarcerating them and establishing a system of rehabilitation programs for those on probation and probation violators who are sentenced to state jails.
In 1993, the Texas Legislature sought to reduce the overcrowding in the prison system by creating a new class of offense – the state jail felony. Many crimes which had formerly been third-degree felonies and some that had been Class A misdemeanors were reclassified as state jail felonies. The idea was to divert the low-level drug and property defendants out of a track that led to prison. To accomplish this, judges were required to first place convicted state jail defendants on probation, only sending them to a state jail for 60 days as a kind of "shock" probation or for a maximum term of two years if they violated the probation or were convicted of a subsequent state jail felony.
The state jails were also supposed to be part of the community supervision system and heavy on treatment and education to assist rehabilitation. Perhaps this approach was a little ahead of its time because, before it was fully realized and without any evidence of the success or failure of the state jail concept, the two subsequent Legislatures instituted changes that made state jails little more than warehouses for low level felons. Unlike prisoners in the state prison system, state jail prisoners had no opportunity to earn good conduct time. With no rehabilitation programs, industrial jobs, or good conduct time and few privileges, state jails became difficult to manage.
Eventually, the state jails were folded into the state prison system and prisoners incarcerated there were allowed to earn some good conduct time. Thus, they completed their transformation from an extension the judges' community supervision to a branch of the state prison system.
In 2012, 99.7% of state jail defendants were sentenced directly to state jail incarceration for sentences ranging from 6 to 24 months with no guarantee of rehabilitation or treatment options. State jails cost nearly as much as state prisons, yet state jails releasees recidivate faster and in greater numbers than those released from state prisons.
The reincarceration rate within three years of release for state jail prisoners released in 2007 was 31.9%. The 3-year rearrest rate for 2006 state jail releasees was 64.2%. This contrasts with a reincarceration rate of 26% and a rearrest rate of 48.8% within three years of release for prisoners released from state prisons. In short, the reincarceration rate for state jail releasees was 23% higher than the rate for state prison releasees. This also adds to the overall costs of state jails.
Why didn’t Texas fund any rehabilitation programs to go along with probation and those state jails? The answer is quite simple. The conservative legislators did not appropriate the money needed for such programs. Cost savings, you know.
So, to answer the question: Are our prisons really full of pot smokers and hubcap thieves? No they are not! They are full of career criminals, drug dealers, sexual predators and vicious thugs. And if those locked away in our prisons are disproportionately black, it’s because a disproportionate number of young African-American men chose to follow the path that led them to prison.
HARRY SHOULD HAVE BOUGHT SOME NEW UNDERWEAR BEFORE HE WENT TO SEE THE DOCTOR
The Unconventional Gazette
February 17, 2015
The doctor said, "Harry, the good news is I can cure your headaches. The bad news is that it will require castration. You have a very rare condition, which causes your testicles to press on your spine and the pressure creates one hell of a headache. The only way to relieve the pressure is to remove the testicles."
I was shocked and depressed. I wondered if I had anything to live for. I had no choice but to go under the knife. When I left the hospital, I was without a headache for the first time in 20 years, but I felt like I was missing an important part of m yself. As I walked down the street, I realized that I felt like a different person. I could make a new beginning and live a new life.
I saw a men's clothing store and thought, that's what I need... A new suit... I entered the shop and told the salesman, "I'd like a new suit."
The elderly tailor eyed me briefly and said, "Let's see... Size 44 long."
I laughed, "That's right, how did you know?"
"Been in the business 60 years!" the tailor said.
I tried on the suit it fit perfectly.
As I admired myself in the mirror, the salesman asked, "How about a new shirt?"
I thought for a moment, and then said, "Sure."
The salesman eyed me and said, "Let's see, 34 sleeves and 16-1/2 neck."
I was surprised, "That's right, how did you know?"
"Been in the business 60 years."
I tried on the shirt and it fit perfectly.
I walked comfortably around the shop and the salesman asked, "How about some new underwear?"
I thought for a moment, and said, "Sure."
The salesman said, "Let's see... Size 36.
I laughed, "Ah ha! I got you! I've worn a size 34 since I was 18 years old."
The salesman shook his head, "You can't wear a size 34. A size 34 would press your testicles up against the base of your spine and give you one hell of a headache."
February 17, 2015
The doctor said, "Harry, the good news is I can cure your headaches. The bad news is that it will require castration. You have a very rare condition, which causes your testicles to press on your spine and the pressure creates one hell of a headache. The only way to relieve the pressure is to remove the testicles."
I was shocked and depressed. I wondered if I had anything to live for. I had no choice but to go under the knife. When I left the hospital, I was without a headache for the first time in 20 years, but I felt like I was missing an important part of m yself. As I walked down the street, I realized that I felt like a different person. I could make a new beginning and live a new life.
I saw a men's clothing store and thought, that's what I need... A new suit... I entered the shop and told the salesman, "I'd like a new suit."
The elderly tailor eyed me briefly and said, "Let's see... Size 44 long."
I laughed, "That's right, how did you know?"
"Been in the business 60 years!" the tailor said.
I tried on the suit it fit perfectly.
As I admired myself in the mirror, the salesman asked, "How about a new shirt?"
I thought for a moment, and then said, "Sure."
The salesman eyed me and said, "Let's see, 34 sleeves and 16-1/2 neck."
I was surprised, "That's right, how did you know?"
"Been in the business 60 years."
I tried on the shirt and it fit perfectly.
I walked comfortably around the shop and the salesman asked, "How about some new underwear?"
I thought for a moment, and said, "Sure."
The salesman said, "Let's see... Size 36.
I laughed, "Ah ha! I got you! I've worn a size 34 since I was 18 years old."
The salesman shook his head, "You can't wear a size 34. A size 34 would press your testicles up against the base of your spine and give you one hell of a headache."
Tuesday, February 17, 2015
NEWSFLASH: PRISONS ARE UNPLEASANT PLACES
Because of Moonbeam’s realignment program, California’s prisons are now housing “real bad guys”
By Bob Walsh
PACOVILLA Corrections blog
February 16, 2015
The Associated Press and the San Francisco Chronicle have jointly announced a remarkable “fact”: Prisons are unpleasant places, they are just full of nasty, violent, unpleasant people, and it is all Jerry Brown’s fault.
The article asserts that, over a recent two-year period, the prisoner-on-prisoner homicide rate in the California system was about 15 per 100,000 per year, which is alleged to be more than twice the national average for such things. It is further alleged that sex offenders bear a proportionally large amount of this violence. It is almost as though people, even other prisoners, don’t like baby rapists.
A large part of the problem in California is alleged to be caused by Moonbeam’s realignment program. The prisons are now focused on housing “real bad guys” instead of pot smokers and hubcap thieves. This program has remarkably led in an increasing proportion of violent prisoners serving long prison terms. (Gee, who could possibly have foreseen that happening???)
Perhaps we should switch directions and lock up retired Sunday school teachers and accountants and let all of the dangerous prisoners out. Then the inside of the prison will be very, very safe indeed. On the streets, not so much, but that’s OK as long as prisons are safe. Problem solved!!!!!!!
By Bob Walsh
PACOVILLA Corrections blog
February 16, 2015
The Associated Press and the San Francisco Chronicle have jointly announced a remarkable “fact”: Prisons are unpleasant places, they are just full of nasty, violent, unpleasant people, and it is all Jerry Brown’s fault.
The article asserts that, over a recent two-year period, the prisoner-on-prisoner homicide rate in the California system was about 15 per 100,000 per year, which is alleged to be more than twice the national average for such things. It is further alleged that sex offenders bear a proportionally large amount of this violence. It is almost as though people, even other prisoners, don’t like baby rapists.
A large part of the problem in California is alleged to be caused by Moonbeam’s realignment program. The prisons are now focused on housing “real bad guys” instead of pot smokers and hubcap thieves. This program has remarkably led in an increasing proportion of violent prisoners serving long prison terms. (Gee, who could possibly have foreseen that happening???)
Perhaps we should switch directions and lock up retired Sunday school teachers and accountants and let all of the dangerous prisoners out. Then the inside of the prison will be very, very safe indeed. On the streets, not so much, but that’s OK as long as prisons are safe. Problem solved!!!!!!!
IT DOES NOT PAY TO PISS OFF YOUR CELLIE IF HE IS DOING LIFE ALREADY
By Bob Walsh
PACOVILLA Corrections blog
February 4, 2015
Yesterday morning inmate Roberto Baldizon, 35, was found in his cell in the maximum security area of California State Prison-Sacramento with several extra holes in his body, apparently installed with an inmate manufactured stabbing weapon, which was found at the scene. Baldizon was pronounced dead at 1027, approximately 1/2 hour after being discovered.
Baldizon’s cellie, Antolin Cepeda, 37, is believed to be the hole installer.
Baldizon has been down for not quite 2 years, doing 12 years out of LA for assault with a deadly weapon. Cepeda is also out of LA doing life for Murder 1. It does not pay to piss off your cellie if he is doing life already.
PACOVILLA Corrections blog
February 4, 2015
Yesterday morning inmate Roberto Baldizon, 35, was found in his cell in the maximum security area of California State Prison-Sacramento with several extra holes in his body, apparently installed with an inmate manufactured stabbing weapon, which was found at the scene. Baldizon was pronounced dead at 1027, approximately 1/2 hour after being discovered.
Baldizon’s cellie, Antolin Cepeda, 37, is believed to be the hole installer.
Baldizon has been down for not quite 2 years, doing 12 years out of LA for assault with a deadly weapon. Cepeda is also out of LA doing life for Murder 1. It does not pay to piss off your cellie if he is doing life already.
Monday, February 16, 2015
CHANGING THE MEANING OF THINGS
Little League International Cleans House in Chicago
By Greg ‘Gadfly’ Doyle
PACOVILLA Corrections blog
February 16, 2015
This past week Chicago-style politics changed the meaning of things to a particular segment of our society: the little league baseball community. When I was a kid, playing little league gave boys from all walks of life a chance to play a team sport. Coaches, parent-volunteers who loved the game of baseball, were our role-models and mentors. Boys in little league learned the valuable life lessons of teamwork, fair play, sportsmanship, and following rules, while developing and practicing athletic skills needed to compete against our peers.
Cheating was never a part of the game. You could get benched for rules violations and poor sportsmanship, but cheating got you thrown out of the game and kicked off the team, if you were caught.
According to an article posted on February 11, 2015, playing by the rules was apparently not as important as winning for the Jackie Robinson West little league team of Chicago, Illinois. This team of boys (ranging in age from 11 to 13) was the darling of the media for several weeks in 2014, as they battled their way to the championship game against South Korea before losing in the Little League World Series.
Little League International was forced to strip the Jackie Robinson West team of all its titles won during the 2014 season. Why?
The League says the Jackie Robinson West organization cheated. The all-Black Chicago team was illegally stacked with ineligible players.
Little League International has stripped Jackie Robinson West of the national title that the Chicago team won last summer after an investigation revealed it had falsified boundaries to field ineligible players. (read the full story at http://tinyurl.com/oylfbjr.)
This scandal is disgraceful on so many levels. And though the article does not fathom the impact beyond the actions of Little League International’s decision to strip the team of its titles and clean house with Jackie Robinson West, it would appear that doing things the Chicago-way (a political reference) has corrupted an entire organization and a particular segment of a Chicago community.
Could it be anymore embarrassing and hurtful for a time-honored youth sports program to be corrupted by win-at-all-costs politics?
And what could be more of a poke-in-the-eye to the Black community? Really? Based on the implications of this scandal, it might suggest that an all-Black team in Chicago cannot succeed at baseball without an enhanced advantage (i.e., a stacked team.) Who in the Jackie Robinson West organization forgot the rules?
Who among the organizers, coaches, parents, and players did not remember the history of the man who their organization was named after? Did anyone bother to remind those little league players what a “color barrier” was back when Jackie broke it for them? (Here is a link to the official Jackie Robinson website to remind them (http://www.jackierobinson.com/.)
Where is the outcry from the Black community over this disgraceful debacle? This is not about skin color—it is about the content of their character.
Perhaps it is more fashionable for the press to give scant coverage to this story because it is President Obama’s hometown. Where are the talking heads bemoaning the tragic outcome for Black children, for the sport of baseball, for the impact cheating has on young people in general? There is no vilification of the folks responsible for perpetrating this deception. Instead, they have a lawyer now and are not speaking to the press.
Ah! They live in Chicago—forget about it!
Riders, think about every team that was beaten by the illegally-stacked Jackie Robinson West team in 2014. Teams that played by the rules, followed guidelines, invested lots of money to play and travel (in order to compete), and lost to the team that was cheating from the outset. There were local, regional, national, and international teams who were unfairly eliminated by this Chicago team and its organization. Thousands of kids and families were affected during the 2014 season by the unscrupulous deception of this Jackie Robinson West team.
And how does this scandal reflect upon American sportsmanship internationally? Heck, it’s just a game. Well, I ask you, is it? Is it really? We expect this kind of scandal from a third-world country that stacks a team with short, hairy thirty-five-year old pitchers and falsified birth certificates. But not America!
Baseball is America’s game. Now our national past time has been marred by a scandal involving middle-schoolers and Chicago-style politics. Can’t we even get the game of baseball right?
To make matters worse, the players and their parents had to know they were cheating. Boundaries are boundaries. Everyone knows where they live and what schools they can or cannot attend based on boundaries. This is not rocket-science.
According to the Fox News article, others in the community assisted them in carrying out this deception. When corruption spreads, it taints everything around it. But hey! It’s Chicago, right? That’s how they play in Chicago politics. Why not little league baseball?
I cannot help but think that poor role-modeling had something to do with this on a grander scale. Who in politics might have indirectly influenced the Jackie Robinson West organization to double-down and cheat?
Nah….Enjoy your President’s Day.
EDITOR’S NOTE: The team the Chicago Crooks beat for the U.S. championship was a team from the Pearland suburb of Houston which played by the rules. Unfortunately, those Pearland boys never got the chance to face South Korea because of all the ringers they had to face.
And what’s worse is that the ‘community’, the White House and the media are standing solidly behind the Chicago Crooks, claiming the boys were victimized by their coaches and parents. Sorry, but I don’t buy that. Those boys were old enough to know that a bunch of ringers had been thrown into their midst. Much was made of the fact that all these players came from the poorest black section of Chicago and how wonderful it was how these disadvantaged boys managed to to scratch and claw their way to the U.S. championship. I guarantee you that had Pearland been caught cheating, the White House and the media would have dropped those middle class boys in the grease.
Greg is right about Jackie Robinson. He endured some of the sorriest abuse imaginable and he took it with dignity as he beat the socks off his white tormentors among the ballplayers, while ignoring the racist taunts of the fans. In the history of American sports, Jackie Robinson ranks right up there wit MLK.
The cheating by the Chicago Crooks shows that the ‘community’ really never learned anything from either Martin Luther King, Jr. or Jackie Robinson. Neither of these two honorable leaders ever advocated that the end justifies the means. It would appear that the ‘community’ prefers to tiptoe in the muddy footprints of Al Sharpton, rather than adhere to what MLK preached.
By Greg ‘Gadfly’ Doyle
PACOVILLA Corrections blog
February 16, 2015
This past week Chicago-style politics changed the meaning of things to a particular segment of our society: the little league baseball community. When I was a kid, playing little league gave boys from all walks of life a chance to play a team sport. Coaches, parent-volunteers who loved the game of baseball, were our role-models and mentors. Boys in little league learned the valuable life lessons of teamwork, fair play, sportsmanship, and following rules, while developing and practicing athletic skills needed to compete against our peers.
Cheating was never a part of the game. You could get benched for rules violations and poor sportsmanship, but cheating got you thrown out of the game and kicked off the team, if you were caught.
According to an article posted on February 11, 2015, playing by the rules was apparently not as important as winning for the Jackie Robinson West little league team of Chicago, Illinois. This team of boys (ranging in age from 11 to 13) was the darling of the media for several weeks in 2014, as they battled their way to the championship game against South Korea before losing in the Little League World Series.
Little League International was forced to strip the Jackie Robinson West team of all its titles won during the 2014 season. Why?
The League says the Jackie Robinson West organization cheated. The all-Black Chicago team was illegally stacked with ineligible players.
Little League International has stripped Jackie Robinson West of the national title that the Chicago team won last summer after an investigation revealed it had falsified boundaries to field ineligible players. (read the full story at http://tinyurl.com/oylfbjr.)
This scandal is disgraceful on so many levels. And though the article does not fathom the impact beyond the actions of Little League International’s decision to strip the team of its titles and clean house with Jackie Robinson West, it would appear that doing things the Chicago-way (a political reference) has corrupted an entire organization and a particular segment of a Chicago community.
Could it be anymore embarrassing and hurtful for a time-honored youth sports program to be corrupted by win-at-all-costs politics?
And what could be more of a poke-in-the-eye to the Black community? Really? Based on the implications of this scandal, it might suggest that an all-Black team in Chicago cannot succeed at baseball without an enhanced advantage (i.e., a stacked team.) Who in the Jackie Robinson West organization forgot the rules?
Who among the organizers, coaches, parents, and players did not remember the history of the man who their organization was named after? Did anyone bother to remind those little league players what a “color barrier” was back when Jackie broke it for them? (Here is a link to the official Jackie Robinson website to remind them (http://www.jackierobinson.com/.)
Where is the outcry from the Black community over this disgraceful debacle? This is not about skin color—it is about the content of their character.
Perhaps it is more fashionable for the press to give scant coverage to this story because it is President Obama’s hometown. Where are the talking heads bemoaning the tragic outcome for Black children, for the sport of baseball, for the impact cheating has on young people in general? There is no vilification of the folks responsible for perpetrating this deception. Instead, they have a lawyer now and are not speaking to the press.
Ah! They live in Chicago—forget about it!
Riders, think about every team that was beaten by the illegally-stacked Jackie Robinson West team in 2014. Teams that played by the rules, followed guidelines, invested lots of money to play and travel (in order to compete), and lost to the team that was cheating from the outset. There were local, regional, national, and international teams who were unfairly eliminated by this Chicago team and its organization. Thousands of kids and families were affected during the 2014 season by the unscrupulous deception of this Jackie Robinson West team.
And how does this scandal reflect upon American sportsmanship internationally? Heck, it’s just a game. Well, I ask you, is it? Is it really? We expect this kind of scandal from a third-world country that stacks a team with short, hairy thirty-five-year old pitchers and falsified birth certificates. But not America!
Baseball is America’s game. Now our national past time has been marred by a scandal involving middle-schoolers and Chicago-style politics. Can’t we even get the game of baseball right?
To make matters worse, the players and their parents had to know they were cheating. Boundaries are boundaries. Everyone knows where they live and what schools they can or cannot attend based on boundaries. This is not rocket-science.
According to the Fox News article, others in the community assisted them in carrying out this deception. When corruption spreads, it taints everything around it. But hey! It’s Chicago, right? That’s how they play in Chicago politics. Why not little league baseball?
I cannot help but think that poor role-modeling had something to do with this on a grander scale. Who in politics might have indirectly influenced the Jackie Robinson West organization to double-down and cheat?
Nah….Enjoy your President’s Day.
EDITOR’S NOTE: The team the Chicago Crooks beat for the U.S. championship was a team from the Pearland suburb of Houston which played by the rules. Unfortunately, those Pearland boys never got the chance to face South Korea because of all the ringers they had to face.
And what’s worse is that the ‘community’, the White House and the media are standing solidly behind the Chicago Crooks, claiming the boys were victimized by their coaches and parents. Sorry, but I don’t buy that. Those boys were old enough to know that a bunch of ringers had been thrown into their midst. Much was made of the fact that all these players came from the poorest black section of Chicago and how wonderful it was how these disadvantaged boys managed to to scratch and claw their way to the U.S. championship. I guarantee you that had Pearland been caught cheating, the White House and the media would have dropped those middle class boys in the grease.
Greg is right about Jackie Robinson. He endured some of the sorriest abuse imaginable and he took it with dignity as he beat the socks off his white tormentors among the ballplayers, while ignoring the racist taunts of the fans. In the history of American sports, Jackie Robinson ranks right up there wit MLK.
The cheating by the Chicago Crooks shows that the ‘community’ really never learned anything from either Martin Luther King, Jr. or Jackie Robinson. Neither of these two honorable leaders ever advocated that the end justifies the means. It would appear that the ‘community’ prefers to tiptoe in the muddy footprints of Al Sharpton, rather than adhere to what MLK preached.
Sunday, February 15, 2015
DAMN THOSE ALABAMA STATE TROOPERS AND SHERIFF JIM CLARK
If Congressman John Lewis is right, ‘Bloody Sunday’ saddled us with Barack Obama
On March 7, 1965, more than 500 unarmed black voting rights marchers led by John Lewis and Rev. Hosea Williams set out from Selma for the state capitol at Montgomery, Alabama. Gov. George Wallace had denounced the planned march. Dallas County Sheriff Jim Clark deputized all the county’s white men 21 and older into a posse to help state troopers stop the march. After the marchers left Selma and crossed the Edmund Pettus Bridge on U.S. 80, the black men, women and children were attacked by club-swinging state troopers on foot and on horseback. What followed has come to be known as ‘Bloody Sunday.’
Appearing on Sunday’s CBS Face The Nation, Congressman John Lewis told host Bob Schieffer:
"If it hadn't been for that march across Edmund Pettus Bridge on Bloody Sunday, there would be no Barack Obama as president of the United States of America."
Damn those Alabama state troopers and Sheriff Jim Clark!
On March 7, 1965, more than 500 unarmed black voting rights marchers led by John Lewis and Rev. Hosea Williams set out from Selma for the state capitol at Montgomery, Alabama. Gov. George Wallace had denounced the planned march. Dallas County Sheriff Jim Clark deputized all the county’s white men 21 and older into a posse to help state troopers stop the march. After the marchers left Selma and crossed the Edmund Pettus Bridge on U.S. 80, the black men, women and children were attacked by club-swinging state troopers on foot and on horseback. What followed has come to be known as ‘Bloody Sunday.’
Appearing on Sunday’s CBS Face The Nation, Congressman John Lewis told host Bob Schieffer:
"If it hadn't been for that march across Edmund Pettus Bridge on Bloody Sunday, there would be no Barack Obama as president of the United States of America."
Damn those Alabama state troopers and Sheriff Jim Clark!
MALICIOUS INTERNET MISCHIEF: THE PRESIDENT WE LOV TO HATE
I've concluded that 95 per cent of the negative stuff on the internet about Obama and his inner circle is either an outright lie or a gross distortion of the truth
[Valerie] Jarrett is one of the most powerful presidential advisers in history. No wonder Obama leans toward the Islamists. READ VALERIE JARRETT'S WORDS BELOW CAREFULLY. IF YOU'RE NOT SCARED, YOU'RE IN DENIAL.
"I am an Iranian by birth and of my Islamic faith. I am also an American Citizen and I seek to help change America to be a more Islamic country. My faith guides me and I feel like it is going well in the transition of using freedom of religion in America against itself." - Valerie Jarrett, Stanford University 1977
Farsi-speaking Valerie Jarrett , the senior advisor to Obama, his right-hand woman was born in Iran . She also has ties with terrorist William Ayers, and her father-in-law, Vernon Jarrett is a card-carrying communist party member and associate of Frank Marshall Davis, the controversial Communist Party activist who was Obama's childhood mentor. While a student at Stanford University , Jarrett admitted her loyalty to Islam and continues to object to any negative statements aimed at any part of her "religion of peace."
I have received countless emails, the latest example of which is above, about President Obama and his traitorous inner circle that are designed to scare the supreme shit out of me into believing that Obama and his advisors are turning America into a communist country under Sharia law.
As much as I dislike Obama, I've concluded that 95 per cent of the negative stuff on the internet about Obama and his inner circle is either an outright lie or a gross distortion of the truth.
Here is what Snopes had to say about the accusations against Valerie Jarrett:
Contrary to common rumor, however, neither Jarrett nor her parents are Iranian, nor (as far as well can tell) are any of them Muslim. Jarrett's parents, James E. Bowman and Barbara Taylor Bowman, were both American-born U.S. citizens from Washington, D.C. and Chicago, respectively; the couple merely lived in Iran for about six years in the late 1950s and early 1960s while James served as chair of pathology at Nemazee Hospital in Shiraz as part of a program that sent American physicians to work in developing countries.
Valerie was born in Shiraz during the Jarretts' sojourn in Iran; she returned to the U.S. with her parents in 1962 (when she was five years old), whereupon she attended prep school in Massachusetts, graduated with a B.A. in psychology from Stanford University in 1978, and earned a J.D. from the University of Michigan Law School in 1981 before returning to Chicago to begin her working career. We've found no evidence Valerie Jarrett is (or ever was) Muslim, her only apparent connection to that religion being the incidental one that she temporarily lived in a predominantly Muslim country with her American parents for the first few years of her life.
The quote to attributed "Valerie Jarrett, Stanford University, 1977" about her "seek[ing] to help change America to be a more Islamic country" is an unfounded one that has no source other than recent repetition (primarily on right-wing web sites and blogs) and that in its commonly reproduced form is too stilted to be believable as the utterance of a fluent English speaker (e.g., "I am an Iranian by birth and of [sic] my Islamic faith"). No news article or document associated with Stanford University records Jarrett as having made this statement back in 1977; and if there were any credible evidence Jarrett had ever said anything remotely like this, it would have been a well-covered news story since shortly after the 2008 presidential election and not a obscure meme that didn't pop up until several years later.
Ever since Obama was first elected President, I have received a steady stream of one or more emails per week about Obama and his fellow conspiracists that are simply false or a gross distortion of the truth.
Of course, these false emails are preaching to the choir of those who dislike or hate Obama. Many of those folks readily eat all that shit up. Whatever its purpose, that malicious internet mischief hasn't worked. We're still stuck with the president we love to hate.
By the way, look for the same internet barrage of falsehoods about Hillary during her terms as president. If the Republicans keep harping on abortion, contraception and immigration, they will drive away the women’s and Hispanic voting blocks, thereby handing the presidency to Hillary on a silver platter.
[Valerie] Jarrett is one of the most powerful presidential advisers in history. No wonder Obama leans toward the Islamists. READ VALERIE JARRETT'S WORDS BELOW CAREFULLY. IF YOU'RE NOT SCARED, YOU'RE IN DENIAL.
"I am an Iranian by birth and of my Islamic faith. I am also an American Citizen and I seek to help change America to be a more Islamic country. My faith guides me and I feel like it is going well in the transition of using freedom of religion in America against itself." - Valerie Jarrett, Stanford University 1977
Farsi-speaking Valerie Jarrett , the senior advisor to Obama, his right-hand woman was born in Iran . She also has ties with terrorist William Ayers, and her father-in-law, Vernon Jarrett is a card-carrying communist party member and associate of Frank Marshall Davis, the controversial Communist Party activist who was Obama's childhood mentor. While a student at Stanford University , Jarrett admitted her loyalty to Islam and continues to object to any negative statements aimed at any part of her "religion of peace."
I have received countless emails, the latest example of which is above, about President Obama and his traitorous inner circle that are designed to scare the supreme shit out of me into believing that Obama and his advisors are turning America into a communist country under Sharia law.
As much as I dislike Obama, I've concluded that 95 per cent of the negative stuff on the internet about Obama and his inner circle is either an outright lie or a gross distortion of the truth.
Here is what Snopes had to say about the accusations against Valerie Jarrett:
Contrary to common rumor, however, neither Jarrett nor her parents are Iranian, nor (as far as well can tell) are any of them Muslim. Jarrett's parents, James E. Bowman and Barbara Taylor Bowman, were both American-born U.S. citizens from Washington, D.C. and Chicago, respectively; the couple merely lived in Iran for about six years in the late 1950s and early 1960s while James served as chair of pathology at Nemazee Hospital in Shiraz as part of a program that sent American physicians to work in developing countries.
Valerie was born in Shiraz during the Jarretts' sojourn in Iran; she returned to the U.S. with her parents in 1962 (when she was five years old), whereupon she attended prep school in Massachusetts, graduated with a B.A. in psychology from Stanford University in 1978, and earned a J.D. from the University of Michigan Law School in 1981 before returning to Chicago to begin her working career. We've found no evidence Valerie Jarrett is (or ever was) Muslim, her only apparent connection to that religion being the incidental one that she temporarily lived in a predominantly Muslim country with her American parents for the first few years of her life.
The quote to attributed "Valerie Jarrett, Stanford University, 1977" about her "seek[ing] to help change America to be a more Islamic country" is an unfounded one that has no source other than recent repetition (primarily on right-wing web sites and blogs) and that in its commonly reproduced form is too stilted to be believable as the utterance of a fluent English speaker (e.g., "I am an Iranian by birth and of [sic] my Islamic faith"). No news article or document associated with Stanford University records Jarrett as having made this statement back in 1977; and if there were any credible evidence Jarrett had ever said anything remotely like this, it would have been a well-covered news story since shortly after the 2008 presidential election and not a obscure meme that didn't pop up until several years later.
Ever since Obama was first elected President, I have received a steady stream of one or more emails per week about Obama and his fellow conspiracists that are simply false or a gross distortion of the truth.
Of course, these false emails are preaching to the choir of those who dislike or hate Obama. Many of those folks readily eat all that shit up. Whatever its purpose, that malicious internet mischief hasn't worked. We're still stuck with the president we love to hate.
By the way, look for the same internet barrage of falsehoods about Hillary during her terms as president. If the Republicans keep harping on abortion, contraception and immigration, they will drive away the women’s and Hispanic voting blocks, thereby handing the presidency to Hillary on a silver platter.
COPS WANT MULTIPLE KILLER PAROLED AS REWARD FOR RATTING OUT FELLOW GANG MEMBERS
Rene ‘Boxer’ Enriquez, who murdered and ordered the murder of numerous victims, has been recommended for parole after cops praised him for being a rat
I do not care how many of his former Mexican Mafia gang members Rene ‘Boxer’ Enriquez ratted out, this coldblooded multiple-killer does not deserve to be paroled. It is sickening to see cops praising him in support of his parole. In the cause of decency, the cops should have notified the parole board that they appreciated his help, but in view of the gravity of his crimes, they vigorously oppose Enriquez’s parole.
Even after Enriquez took the Fifth during his parole hearing when asked about any other murders he may have committed, the parole board still recommended this filth for parole. Something is rotten in the State of California!
CHILDREN OF VICTIM UPSET THAT MEXICAN MAFIA KILLER MAY BE PAROLED
Former Mexican Mafia shot-caller Rene "Boxer" Enriquez, who was convicted of killing a woman and a man in 1989, has been recommended for parole
By Kate Mather
Los Angeles Times
February 10, 2015
The girl was 8 years old and her little brother 6 when their mother was fatally shot and left in a vacant lot. Although Cynthia Gavaldon's body was identified on Christmas Eve, the children's father waited until after the holiday to tell them their mother was in heaven.
For years, they had unanswered questions. It was only two decades later, when the daughter was reading a book about former Mexican Mafia shot-caller Rene "Boxer" Enriquez that she found out more: He had ordered her mother killed.
In an interview this week, Gavaldon's now-adult children said they were horrified to learn that a state parole board had decided Enriquez should be released from prison. The siblings said they were upset that they were never informed that the prison system was reviewing whether to release Enriquez, who pleaded guilty to murdering Gavaldon and a man in 1989 and was sentenced to life in prison.
The pair, who asked that their names not be used because of fears for their safety, said they learned about Enriquez's parole — and that Gov. Jerry Brown has until Feb. 22 to decide whether to block it — only when a Times reporter contacted them this week.
"He stole a piece of our lives from us," Gavaldon's daughter said of Enriquez. "And it's not fair."
A Los Angeles County district attorney's spokeswoman said a prosecutor who attended Enriquez's parole hearing had no contact information for the victims' family.
A state prison spokeswoman said that under state law, victims' relatives are sent notifications at least 90 days before a parole hearing — if they submit a request. The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation received no such requests from Enriquez's victims or their relatives, the spokeswoman said.
But several legal experts said that Gavaldon's relatives should have been made aware of the parole hearing in September under California's 2008 victims' bill of rights, Marsy's Law, whether or not a request was made. Some noted that the law does not explicitly say which agency is responsible for giving the notification but agreed that the children should have been told.
"Should they have been informed? Absolutely," said Mike Fell, a former Orange County prosecutor who handles victims' rights cases as a private attorney.
Gavaldon's son said he was angry that he never had the chance to address the parole board. Had he known about the hearing, he said, he would have submitted a letter objecting to Enriquez's release and would have encouraged his relatives to do the same. He said he might have reached out to the family of the other person Enriquez was convicted of killing to see if they would help.
During his parole hearing, Enriquez explained that he had dropped out of the Mexican Mafia prison gang in 2002 and started working with authorities, providing expert testimony and other assistance in scores of cases. He presented letters from officials at 11 law enforcement agencies praising his work.
He expressed remorse for his crimes.
In 1989, while on parole, Enriquez came to suspect that Gavaldon, 28, was stealing drugs from him that she was supposed to sell, according to court records. Enriquez "wanted to set an example" and ordered her execution, according to a probation report in the case. She was shot once in the head and once in the upper body.
About a week later, Enriquez targeted a member of the Mexican Mafia who had fallen out of favor with the gang for running away from a fight, according to parole records. Enriquez said he gave the victim an overdose of heroin and then shot him five times in the head, leaving him in an alley.
While awaiting trial, Enriquez and another inmate jumped a man in a jailhouse waiting room, stabbing him 26 times with metal shanks. In another incident, Enriquez stabbed a second man while in custody. Both men survived the attacks.
He pleaded guilty to two counts of second-degree murder and was sentenced to life in prison.
During his parole hearing, Enriquez described Gavaldon's death as "one of those things that I wish I could take back." His lawyer advised him to invoke his 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination when he was asked if he was involved in any other killings.
Gavaldon's children said they were devastated by their mother's death. Her son remembers sitting in a second-grade classroom surrounded by other children, wondering why it was his mother and not someone else's who was killed.
His sister still prays for their mother. They grapple with what to tell their own children about the grandmother they will never know.
Gavaldon's children recalled their mother as a woman who adored them, kept a clean house and made homemade tortillas when her father-in-law came to visit. She taught her son and daughter the alphabet and numbers at a young age. In a photo Gavaldon's son keeps on his iPhone, the redheaded woman cradles her baby son in her lap with her daughter at her side. The young mother is beaming.
"Everybody noticed her smile," Gavaldon's daughter said. "She could basically walk into a room and take it over."
But in the last year or so of Gavaldon's life, her children said, she hit a rough patch. They went to live with their father — their parents had divorced years earlier — and although their mother still showed her love for them, they noticed something different. There were always a lot of people at her house. She got involved in drugs. Her daughter began to pray every night: "Please, don't let anything bad happen to my mom."
Growing up, Gavaldon's children said, they heard rumors about their mother's death but never knew exactly what happened. Her daughter learned from relatives that their mother was murdered "execution-style."
In 2008, Gavaldon's daughter was shopping at Barnes & Noble with her husband. She saw a recently published book about a man who spent decades with the Mexican Mafia. She thought it looked interesting and bought the book.
She was reading Chapter 14 — she still remembers — when she saw her mother's name. The book, "The Black Hand: The Story of Rene "Boxer" Enriquez and His Life in the Mexican Mafia," described Gavaldon as a party girl. It detailed the conversation in which Enriquez ordered her death, with the former gangster calling the hit "a ride to hell."
Her daughter called her husband sobbing.
"I couldn't breathe," she recalled, breaking down in tears. "Oh my God. I just, I couldn't."
The siblings said their great-grandmother — who helped raise their mother — became afraid after the book was published that the gang would find their family. Gavaldon's children said the same thought has crossed their minds, especially now that they have their own families to consider. Those same concerns surfaced, her son said, now that he knows Enriquez could be paroled.
"I would do whatever I could do to stop it," Gavaldon's son said. "Because it's not right. Something has to be done."
I do not care how many of his former Mexican Mafia gang members Rene ‘Boxer’ Enriquez ratted out, this coldblooded multiple-killer does not deserve to be paroled. It is sickening to see cops praising him in support of his parole. In the cause of decency, the cops should have notified the parole board that they appreciated his help, but in view of the gravity of his crimes, they vigorously oppose Enriquez’s parole.
Even after Enriquez took the Fifth during his parole hearing when asked about any other murders he may have committed, the parole board still recommended this filth for parole. Something is rotten in the State of California!
CHILDREN OF VICTIM UPSET THAT MEXICAN MAFIA KILLER MAY BE PAROLED
Former Mexican Mafia shot-caller Rene "Boxer" Enriquez, who was convicted of killing a woman and a man in 1989, has been recommended for parole
By Kate Mather
Los Angeles Times
February 10, 2015
The girl was 8 years old and her little brother 6 when their mother was fatally shot and left in a vacant lot. Although Cynthia Gavaldon's body was identified on Christmas Eve, the children's father waited until after the holiday to tell them their mother was in heaven.
For years, they had unanswered questions. It was only two decades later, when the daughter was reading a book about former Mexican Mafia shot-caller Rene "Boxer" Enriquez that she found out more: He had ordered her mother killed.
In an interview this week, Gavaldon's now-adult children said they were horrified to learn that a state parole board had decided Enriquez should be released from prison. The siblings said they were upset that they were never informed that the prison system was reviewing whether to release Enriquez, who pleaded guilty to murdering Gavaldon and a man in 1989 and was sentenced to life in prison.
The pair, who asked that their names not be used because of fears for their safety, said they learned about Enriquez's parole — and that Gov. Jerry Brown has until Feb. 22 to decide whether to block it — only when a Times reporter contacted them this week.
"He stole a piece of our lives from us," Gavaldon's daughter said of Enriquez. "And it's not fair."
A Los Angeles County district attorney's spokeswoman said a prosecutor who attended Enriquez's parole hearing had no contact information for the victims' family.
A state prison spokeswoman said that under state law, victims' relatives are sent notifications at least 90 days before a parole hearing — if they submit a request. The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation received no such requests from Enriquez's victims or their relatives, the spokeswoman said.
But several legal experts said that Gavaldon's relatives should have been made aware of the parole hearing in September under California's 2008 victims' bill of rights, Marsy's Law, whether or not a request was made. Some noted that the law does not explicitly say which agency is responsible for giving the notification but agreed that the children should have been told.
"Should they have been informed? Absolutely," said Mike Fell, a former Orange County prosecutor who handles victims' rights cases as a private attorney.
Gavaldon's son said he was angry that he never had the chance to address the parole board. Had he known about the hearing, he said, he would have submitted a letter objecting to Enriquez's release and would have encouraged his relatives to do the same. He said he might have reached out to the family of the other person Enriquez was convicted of killing to see if they would help.
During his parole hearing, Enriquez explained that he had dropped out of the Mexican Mafia prison gang in 2002 and started working with authorities, providing expert testimony and other assistance in scores of cases. He presented letters from officials at 11 law enforcement agencies praising his work.
He expressed remorse for his crimes.
In 1989, while on parole, Enriquez came to suspect that Gavaldon, 28, was stealing drugs from him that she was supposed to sell, according to court records. Enriquez "wanted to set an example" and ordered her execution, according to a probation report in the case. She was shot once in the head and once in the upper body.
About a week later, Enriquez targeted a member of the Mexican Mafia who had fallen out of favor with the gang for running away from a fight, according to parole records. Enriquez said he gave the victim an overdose of heroin and then shot him five times in the head, leaving him in an alley.
While awaiting trial, Enriquez and another inmate jumped a man in a jailhouse waiting room, stabbing him 26 times with metal shanks. In another incident, Enriquez stabbed a second man while in custody. Both men survived the attacks.
He pleaded guilty to two counts of second-degree murder and was sentenced to life in prison.
During his parole hearing, Enriquez described Gavaldon's death as "one of those things that I wish I could take back." His lawyer advised him to invoke his 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination when he was asked if he was involved in any other killings.
Gavaldon's children said they were devastated by their mother's death. Her son remembers sitting in a second-grade classroom surrounded by other children, wondering why it was his mother and not someone else's who was killed.
His sister still prays for their mother. They grapple with what to tell their own children about the grandmother they will never know.
Gavaldon's children recalled their mother as a woman who adored them, kept a clean house and made homemade tortillas when her father-in-law came to visit. She taught her son and daughter the alphabet and numbers at a young age. In a photo Gavaldon's son keeps on his iPhone, the redheaded woman cradles her baby son in her lap with her daughter at her side. The young mother is beaming.
"Everybody noticed her smile," Gavaldon's daughter said. "She could basically walk into a room and take it over."
But in the last year or so of Gavaldon's life, her children said, she hit a rough patch. They went to live with their father — their parents had divorced years earlier — and although their mother still showed her love for them, they noticed something different. There were always a lot of people at her house. She got involved in drugs. Her daughter began to pray every night: "Please, don't let anything bad happen to my mom."
Growing up, Gavaldon's children said, they heard rumors about their mother's death but never knew exactly what happened. Her daughter learned from relatives that their mother was murdered "execution-style."
In 2008, Gavaldon's daughter was shopping at Barnes & Noble with her husband. She saw a recently published book about a man who spent decades with the Mexican Mafia. She thought it looked interesting and bought the book.
She was reading Chapter 14 — she still remembers — when she saw her mother's name. The book, "The Black Hand: The Story of Rene "Boxer" Enriquez and His Life in the Mexican Mafia," described Gavaldon as a party girl. It detailed the conversation in which Enriquez ordered her death, with the former gangster calling the hit "a ride to hell."
Her daughter called her husband sobbing.
"I couldn't breathe," she recalled, breaking down in tears. "Oh my God. I just, I couldn't."
The siblings said their great-grandmother — who helped raise their mother — became afraid after the book was published that the gang would find their family. Gavaldon's children said the same thought has crossed their minds, especially now that they have their own families to consider. Those same concerns surfaced, her son said, now that he knows Enriquez could be paroled.
"I would do whatever I could do to stop it," Gavaldon's son said. "Because it's not right. Something has to be done."
RONNIE MOODY: VIOLENT JERK IS ALSO STUPID
Acting as his own lawyer, Ronnie Moody flunked Introduction to the Bar 101 by calling the judge a fat motherfucker
By Bob Walsh
PACOVILLA Corrections blog
February 13, 2015
Ronnie Moody, 32, is either really stupid or just doesn’t give a damn. It is likely to cost him dearly, and I for one am OK with that.
Moody is s denizen of the City and County of San Francisco. He is under charge for 18 criminal counts including 13 felonies and three traffic violations stemming from an incident that occurred six days ago. These charges include assault with a deadly weapon and assault on a peace officer. He has priors for domestic violence and assault on an officer. He is being held pending a $700,000 bail.
He is acting as his own lawyer. While acting as his lawyer he called the judge, Philip Moscone, a “fat mother-fucker” and made a few further indecent suggestions which probably will not endear him to the local judiciary.
By Bob Walsh
PACOVILLA Corrections blog
February 13, 2015
Ronnie Moody, 32, is either really stupid or just doesn’t give a damn. It is likely to cost him dearly, and I for one am OK with that.
Moody is s denizen of the City and County of San Francisco. He is under charge for 18 criminal counts including 13 felonies and three traffic violations stemming from an incident that occurred six days ago. These charges include assault with a deadly weapon and assault on a peace officer. He has priors for domestic violence and assault on an officer. He is being held pending a $700,000 bail.
He is acting as his own lawyer. While acting as his lawyer he called the judge, Philip Moscone, a “fat mother-fucker” and made a few further indecent suggestions which probably will not endear him to the local judiciary.
Saturday, February 14, 2015
AMERICAN SNIPER SHOT DEAD BY POT HEAD
Eddie Ray Routh and his uncle smoked “strong” pot together shortly before he killed Chris Kyle
Testimony in a Stephenville, Texas courtroom Friday, revealed that Eddie Ray Routh smoked pot shortly before he killed Chris Kyle. Testifying during Routh’s murder trial, his uncle James Watson told a jury that he and his nephew smoked “strong” pot together just before Chris Kyle and his friend Chad Littlefield picked Routh up on that fateful trip to a firing range. Watson said the marijuana was strong, and his “buzz” lasted around three hours.
After killing Kyle and Littlefield, Routh contacted Watson and told him “He thought people were out to get him.”
Also on Friday, Belton police officer Gene Cole testified that when he was an Erath County deputy sheriff, he heard Routh say in jail, "I shot them because they wouldn't talk to me. I was just riding in the backseat of the truck, and nobody would talk to me.”
When the police stopped Routh in Kyle’s pickup truck, a cop’s body camera recorded the killer mentioning voodoo, hell and the apocalypse, and saying, "I don't know if I'm going insane."
Routh thought people were out to get him, which is typical of the paranoia experienced by drug users, in this case by a pot head. And his statement that nobody would talk to him was another symptom of paranoia.
Routh’s attorneys claim that PTSD led the former Marine to kill Kyle and Littlefield. I say horseshit to that. His uncle testified that after he and his nephew ended their pot smoking session, he remained high for another three hours. It stands to reason that Routh remained high for a similar period of time, so that he would have been under the influence of marijuana at the time of the killings. And when he mentioned voodoo, hell, the apocalypse, and going insane, those were the ramblings of a man with his mind altered by pot.
The proponents of pot will say that I am full of shit and that marijuana in no way played any part in the killing of the American sniper. I’m probably tilting at windmills in my continuing opposition to the legalization of marijuana, but I am going to take every opportunity to expose the proponents of pot for the liars they are!
And they keep saying that smoking pot is harmless. Yeah, right. And pigs can fly.
Testimony in a Stephenville, Texas courtroom Friday, revealed that Eddie Ray Routh smoked pot shortly before he killed Chris Kyle. Testifying during Routh’s murder trial, his uncle James Watson told a jury that he and his nephew smoked “strong” pot together just before Chris Kyle and his friend Chad Littlefield picked Routh up on that fateful trip to a firing range. Watson said the marijuana was strong, and his “buzz” lasted around three hours.
After killing Kyle and Littlefield, Routh contacted Watson and told him “He thought people were out to get him.”
Also on Friday, Belton police officer Gene Cole testified that when he was an Erath County deputy sheriff, he heard Routh say in jail, "I shot them because they wouldn't talk to me. I was just riding in the backseat of the truck, and nobody would talk to me.”
When the police stopped Routh in Kyle’s pickup truck, a cop’s body camera recorded the killer mentioning voodoo, hell and the apocalypse, and saying, "I don't know if I'm going insane."
Routh thought people were out to get him, which is typical of the paranoia experienced by drug users, in this case by a pot head. And his statement that nobody would talk to him was another symptom of paranoia.
Routh’s attorneys claim that PTSD led the former Marine to kill Kyle and Littlefield. I say horseshit to that. His uncle testified that after he and his nephew ended their pot smoking session, he remained high for another three hours. It stands to reason that Routh remained high for a similar period of time, so that he would have been under the influence of marijuana at the time of the killings. And when he mentioned voodoo, hell, the apocalypse, and going insane, those were the ramblings of a man with his mind altered by pot.
The proponents of pot will say that I am full of shit and that marijuana in no way played any part in the killing of the American sniper. I’m probably tilting at windmills in my continuing opposition to the legalization of marijuana, but I am going to take every opportunity to expose the proponents of pot for the liars they are!
And they keep saying that smoking pot is harmless. Yeah, right. And pigs can fly.
MO TRIAL AND ERROR
Procedural Trial Errors in Missouri Execution Case - 25 Years Later Storey Ends
By Greg ‘Gadfly’ Doyle
PACOVILLA Corrections blog
February 13, 2015
According to an Associated Press article featured by Fox News, a thrice-condemned Missouri inmate has finally been executed a quarter of a century after the commission of his crime.
Walter Timothy Storey exhausted his final opportunity to gain yet another delay through a Supreme Court appeal over lethal injection concerns. The Court refused to hear his case allowing final judgment to proceed. Hence Mr. Storey’s long-delayed appointment with death and the rule of law finally met at the intersection of Reckoning and Justice.
The story of Walter Storey is not overshadowed by questionable witnesses, lack of DNA evidence, or any possibility that he had been framed by someone else. In fact, there was only one witness to his crime—his murder victim, 36-year-old Jill Frey—who lived next door.
As the story goes, Walter was unhappy over a pending divorce and had been staying at his mother’s house. He began drinking heavily on the night of February 2, 1990. As fate would have it, Walter ran out of beer, and needed more in order to further enhance his own defilement. However, he had no money for more beer.
Next door, neighbor Jill Frey had left the sliding glass door on her balcony open. Walter climbed onto the balcony and attacked Frey in her bedroom. He beat her so savagely that the coroner’s report revealed she suffered six broken ribs and severe wounds to her head and face. Imagine the terror and suffering Jill experienced in that attack inside her own home.
But the Storey was not finished. He went to her kitchen, grabbed a knife, and proceeded to slice Jill’s throat all the way back to her spine, nearly decapitating her. She stopped breathing and bled out immediately.
The following day, Walter returned to the scene of his crime. He tried to erase all traces of evidence of his presence by wiping down the crime scene and disposing of evidence. However, Walter missed one bloody palm print on a dresser. And, because he had been arrested previously, investigators were able to link Mr. Storey to the murder.
Picture this irrefutable evidence: the proximity of suspect to victim (next-door neighbors), victim’s blood on his hands via the palm print of the suspect (Walter) left at the crime scene. So why did it take twenty-five years to carry out Storey’s execution?
According to the Fox News piece, the culprit was technical trial error.
The Missouri Supreme Court tossed the conviction, citing concerns about ineffective assistance of counsel and “egregious” errors committed by Kenny Hulshof, who was with the Missouri attorney general’s office at the time and handled the prosecution. Hulshof was later a congressman and a candidate for governor.
Storey was tried again in 1997, and sentenced again to death. That conviction was also overturned, this time over a procedural error by the judge. Storey was sentenced to death a third time in 1999. (for full story see http://tinyurl.com/nvbxsvq)
Quite often, one of the first appeals filed on behalf of the condemned in a death penalty case is “ineffective assistance of counsel.” In other words, the defense lawyer was incompetent. If this is so often the case, then why aren’t more lawyers disbarred? I cannot imagine what egregious trial errors occurred from the prosecutorial side of the matter to convince the Missouri Supreme Court to overturn Storey’s first conviction.
This is the age old ethical dilemma of legal procedure: doing things right versus doing the right thing. Reversible error is the technical side of the court system. Everything during a trial must be followed to the smallest detail (and there are a lot of details in a legal proceeding), or somewhere down the road of appeal an attorney may convince a higher court judge that a reversible error has occurred.
And where a human life hangs in the balance (death penalty) lawyers and judges wrestle over these nuances, creating more delays, higher court costs, and a legal logjam on court dockets all across America. In my estimation, the notion of swift justice in America has been co-opted by the advent of technicality.
In the Storey matter, there really was no question of guilt. It appears the matter was finally settled when all of the proverbial “i”s were dotted, and the “t”s were crossed.
For what it’s worth, the attorney representing Walter Storey in the article said Walter was remorseful. While he was awaiting execution, apparently Walter spent thousands of hours helping crime victims through a prison program. That is good. In fact, it might even seem rehabilitative.
Still, there was the matter of Jill Frey, the victim; a special education teacher whose life was taken at the hands of Storey. Imagine all the thousands of hours missed by children with learning disabilities, who could have received the help they needed from Ms. Frey. Imagine the possibility of marriage, children, and grandchildren that Jill would never experience thanks to a brutal, selfish, and savage act brought about by her killer—Walter Storey.
I hope Walter Storey truly repented of his sin while incarcerated. I hope he made peace with God. My belief and faith have no issues with forgiving Walter Storey for his sins, however heinous they were.
But the law demands justice. And justice demanded the life of Walter Storey for the unlawful and brutal killing of Jill Frey. Though delayed for far too long, Storey’s execution was a reckoning and due payment for his vicious crime.
Only God knows the sincerity of Walter Storey’s remorse—but that is another story.
By Greg ‘Gadfly’ Doyle
PACOVILLA Corrections blog
February 13, 2015
According to an Associated Press article featured by Fox News, a thrice-condemned Missouri inmate has finally been executed a quarter of a century after the commission of his crime.
Walter Timothy Storey exhausted his final opportunity to gain yet another delay through a Supreme Court appeal over lethal injection concerns. The Court refused to hear his case allowing final judgment to proceed. Hence Mr. Storey’s long-delayed appointment with death and the rule of law finally met at the intersection of Reckoning and Justice.
The story of Walter Storey is not overshadowed by questionable witnesses, lack of DNA evidence, or any possibility that he had been framed by someone else. In fact, there was only one witness to his crime—his murder victim, 36-year-old Jill Frey—who lived next door.
As the story goes, Walter was unhappy over a pending divorce and had been staying at his mother’s house. He began drinking heavily on the night of February 2, 1990. As fate would have it, Walter ran out of beer, and needed more in order to further enhance his own defilement. However, he had no money for more beer.
Next door, neighbor Jill Frey had left the sliding glass door on her balcony open. Walter climbed onto the balcony and attacked Frey in her bedroom. He beat her so savagely that the coroner’s report revealed she suffered six broken ribs and severe wounds to her head and face. Imagine the terror and suffering Jill experienced in that attack inside her own home.
But the Storey was not finished. He went to her kitchen, grabbed a knife, and proceeded to slice Jill’s throat all the way back to her spine, nearly decapitating her. She stopped breathing and bled out immediately.
The following day, Walter returned to the scene of his crime. He tried to erase all traces of evidence of his presence by wiping down the crime scene and disposing of evidence. However, Walter missed one bloody palm print on a dresser. And, because he had been arrested previously, investigators were able to link Mr. Storey to the murder.
Picture this irrefutable evidence: the proximity of suspect to victim (next-door neighbors), victim’s blood on his hands via the palm print of the suspect (Walter) left at the crime scene. So why did it take twenty-five years to carry out Storey’s execution?
According to the Fox News piece, the culprit was technical trial error.
The Missouri Supreme Court tossed the conviction, citing concerns about ineffective assistance of counsel and “egregious” errors committed by Kenny Hulshof, who was with the Missouri attorney general’s office at the time and handled the prosecution. Hulshof was later a congressman and a candidate for governor.
Storey was tried again in 1997, and sentenced again to death. That conviction was also overturned, this time over a procedural error by the judge. Storey was sentenced to death a third time in 1999. (for full story see http://tinyurl.com/nvbxsvq)
Quite often, one of the first appeals filed on behalf of the condemned in a death penalty case is “ineffective assistance of counsel.” In other words, the defense lawyer was incompetent. If this is so often the case, then why aren’t more lawyers disbarred? I cannot imagine what egregious trial errors occurred from the prosecutorial side of the matter to convince the Missouri Supreme Court to overturn Storey’s first conviction.
This is the age old ethical dilemma of legal procedure: doing things right versus doing the right thing. Reversible error is the technical side of the court system. Everything during a trial must be followed to the smallest detail (and there are a lot of details in a legal proceeding), or somewhere down the road of appeal an attorney may convince a higher court judge that a reversible error has occurred.
And where a human life hangs in the balance (death penalty) lawyers and judges wrestle over these nuances, creating more delays, higher court costs, and a legal logjam on court dockets all across America. In my estimation, the notion of swift justice in America has been co-opted by the advent of technicality.
In the Storey matter, there really was no question of guilt. It appears the matter was finally settled when all of the proverbial “i”s were dotted, and the “t”s were crossed.
For what it’s worth, the attorney representing Walter Storey in the article said Walter was remorseful. While he was awaiting execution, apparently Walter spent thousands of hours helping crime victims through a prison program. That is good. In fact, it might even seem rehabilitative.
Still, there was the matter of Jill Frey, the victim; a special education teacher whose life was taken at the hands of Storey. Imagine all the thousands of hours missed by children with learning disabilities, who could have received the help they needed from Ms. Frey. Imagine the possibility of marriage, children, and grandchildren that Jill would never experience thanks to a brutal, selfish, and savage act brought about by her killer—Walter Storey.
I hope Walter Storey truly repented of his sin while incarcerated. I hope he made peace with God. My belief and faith have no issues with forgiving Walter Storey for his sins, however heinous they were.
But the law demands justice. And justice demanded the life of Walter Storey for the unlawful and brutal killing of Jill Frey. Though delayed for far too long, Storey’s execution was a reckoning and due payment for his vicious crime.
Only God knows the sincerity of Walter Storey’s remorse—but that is another story.
Friday, February 13, 2015
DRIVING DRUNK DOWN BUT DRIVING UNDER INFLUENCE OF POT IS WAY UP
A NHTSA study revealed that drivers under the influence of marijuana are more likely to be in a car crash
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has just completed two extensive studies on driving under the influence of alcohol and pot.
The first study, which was voluntary and anonymous, rounded up data from drivers across the country who agreed to participate at a roadside test site. According to the NHTSA, the study found “about 8 percent of drivers had alcohol in their system on weekend nights. That's down by about 30 percent from the last survey, conducted in 2007, and 80 percent from the first survey in 1973.”
But there is no cause to celebrate because “the number of drivers with marijuana in their system jumped by nearly 50 percent compared to 2007.”
The second study was conducted over a 20-month period by examining accidents involving 3,000 drivers in Virginia Beach, Virginia. The NHTSA found that “drivers who use marijuana are more likely to be in a car crash.”
What has to be most alarming is that the first NHTSA study was conducted nationwide and the second study, although extensive, was conducted in Virginia. Neither study focused in on the states of Colorado and Washington, both of which have legalized the recreational use of pot. The Colorado Highway Patrol has reported a significant increase in the number of car crashes involving drivers who were smoking pot.
Just imagine what those marijuana numbers would have shown had the two studies focused in on the states of Colorado and Washington. Those pot percentages would have zoomed right off the charts.
All of this is very bad news for the innocent, non-drinking and non-pot using driver in Colorado and Washington who is now in greater danger of getting struck by some jerk driving under the influence of pot.
And they keep saying that smoking pot is harmless. Yeah, right. And pigs can fly.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has just completed two extensive studies on driving under the influence of alcohol and pot.
The first study, which was voluntary and anonymous, rounded up data from drivers across the country who agreed to participate at a roadside test site. According to the NHTSA, the study found “about 8 percent of drivers had alcohol in their system on weekend nights. That's down by about 30 percent from the last survey, conducted in 2007, and 80 percent from the first survey in 1973.”
But there is no cause to celebrate because “the number of drivers with marijuana in their system jumped by nearly 50 percent compared to 2007.”
The second study was conducted over a 20-month period by examining accidents involving 3,000 drivers in Virginia Beach, Virginia. The NHTSA found that “drivers who use marijuana are more likely to be in a car crash.”
What has to be most alarming is that the first NHTSA study was conducted nationwide and the second study, although extensive, was conducted in Virginia. Neither study focused in on the states of Colorado and Washington, both of which have legalized the recreational use of pot. The Colorado Highway Patrol has reported a significant increase in the number of car crashes involving drivers who were smoking pot.
Just imagine what those marijuana numbers would have shown had the two studies focused in on the states of Colorado and Washington. Those pot percentages would have zoomed right off the charts.
All of this is very bad news for the innocent, non-drinking and non-pot using driver in Colorado and Washington who is now in greater danger of getting struck by some jerk driving under the influence of pot.
And they keep saying that smoking pot is harmless. Yeah, right. And pigs can fly.
Thursday, February 12, 2015
WHAT HAPPENED TO THE WASHINGTON AND LINCOLN HOLIDAYS?
The birthday celebrations of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln vanished in the sea of political correctness
When I was growing up, I always looked forward to February because we got to celebrate two holidays – Abraham Lincoln’s birthday on the 12th and George Washington’s birthday on the 22nd. Washington’s birthday was an officially designated federal holiday. Although Lincoln’s birthday was never a federal holiday,, it was officially designated as a holiday by many states.
Then a tsunami of political correctness swept through Congress. Italian-Americans had long been clamoring for a holiday to honor Christopher Columbus. Columbus Day was created in 1971. African-Americans then demanded a holiday to honor Martin Luther King, Jr. Martin Luther King Day was created in 1986.
Washington’s and Lincoln’s birthdays continued to be holidays until officials realized there were too many paid holidays for government and school employees. So in 1971, Lincolns birthday was combined with Washington’s and eventually the day became known as Presidents’ Day.
As most of you know, I do not subscribe to this Political Correct bullshit!
George Washington led our revolutionary militia in the war for independence from the British. We won and Washington became our first president.
Abraham Lincoln was President of the North during the Civil War with the Confederate States. The North won and Lincoln is credited with preserving the United States of America. Lincoln also freed the slaves.
Christopher Columbus discovered America. Like hell he did! He never set foot on the American mainland. He crossed the Atlantic, an extraordinary feat at the time, and landed on the island of Hispaniola. Columbus believed he had landed in India. He made thee more trips to Hispaniola, but he never sailed beyond that island. It is said that Columbus and his crew brought small pox to the Indians who returned the favor by introducing syphilis to the Europeans. But the truth is that Columbus and his crew pillaged the Hispaniola villages, raped the women and enslaved the islanders.
Martin Luther King Jr. was without doubt one of the greatest men in American history. His civil rights campaign for all minorities, not just for blacks, led to the passage of many anti-discriminatory laws.
Now, political correctness aside, we should restore Washington’s birthday and Lincoln’s birthday as officially designated separate holidays. We should dump Christopher Columbus from the holiday list to make room for Washington and Lincoln. Columbus, never having set foot on the American mainland, does not deserve to be honored with a holiday in this country, especially after what he and his crew did to Hispaniola's 'Indians.'
I believe that Martin Luther King Jr, has earned the right to be honored with a holiday, but only if it’s not at the expense of either Washington or Lincoln.
As for any outraged Italian-Americans, I urge them to go to Hispaniola and campaign there for a holiday in honor of Columbus. Those ungrateful islanders have thus far failed to honor the man credited with discovering America – oops that should be Hispaniola, not America.
When I was growing up, I always looked forward to February because we got to celebrate two holidays – Abraham Lincoln’s birthday on the 12th and George Washington’s birthday on the 22nd. Washington’s birthday was an officially designated federal holiday. Although Lincoln’s birthday was never a federal holiday,, it was officially designated as a holiday by many states.
Then a tsunami of political correctness swept through Congress. Italian-Americans had long been clamoring for a holiday to honor Christopher Columbus. Columbus Day was created in 1971. African-Americans then demanded a holiday to honor Martin Luther King, Jr. Martin Luther King Day was created in 1986.
Washington’s and Lincoln’s birthdays continued to be holidays until officials realized there were too many paid holidays for government and school employees. So in 1971, Lincolns birthday was combined with Washington’s and eventually the day became known as Presidents’ Day.
As most of you know, I do not subscribe to this Political Correct bullshit!
George Washington led our revolutionary militia in the war for independence from the British. We won and Washington became our first president.
Abraham Lincoln was President of the North during the Civil War with the Confederate States. The North won and Lincoln is credited with preserving the United States of America. Lincoln also freed the slaves.
Christopher Columbus discovered America. Like hell he did! He never set foot on the American mainland. He crossed the Atlantic, an extraordinary feat at the time, and landed on the island of Hispaniola. Columbus believed he had landed in India. He made thee more trips to Hispaniola, but he never sailed beyond that island. It is said that Columbus and his crew brought small pox to the Indians who returned the favor by introducing syphilis to the Europeans. But the truth is that Columbus and his crew pillaged the Hispaniola villages, raped the women and enslaved the islanders.
Martin Luther King Jr. was without doubt one of the greatest men in American history. His civil rights campaign for all minorities, not just for blacks, led to the passage of many anti-discriminatory laws.
Now, political correctness aside, we should restore Washington’s birthday and Lincoln’s birthday as officially designated separate holidays. We should dump Christopher Columbus from the holiday list to make room for Washington and Lincoln. Columbus, never having set foot on the American mainland, does not deserve to be honored with a holiday in this country, especially after what he and his crew did to Hispaniola's 'Indians.'
I believe that Martin Luther King Jr, has earned the right to be honored with a holiday, but only if it’s not at the expense of either Washington or Lincoln.
As for any outraged Italian-Americans, I urge them to go to Hispaniola and campaign there for a holiday in honor of Columbus. Those ungrateful islanders have thus far failed to honor the man credited with discovering America – oops that should be Hispaniola, not America.
ENORMOUS SCAM BY INSULIN PUMP MAKERS
Capitalism at its best ….. or worst
It has just been brought to my attention that the makers of insulin pumps are perpetrating an enormous scam on people suffering from diabetes and the U.S. government is turning a blind eye to it.
Here is how the scam works. The most popular insulin pumps and initial supplies, including tubing, syringes, cartridges, and dressings, cost more than $5,000. But the insulin pump makers like Animas, Accu-Check, Asante, Medtronic and others are not selling pumps, they are selling four-year warranties.
At the end of four years, the pump maker will notify the pump owner that he will have to buy another insulin pump. If anything goes wrong with the pump, they will not repair it, even if the owner is willing to pay for any repairs. It’s buy another pump or you do not have a pump.
Now that’s the same as if you bought a new Chevy and GM says that at the end of the warranty you have to buy another Chevy because they will not repair your car even if you will pay for the repairs. Of course, GM cannot do this because there are plenty of independent car repair shops that will do the work for you.
Unfortunately for the insulin pump owners, there are few, if any, independent insulin pump repair shops to be found.
If this is not an enormous scam, I’ll eat my John Deere cap. This is capitalism as its best for the manufacturer, but at its worst for the consumer. Uncle Sam, where the fuck are you?
It has just been brought to my attention that the makers of insulin pumps are perpetrating an enormous scam on people suffering from diabetes and the U.S. government is turning a blind eye to it.
Here is how the scam works. The most popular insulin pumps and initial supplies, including tubing, syringes, cartridges, and dressings, cost more than $5,000. But the insulin pump makers like Animas, Accu-Check, Asante, Medtronic and others are not selling pumps, they are selling four-year warranties.
At the end of four years, the pump maker will notify the pump owner that he will have to buy another insulin pump. If anything goes wrong with the pump, they will not repair it, even if the owner is willing to pay for any repairs. It’s buy another pump or you do not have a pump.
Now that’s the same as if you bought a new Chevy and GM says that at the end of the warranty you have to buy another Chevy because they will not repair your car even if you will pay for the repairs. Of course, GM cannot do this because there are plenty of independent car repair shops that will do the work for you.
Unfortunately for the insulin pump owners, there are few, if any, independent insulin pump repair shops to be found.
If this is not an enormous scam, I’ll eat my John Deere cap. This is capitalism as its best for the manufacturer, but at its worst for the consumer. Uncle Sam, where the fuck are you?
FEEL GOOD SCOTUS APPEAL HALTS OK EXECUTIONS
Bleeding Heart Standard: ANY Pain a Killer Feels Is Too Painful for Eighth Amendment Guidelines
By Greg ‘Gadfly’ Doyle
PACOVILLA Corrections blog
February 11, 2015
According to a report from The Christian Science Monitor, on January 28, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) agreed to hear a last-minute appeal from three Oklahoma death row inmates. The State of Oklahoma has suspended the scheduled executions of those inmates, due to the appeal argument that the lethal injection protocol and specifically, the drug (midazolam), which is a part of that protocol, might not effectively cause unconsciousness in the condemned, which could cause them to feel pain as their lives are being terminated.
Due to the time needed to plead this case before the Court, a suspension of execution was needed in order to consider their claim lest the three suffer death before the court appearance date.
Unlike California, where most death row inmates die of natural causes, the Bleeding Heart Standard (BHS) in the OK case appears to promote the notion that ANY pain a condemned prisoner experiences during execution is TOO MUCH pain, and legally amounts to State-inflicted, unconstitutional torture.
However, one condemned inmate had already been executed by the State of Oklahoma, before SCOTUS agreed to hear the pending matter on the other three inmates. Whatever the outcome of this appeal, it could create yet another backlog in an already convoluted execution schedule across the United States.
“Specifically at issue in the Supreme Court challenge is whether the first drug administered in the execution process – midazolam – is effective in rendering the condemned prisoner into a coma-like unconsciousness before the other two drugs are administered.
Lawyers for the inmates have expressed fear that if the first drug is ineffective, their clients will be subject to intense pain when the second and third drugs are administered.
The concerns were raised after botched executions in Oklahoma, Ohio, and Arizona last year. In all three cases, midazolam was the first drug used in a three-drug lethal injection protocol.” (for the CSM story see http://tinyurl.com/qhn4sxk.)
If the present appeal fails, Pacovilla.com suggests a more reasonable appeal on a generic level, that most Americans could identify with, would be: “I don’t like needles.”
Riders, let’s be perfectly clear about the reason executions should and do occur as a consequence of the rule of law. Capital punishment is the highest price and most serious penalty (aka: death penalty) a human being can be subjected to under the rule of law in the United States of America. It is not a form of euthanasia—putting down a sick cat, puppy, or, in parts of Europe, a bedridden granny—it is a severe and exacting punishment to be experienced and felt by the one whom the law deems must pay the penalty.
In State courts, murder with special circumstances is generally the standard that qualifies for a death penalty case. What types of special circumstances qualify? Serial killing or the torture, planned ambush, kidnap, robbery, rape, child molestation, burglary, or arson preceding a murder may qualify a defendant for capital punishment. However, prosecutors often mitigate these types of cases by offering plea bargains of Life Without Possibility of Parole (LWOP), Life, or very long prison sentences.
As a general rule, the most vile and heinous cases imaginable end up as death penalty cases.
According to a specific State-sanctioned process (which as stated above, first begins with the capital crime of first-degree murder), evidence is collected and reviewed, charges are brought against a defendant, a legal proceeding is brought before a judge through multiple hearings, witnesses are examined, a jury trial is conducted, and a final decision and finding of GUILTY must be rendered. Only then can a second trial be conducted to determine if a guilty finding justifies the condemnation of said defendant. Otherwise the defendant receives incarceration, a lesser sentence than death.
Opponents of the death penalty would like the general public to believe that every inmate on death row somehow deserves to live by the mere essence of their human existence. It is unfortunate that the anti-death penalty crowd routinely ignores the suffering of the families of the victims brought to bear by the criminal acts of those condemned inmates. Their ilk generally subscribes to a belief that the State-sanctioned killing of a convicted murderer is morally reprehensible.
It is as if the life of a condemned inmate, through his or her well-documented act of despicable intention, unconscionable cruelty, wanton disregard, and brutal achievement, matters more to these anti-capital punishment advocates than the life unlawfully claimed through a criminal act. In other words, the legal system only applies to their passionately dysfunctional appeals for reprieve, clemency, and mercy, when none was ever given by the condemned to their victim(s.) Victims be damned; condemned be given life.
Personally, I care nothing about the financial cost of executing duly convicted and condemned inmates. What I care about is the continued obfuscation of the rule of law by special interest groups; whether it is on the issue of illegal immigrants, health care, social programs, or, in this instance, the death penalty. The anti-death penalty crowd and the many lawyers (who file appeals ad nasaum on behalf of those condemned souls whom the rule of law has determined must die at the hands of the State) are a special interest group.
People lose their heads all the time in the Middle East, and no one their seems concerned about the cruel and unusual nature of those executions
Let’s recall what the Eighth Amendment really says:
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
By the rule of law, State execution is neither cruel or unusual. Neither are American executions barbaric. Inmates are not drawn and quartered (pulled apart by their arms and legs by horses), tortured for hours before being set on fire (as witnessed recently in an ISIS video), beheaded (Google Saudi Arabia for more on this), or impaled or crucified to die long, agonizing deaths.
Even in the attorney-proclaimed and press-regurgitated “botched execution” of Clayton Lockett in Oklahoma, in April 2014, it appeared that a mechanical failure of equipment, was the culprit, not the drug in question. Yet read the emotional response of the attorneys who were present in their statements to the press, and how the press presented the article:
““This was botched, and it was difficult to watch,” said David Autry, one of Mr. Lockett’s lawyers.
Dean Sanderford, another lawyer for Mr. Lockett, said, “It looked like torture.”
A medical technician inserted the IV needle and then the the first drug, a sedative intended to knock the man out and forestall pain, was administered at 6:23 p.m. Ten minutes later, the doctor announced that Mr. Lockett was unconscious, and the team started to administer the next two drugs, a paralytic and one intended to make the heart stop.
At that point, witnesses said, things began to go awry. Mr. Lockett’s body twitched, his foot shook and he mumbled, witnesses said.
At 6:37 p.m., he tried to rise and exhaled loudly. At that point, prison officials pulled a curtain in front of the witnesses and the doctor discovered a “vein failure,” Mr. Patton said.
Without effective sedation, the second two drugs are known to cause agonizing suffocation and pain.
Mr. Lockett’s apparent revival and writhing raised questions about the doctor’s initial declaration that he was unconscious and are sure to cast doubt on the effectiveness of the sedative used. (see cite below)
Notice that the above quote did not cite any authority in reference to the “agonizing suffering and pain” associated with the second two execution drugs. Compare that journalistic presentation of facts to what was initially reported in the same article:
Clayton D. Lockett, began to writhe and gasp after he had already been declared unconscious and called out “oh, man,” according to witnesses. (full story at http://tinyurl.com/kgoptoo.)
The utterance of “Oh, man” is a far cry from the horrific screams of a tortured soul.
According to the same article, at about 7:06 p.m. (Central Time) Lockett suffered a heart attack. Writhing and gasping is a usual reaction during a heart attack. In medical terms, Lockett died of a natural cause (a heart attack) as the result of his State-approved execution. Can a reasonable person deduce, though the line failure was inadvertent, that what occurred to Mr. Lockett was not cruel or unusual?
In other words, the State did not step outside the protocol, but an accident occurred during the procedure. Perhaps it is unfortunate that Lockett’s one line collapsed while he was being executed. It triggered a heart attack and he died. In the grand scheme of things, the protocol and procedure did not end in a botched execution—-HE WAS SUPPOSED TO DIE!!! AND HE DID!!!
Call it botched if it makes you feel better. Still, what happened to Mr. Lockett, when all is said and done hardly seems cruel or unusual. Three Oklahoma condemned prisoners were days away from meeting their Maker, when an appeal based upon Clayton Lockett’s “botched execution” bought them a temporary reprieve. The one who did not benefit was inmate Charles Warner.
What happened to condemned inmate Charles Warner on January 15, 2015? He tired to make people think he had been tortured before any drugs had been administered. Nice try, Charlie. Mr. Warner was successfully executed, with no line failure (for full story see http://tinyurl.com/nqbzy25.)
Let’s hope SCOTUS does not further muddy the waters in this new appeal.
The rule of law demands three men in Oklahoma pay the highest price for their crimes. How much longer must justice for their victims be delayed?
By Greg ‘Gadfly’ Doyle
PACOVILLA Corrections blog
February 11, 2015
According to a report from The Christian Science Monitor, on January 28, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) agreed to hear a last-minute appeal from three Oklahoma death row inmates. The State of Oklahoma has suspended the scheduled executions of those inmates, due to the appeal argument that the lethal injection protocol and specifically, the drug (midazolam), which is a part of that protocol, might not effectively cause unconsciousness in the condemned, which could cause them to feel pain as their lives are being terminated.
Due to the time needed to plead this case before the Court, a suspension of execution was needed in order to consider their claim lest the three suffer death before the court appearance date.
Unlike California, where most death row inmates die of natural causes, the Bleeding Heart Standard (BHS) in the OK case appears to promote the notion that ANY pain a condemned prisoner experiences during execution is TOO MUCH pain, and legally amounts to State-inflicted, unconstitutional torture.
However, one condemned inmate had already been executed by the State of Oklahoma, before SCOTUS agreed to hear the pending matter on the other three inmates. Whatever the outcome of this appeal, it could create yet another backlog in an already convoluted execution schedule across the United States.
“Specifically at issue in the Supreme Court challenge is whether the first drug administered in the execution process – midazolam – is effective in rendering the condemned prisoner into a coma-like unconsciousness before the other two drugs are administered.
Lawyers for the inmates have expressed fear that if the first drug is ineffective, their clients will be subject to intense pain when the second and third drugs are administered.
The concerns were raised after botched executions in Oklahoma, Ohio, and Arizona last year. In all three cases, midazolam was the first drug used in a three-drug lethal injection protocol.” (for the CSM story see http://tinyurl.com/qhn4sxk.)
If the present appeal fails, Pacovilla.com suggests a more reasonable appeal on a generic level, that most Americans could identify with, would be: “I don’t like needles.”
Riders, let’s be perfectly clear about the reason executions should and do occur as a consequence of the rule of law. Capital punishment is the highest price and most serious penalty (aka: death penalty) a human being can be subjected to under the rule of law in the United States of America. It is not a form of euthanasia—putting down a sick cat, puppy, or, in parts of Europe, a bedridden granny—it is a severe and exacting punishment to be experienced and felt by the one whom the law deems must pay the penalty.
In State courts, murder with special circumstances is generally the standard that qualifies for a death penalty case. What types of special circumstances qualify? Serial killing or the torture, planned ambush, kidnap, robbery, rape, child molestation, burglary, or arson preceding a murder may qualify a defendant for capital punishment. However, prosecutors often mitigate these types of cases by offering plea bargains of Life Without Possibility of Parole (LWOP), Life, or very long prison sentences.
As a general rule, the most vile and heinous cases imaginable end up as death penalty cases.
According to a specific State-sanctioned process (which as stated above, first begins with the capital crime of first-degree murder), evidence is collected and reviewed, charges are brought against a defendant, a legal proceeding is brought before a judge through multiple hearings, witnesses are examined, a jury trial is conducted, and a final decision and finding of GUILTY must be rendered. Only then can a second trial be conducted to determine if a guilty finding justifies the condemnation of said defendant. Otherwise the defendant receives incarceration, a lesser sentence than death.
Opponents of the death penalty would like the general public to believe that every inmate on death row somehow deserves to live by the mere essence of their human existence. It is unfortunate that the anti-death penalty crowd routinely ignores the suffering of the families of the victims brought to bear by the criminal acts of those condemned inmates. Their ilk generally subscribes to a belief that the State-sanctioned killing of a convicted murderer is morally reprehensible.
It is as if the life of a condemned inmate, through his or her well-documented act of despicable intention, unconscionable cruelty, wanton disregard, and brutal achievement, matters more to these anti-capital punishment advocates than the life unlawfully claimed through a criminal act. In other words, the legal system only applies to their passionately dysfunctional appeals for reprieve, clemency, and mercy, when none was ever given by the condemned to their victim(s.) Victims be damned; condemned be given life.
Personally, I care nothing about the financial cost of executing duly convicted and condemned inmates. What I care about is the continued obfuscation of the rule of law by special interest groups; whether it is on the issue of illegal immigrants, health care, social programs, or, in this instance, the death penalty. The anti-death penalty crowd and the many lawyers (who file appeals ad nasaum on behalf of those condemned souls whom the rule of law has determined must die at the hands of the State) are a special interest group.
People lose their heads all the time in the Middle East, and no one their seems concerned about the cruel and unusual nature of those executions
Let’s recall what the Eighth Amendment really says:
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
By the rule of law, State execution is neither cruel or unusual. Neither are American executions barbaric. Inmates are not drawn and quartered (pulled apart by their arms and legs by horses), tortured for hours before being set on fire (as witnessed recently in an ISIS video), beheaded (Google Saudi Arabia for more on this), or impaled or crucified to die long, agonizing deaths.
Even in the attorney-proclaimed and press-regurgitated “botched execution” of Clayton Lockett in Oklahoma, in April 2014, it appeared that a mechanical failure of equipment, was the culprit, not the drug in question. Yet read the emotional response of the attorneys who were present in their statements to the press, and how the press presented the article:
““This was botched, and it was difficult to watch,” said David Autry, one of Mr. Lockett’s lawyers.
Dean Sanderford, another lawyer for Mr. Lockett, said, “It looked like torture.”
A medical technician inserted the IV needle and then the the first drug, a sedative intended to knock the man out and forestall pain, was administered at 6:23 p.m. Ten minutes later, the doctor announced that Mr. Lockett was unconscious, and the team started to administer the next two drugs, a paralytic and one intended to make the heart stop.
At that point, witnesses said, things began to go awry. Mr. Lockett’s body twitched, his foot shook and he mumbled, witnesses said.
At 6:37 p.m., he tried to rise and exhaled loudly. At that point, prison officials pulled a curtain in front of the witnesses and the doctor discovered a “vein failure,” Mr. Patton said.
Without effective sedation, the second two drugs are known to cause agonizing suffocation and pain.
Mr. Lockett’s apparent revival and writhing raised questions about the doctor’s initial declaration that he was unconscious and are sure to cast doubt on the effectiveness of the sedative used. (see cite below)
Notice that the above quote did not cite any authority in reference to the “agonizing suffering and pain” associated with the second two execution drugs. Compare that journalistic presentation of facts to what was initially reported in the same article:
Clayton D. Lockett, began to writhe and gasp after he had already been declared unconscious and called out “oh, man,” according to witnesses. (full story at http://tinyurl.com/kgoptoo.)
The utterance of “Oh, man” is a far cry from the horrific screams of a tortured soul.
According to the same article, at about 7:06 p.m. (Central Time) Lockett suffered a heart attack. Writhing and gasping is a usual reaction during a heart attack. In medical terms, Lockett died of a natural cause (a heart attack) as the result of his State-approved execution. Can a reasonable person deduce, though the line failure was inadvertent, that what occurred to Mr. Lockett was not cruel or unusual?
In other words, the State did not step outside the protocol, but an accident occurred during the procedure. Perhaps it is unfortunate that Lockett’s one line collapsed while he was being executed. It triggered a heart attack and he died. In the grand scheme of things, the protocol and procedure did not end in a botched execution—-HE WAS SUPPOSED TO DIE!!! AND HE DID!!!
Call it botched if it makes you feel better. Still, what happened to Mr. Lockett, when all is said and done hardly seems cruel or unusual. Three Oklahoma condemned prisoners were days away from meeting their Maker, when an appeal based upon Clayton Lockett’s “botched execution” bought them a temporary reprieve. The one who did not benefit was inmate Charles Warner.
What happened to condemned inmate Charles Warner on January 15, 2015? He tired to make people think he had been tortured before any drugs had been administered. Nice try, Charlie. Mr. Warner was successfully executed, with no line failure (for full story see http://tinyurl.com/nqbzy25.)
Let’s hope SCOTUS does not further muddy the waters in this new appeal.
The rule of law demands three men in Oklahoma pay the highest price for their crimes. How much longer must justice for their victims be delayed?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)