Archive for the ‘Crime’ Category

More stuff has piled up in my “to blog about” folder.

Putin: West arming Syrian rebels who eat human flesh!

AMMAN/LONDON — Russian President Vladimir Putin, arriving in Britain ahead of an international summit set to be dominated by disagreement over the U.S. decision to send weapons to Syria’s rebels, said the West must not arm fighters who eat human flesh.  …

“One does not really need to support the people who not only kill their enemies, but open up their bodies, eat their intestines in front of the public and cameras,” Putin said.

I’m going to go out on a limb and say Putin has a point.

Liveleak has the video.  It’s blurry enough to not be as graphic as you’d think.  The audio is good, so the chorus of “Allahu akbar!” as he takes a bite is pretty clear.

putin with puppy

Considering Putin is a KGB thug who’s probably murdered several men by his own hand, that’s the cutest thing I could find to offset the Syrian wendigo-wannabe that would still kinda tie in with the story.  It’s Russian squee propaganda.

-

In Houston, a free gun initiative has kicked off:

Strain’s northwest Houston community of Oak Forest is the first neighborhood in the country being trained and equipped by the Armed Citizen Project, a Houston nonprofit that is giving away free shotguns to single women and residents of neighborhoods with high crime rates.

Cool.

Actually, it’s 20 gauge shotguns.

And of course, some ivy league blueblood professor who knows how everyone else has to live has to chime in.  It’s almost parody:

David Hemenway, a professor of health policy and management at the Harvard School of Public Health who has written about firearms and health, said studies suggesting gun ownership deters crime have been refuted by many others that say the opposite.

“Mostly what guns seem to do is make situations more lethal because most crime has nothing to do with guns,” he said. “When there is a gun in the mix, there is much more likely to be somebody dying or somebody incredibly hurt.”

Professor Hemenway, a professor of telling-you-how-to-live, would prefer that innocent people not be allowed to defend themselves and instead act as passive crime victims, which ultimately keeps violence down.  He’s that guy from the Road Warrior who tells the other members of the refinery to just give the Humungus what they want.

Armed victims tend to create a bigger threat to attackers, though.  They tend to make it so attackers might get incredibly hurt or die.

The omitted part is that some violence is justified and necessary, and ultimately violence to defend the innocent is righteous, while surrendering the innocent to predators is not.

-

In New Mexico, brain scans have replaced phrenology as predictors of criminal behavior:

ALBUQUERQUE — It began with a casual question that neuroscientist Kent Kiehl posed to a postdoctoral fellow in his laboratory who had been conducting brain scans on New Mexico prison inmates.

“I asked, ‘Does ACC activity predict the risk of reoffending?’” Kiehl recalls, using the scientific shorthand for the anterior cingulate cortex, a brain structure associated with error processing.

The postdoctoral fellow, Eyal Aharoni, decided to find out. When he compared 96 inmates whose brains had been monitored while they performed a test that measures impulsiveness, he discovered a stark contrast: Those with low ACC activity were about twice as likely to commit crimes within four years of being released as those with high ACC activity.

While this may prove to be more accurate than phrenology, brain scans to predict behavior ultimately ignore a lot of other factors.

“We cannot say with certainty that all who are in the high-risk category will reoffend — just that most will,” Kiehl says. “It has very big implications for how we think about treatment and rehabilitation.”

It also has very big implications if you want to reduce the sum of man to a chemical interaction, rather than look at external factors that lead to behavior, and decisions on the part of the individual.

Saying someone has a mental predisposition to impulsiveness or certain areas of the brain that are under or overdeveloped doesn’t mean that’s the sum of the person.

Abu Sakkar, the cannibal rebel (which sounds like a badass name for a Southern horrorbilly/horrorpunk/gothabilly band that would open for Ghoultown) warlord in Syria, probably isn’t eating the hearts of his dead foes because of a deficiency of gray matter.  His environment might have something to do with it.  Just maybe.

-

This one’s from today, from Gateway Pundit:

A photo from the Houston pro-Zimmerman counter-rally of the NBPP anti-Zimmerman rally picked up by the AP shows a woman holding a sign that read, “Racist & Proud.”

That looked incongruent with the other reports from the pro-Zimmerman side.
The Houston Chronicle identified her as Renee Vaughan:

One woman in the Zimmerman group held a sign that said, “We’re racist & proud.”

Austin resident Renee Vaughan echoed the sign’s ugly sentiments by yelling, “We’re racist. We’re proud. We’re better because we’re white,” at the Martin group as they passed, according to the Chronicle.

The act to smear the Zimmerman supporters as racists with a leftist plant worked as the photo and comment was picked up and spread worldwide.

Scanning the internet we found that a “Renee Vaughn” from Austin worked for a far left environmental group, the Texas Campaign for the Environment.

racist and proud fake leftistWell, that’s Austin leftists for you.

I can imagine her confronting some Martin supporters.  “No, really, I’m one of you!  I’m just carrying this sign that says I’m racist so you’ll attack those other people over there that I hate!  I’m not racist!  They are!  I’m just carrying the sign, but they really are!”

Really, if you’re carrying around a sign that says “racist and proud”, something has gone wrong at some point.  You’re not being ironic, you’re not being clever, you’re not impersonating anyone.  You’re just a failure at life.

Update:  Via Jawa Report:

Bill Whittle: The Lynching

Posted: July 20, 2013 by ShortTimer in Bill Whittle, Crime, Culture, Leftists, Media, Racists

Everything the media omitted about the Zimmerman/Martin case.

The white racist murderer whose name you’re thinking of is Roderick Scott.  He gunned down poor innocent black child Chris Cervini.

Scott claimed self-defense.

A Greece man charged with shooting a 17-year-old to death testified at his own trial Tuesday.

Roderick Scott told the court he shot Christopher Cervini in self-defense.

Scott is charged with manslaughter in the April 4 shooting across the street from his home on Baneberry Way in Greece.

Scott told the court he confronted Cervini and other person as they broke into a neighbor’s car. The other person ran away, but Scott said Cervini ran at him.

Scott already had his gun drawn. He said he told Cervini to stop, but the teen kept coming, so he shot him twice.

Of course, unlike the Zimmerman trial, this one was hushed up, because there are hundreds of black children killed by white racist gun owners every day.  This is Scott’s crazy ass cracka story:

Scott said on April 4, he was sleeping on the couch, because he and his girlfriend had a disagreement. In the early morning he awoke and heard voices. He looked out the front door to see what was going on outside.

He testified he saw three individuals who were in his driveway, saw them walk out and cross the street, then walk up to a neighbor’s vehicle, pulling on the latch and handles of the neighbor’s truck. He then went upstairs, told his girlfriend Tracy that someone was breaking into a vehicle, and told her to call 911. He grabbed his pistol, for which he has a permit, “to protect myself” then went outside.

Scott said his intent was “to stop or detain the criminals,” not to shoot anyone. He walked down the driveway and over to 39 Baneberry Way. He saw one person standing on a sidewalk, and some rummaging going on inside a vehicle, which had the dome light on.

At that point, Scott testified he pulled his handgun out of the holster, and chambered a round. “I wanted to protect myself and I intended to,” Scott said.

He walked toward the individual, who started to walk away toward Manitou Road. He did not tell that individual to stop. It’s believed that individual was Brian Hopkins.

At this point, Scott was a foot or so off the sidewalk, and he saw someone rustling around inside the vehicle at 39 Baneberry. He testified he clearly saw two individuals. He drew his pistol and assumed the a shooter’s stance. “I didn’t know what I was up against, or if they were armed,” Scott said.

He told the individuals to stop, that his girlfriend had called 911, and that he had a gun. The individuals stopped, and a few seconds passed. Scott says the teens were talking, then one of them ran around the front of the truck. The other ran down the driveway toward him, screaming. Scott warned him he had a gun, then shot him.

He assumed the boy may have been armed.

“I felt if he got to me he would try to kill me or hurt me,” Scott testified.

Scott was found not guilty.

Just one thing.  This is Roderick Scott:

roderick scott in court 1

But that’s only because while he was a black man, he only shot this poor black child who no one cared about:

chris cervini 1

Justice can never be done when crazy ass crackas like Roderick Scott walk free while honor student black children like Chris Cervini are shot down in cold blood, murdered only for the crime of defending themselves against racist white men like Roderick Scott who walk around their neighborhoods gunning down black children like Chris Cervini and claiming self-defense.

The law must change!  Justice for black child Chris Cervini!  Roderick Scott needs to go to jail and be tried for hate crimes like the white racist murderer he is.

-

Sarcasm over, this is actually in the story:

Cervini’s family members say justice wasn’t served. They say Christopher was murdered in cold blood, that he’d never been in trouble and Scott acted as judge, jury and executioner.

“The message is that we can all go out and get guns and feel anybody that we feel is threatening us and lie about the fact,” said Jim Cervini, Christopher’s father. “My son never threatened anybody. He was a gentle child, his nature was gentle, he was a good person and he was never, ever arrested for anything, and has never been in trouble. He was 16 years and four months old, and he was slaughtered.”

Scott says he acted in self defense when he confronted Cervini and two others saying they were stealing from neighbors cars. He told them he had a gun and ordered them to freeze and wait for police.

Scott says he shot Cervini twice when the victim charged toward him yelling he was going to get Scott.

“How can this happen to a beautiful, sweet child like that?” asked Cervini’s aunt Carol Cervini. “All he wanted to do was go home. And then for them to say, he was saying, ‘Please don’t kill me. I’m just a kid,’ and he just kept on shooting him.”

Cervini charged screaming at Scott in the middle of the night while Cervini and his two friends were stealing from people’s cars.

Could Scott have called the cops and waited for them to show up an hour after Cervini and his thug friends left?  Sure.

Does Scott have a right to protect his property?  Damn right he does.

Does Scott have a right to defend his neighbor’s property?  Yup.  Sounds like a good neighbor to me.

Does Cervini have a right to charge Scott in the middle of the night screaming, while in the middle of committing a theft?  That’s at least menacing, and probably assault – even before he touches Scott.

Does Scott have a right to blast an attacker in the middle of the night in self defense, even though that threat turns out to be a thieving white kid?  Damn right.

Do I care that Cervini was white and Scott was black?  Nope.  The only reason it matters is to prove a contrast to the racist left’s accusations against Zimmerman.   It proves again, with colors reversed, the very concept of self-defense that allowed Scott to defend himself against what would’ve been not one but three white attackers.  Cervini’s friends would’ve come to his aid and the story would’ve been “three white teens engaged in car theft kill black resident”.

-

Right now, with Eric Holder and leaders of the NAACP calling for a destruction of self-defense laws, they’re asking to put the law on Cervini’s side.  They’re asking to put the law on the side of three white kids burglarizing a black man’s neighborhood, and terrorizing him when he comes out to defend his property.

They’ve ignored the facts of the Zimmerman case and glorified Martin as a saint and martyr for the cause of civil rights, when his actions – assaulting Zimmerman, actually proved Zimmerman’s superficial assessment of him as a “f*cking punk”.  Martin’s assault led to Zimmerman’s response, just like Cervini’s assault led to Scott’s response.

Had Cervini tackled and beat Scott to death, the headlines would’ve screamed for the blood of Cervini and his white friends.  Had Zimmerman been pounded into the pavement, Trayvon Martin would be paraded around as a thug who bashed the brains out of a Hispanic Peruvian-descended man who mentored black children, took a black girl to prom, saved a black man from assault in the past, and was thanked for it by having his skull smashed into the pavement – a neighborhood watchman whose only crime was looking out for his neighbors.  The headlines would scream “Teenage Thug Kills Pillar of Hispanic Community”.  Every day on Univision would show Zimmerman’s blood in the streets, and La Raza would be marching demanding justice.

-

Now Eric Holder has set up a tip line to go after Zimmerman.

The DOJ has declared war on pobre Jorge.

Sounds kind of like the witch hunt that imprisoned John McNeil, huh?  (Note that link is from the NAACP.)

john mcneil georgia

John McNeil served 6 years after he had to shoot a white man with a box cutter threatening him and his son on his property.

Last fall, a judge ruled that he deserved a new trial because his original attorney did not inform jurors they could acquit him if he shot in defense of his home or his son. Stand Your Ground can apply to the defense of someone else as well as himself.

Sadly, he pled guilty to manslaughter to get out of jail, which is nonsense, because he should be a free man completely.

-

The left’s take on the McNeil case wasn’t that justice wasn’t served, it’s that justice was just wrong, and that self defense needs to go away completely.

Civil rights activist Markel Hutchins agrees and has filed a federal lawsuit challenging Georgia’s stand your ground law because the law is not applied equally to African-Americans. He accuses the courts of accepting “the race of a victim as evidence to establish the reasonableness of an individual’s fear in cases of justifiable homicide.”

That wasn’t fighting for McNeil’s freedom, it’s fighting against the codification of natural law that should’ve left him free.  Had leftist tyranny-supporter Hutchins instead pushed for McNeil’s defense, he wouldn’t have pled guilty to manslaughter, he would be a free man.

But of course, it’s about destruction of the natural right of self defense, not about justice.  It’s not about protecting the individual black man, it’s about “racial justice” and leftist power and reducing the individual to a ward of the state.  It’s about making individuals into masses who have a duty to retreat, into cowards who are legally obliged to not stand up for themselves.  It lets their betters, who create this great new society, decide who is good and who is bad.

Ultimately, the question of self defense in many of these cases is a deeper ideological worldview expressing itself as a hatred for individual freedom.  I’d say “as always”, but… well… okay, it’s as always.

Update: This examiner link confuses a quote with commentary:

The teen’s father described his son as a “gentle child, his nature was gentle, he was a good person and he was never, ever arrested for anything, and has never been in trouble,” as reported by the internet news portal YNN Rochester (of New York) on Dec. 18, 2009, as well as the right-of-center news portal The Patriot Perspective on July 17, 2013.

I quote the story – as seen above.  Try CTRL+F and type in the word “gentle”.  I don’t describe the thieving white kid as a “gentle child”.  When not sarcastically mimicking the media’s coverage of the Zimmerman trial by taking the same tone where races were reversed and describing him as a “black child” and Scott as a “racist white man”, I describe the kid as what he was found in court to be – the attacker of Roderick Scott.

Greta Van Susteren vs Trayvon Martin Family Lawyer

Posted: July 15, 2013 by ShortTimer in Crime, Culture, Leftists
Tags:

Greta is not amused by the insults to the justice system.  Lawyer at 2:30 or so calls herself a “social engineer”.

He stopped a kidnapping.

Via HotAir, from Lancaster, PA:

What if Jorge Zimmerman were Juanita Zimmerman?

Posted: July 14, 2013 by ShortTimer in Crime, Culture, Media

Listening to MSNBC last night for a bit, I heard some twisted logic that Martin was justified in beating Zimmerman because Zimmerman would ultimately shoot him.  MSNBC hosts basically believed that because of Zimmerman’s reactions to getting beaten that those were actions he was going to take no matter what – that he was going to go and shoot Martin, so Martin should jump Zimmerman in his own “self-defense”.  Which is the same kind of logic that says the Japanese were defending themselves at Pearl Harbor… but without digressing too far…

With all this talk of “what if the races were reversed?”, and all the wild justifications for Zimmerman getting beaten by Martin along those insane lines, and the statement that having his nose broken and his head bashed on concrete by someone who was taller and stronger than he was… what if this picture:

zimmerman nose broken

Was replaced with this one of a neighborhood watch-woman Juanita Zimmerman with a black eye?

domestic violence hisp 1

Or this one, with a “white hispanic” neighborhood watch-woman Georgia Zimmerman with a broken nose?

domestic violence 2

I wonder what the media outcry would look like then?  Would they tell Juanita Zimmerman or Georgia Zimmerman it was all her fault, that she deserved it, that she’s to blame, that Martin should’ve been beating her because of what she did… after being beaten?

Just wondering…

Would the media then look at all the facts of the case, and how there were poor decisions made by all parties involved that led to tragic outcomes?  Would they begin to understand the jury’s decision?  Or would it be more of the “she deserved it”?

Not a huge surprise that one would pop up.

The “Kill Zimmerman” facebook page:

kill zimmerman fb page a

But apparently this is the response FB users are getting if they report it for threats of violence:

kill zimmerman fb page 1

Pretty indicative of what the FB community standards are.

Update: Looks like Breitbart found it didn’t violate community standards for “hate speech” a week or so ago.  Though in light of the verdict, it’s kind of a surprise it’s still up and is noted as officially reviewed as a page that “doesn’t violate community standards” for violence.

Update 2: Howdy to the Shrugging Atlases! And now Jawa readers. Utinni!

Update 3: As more people report it, more people are getting the same “doesn’t violate community standards” response.  At Jawa Report.

Harumph!

Good on David Gregory!  Gregory demands that Glenn Greenwald be held accountable for his support of Edward Snowden.  Since David Gregory has so much integrity, there’s no way he’s saying this just because Obama’s being made to look like a snooping despot.

WASHINGTON (AP) — NBC “Meet the Press” host David Gregory got a rise out of Glenn Greenwald on Sunday by asking the Guardian reporter why he shouldn’t be charged with a crime for having “aided and abetted” former National Security Agency analyst Edward Snowden.

Damn right!  Charge Greenwald!

Greenwald replied on the show Sunday that it was “pretty extraordinary that anybody who would call themselves a journalist would publicly muse about whether or not other journalists should be charged with felonies.”

Sounds like the kind of thing Greenwald would say!  He’s clearly a criminal dirtbag who needs to be charged!  David Gregory would never stand with someone who would commit a crime punishable by a year in prison!

Gregory responded that “the question of who is a journalist may be up to a debate with regard to what you are doing.”

Damn straight!  Good on David Gregory for standing up for the law and not letting journalists who think they’re special just go out and break it!

David Gregory’s got integrity!  He’d never do such a thing like that shoddy yellow journalist Greenwald!

Well, except for that one time

david gregory glenn greenwald 130624

-

david gregory glenn greenwald 130624 a

-
david gregory glenn greenwald 130624 b-

Greenwald understood Gregory’s intended point quite well:

If you want to embrace that theory, it means that every investigative journalist in the United States who works with their sources, who receives classified information is a criminal, and it’s precisely those theories and precisely that climate that has become so menacing in the United States,” said Greenwald, a former constitutional and civil rights lawyer who has written three books contending that the government has violated personal rights in the name of protecting national security.

Later, Greenwald tweeted, “Who needs the government to try to criminalize journalism when you have David Gregory to do it?”

Update.

Via Jawa Report, from FAIR:

amnesty s 744 crime paysFelony for thee, but not for those here illegally.

But it looks like this is one that was pushed through Friday night and will be force voted on today without anyone having read it Apparently it’s up to 1170 pages… at least.

Michelle Malkin flat out states the case – Mass Illegal Alien Amnesty Violates our Founding Principles.

I repeat: SchMcGRubio and Company want us to trust them with a thousand new pages of phony triggers, left-wing pork, and make-believe assimilation gestures. Trust them? Hell, no. There’s only one course for citizens who believe in upholding the Constitution and protecting the American dream: Stop them.

CALL NOW: (202) 224-3121.

For those who’ve never called it before, that’s the capitol switchboard number to reach your senators or representatives if you don’t feel like looking them up individually.

Remember, it was stopped in 2007, it can be stopped now.  Our government wants us to feel beaten down so they can do anything they like.  With enough calls, elected reps take notice and worry about their jobs.  Without enough calls, the fence-sitters simply go wherever they’re told by the rest of DC.  The situation on the ground may be different, but the situation inside in DC is all the Ruling Class will notice until they have to ask why the phones are ringing off the hook.

From HotAir:

Last month I seemed to anger some of my regular correspondents when I asked why IRS worker Lois Lerner was able to employ the 5th Amendment in the way she had. I was bothered by the way she seemed to be benefiting from the “best of both worlds” in terms of dancing around the law while apparently flaunting the national interests her job would require her to support. I suppose the lawyers in the crowd have made their case well enough for now, but rather than dragging her into court, how about if we just fire her? That could be the result if a new proposed rule is put in place.

Alabama Republican Rep. Mo Brooks has sponsored legislation that would make refusing to testify in front of Congress a firable offense for federal workers, The Hill reported Thursday

The legislation is nicknamed the “Lerner” bill, after Director of IRS Exempt Organizations Lois Lerner, who plead the Fifth Amendment in front of a House committee on May 22 about her role in the IRS’s targeting of tax-exempt tea party groups.

A tool for termination already exists.  It’s called “lack of candor“.

The short version is that if you don’t answer questions about your own work duties and if you aren’t forthcoming about your own work, you get fired.  The government can’t afford to have someone who will withhold information and is untrustworthy.

Well, Obama’s IRS and EPA and DOJ and ATF can, but in most of the government, it’s still supposed to be treated as a bad thing.

A description and example from Tully Legal:

Appellate courts also take a hard-line stance with respect to lack of candor charges. As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit explained in its 2001 ruling in Ludlum v. Dept. of Justice, lack of candor involves an employee’s “failure to disclose something that, in the circumstances, should have been disclosed in order to make the given statement accurate and complete.”

This charge should not be confused with falsification, which involves an “affirmative misrepresentation” and intent to deceive.

In Ludlum, the Federal Circuit affirmed an MSPB decision that upheld a lack of candor charge against an FBI special agent who was not completely forthcoming about how frequently he used his work vehicle to pick up his daughter from daycare. The case represents an all too common situation whereby federal employees engage in lack of candor when attempting to explain (or not explain) work-related situations tangential to their performance objectives in the workplace.

In the case of Lerner, she’s not answering a question directly related to her job from Congress.  If Joe the FBI Agent or Jose the USBP Agent or Jane the SSA Investigator did that, they’d have OIG on them in a heartbeat and be on their way out the door.  There’s no reason this law is necessary – the problem is the IRS again isn’t doing their job.  Whoever her superiors are should be crushing her right now, but they aren’t, because they’re just as corrupt and in agreement with targeting the Tea Party as a financial-warfare wing of the Democrat party.

-

There’s also a special warning given for when federal employees are targeted and are obligated to speak due to their job, but still protected by the 5th Amendment.  It’s called Kalkines rights.

The Kalkines warning is an advisement of rights usually administered by United States federal government agents to federal employees and contractors in internal investigations. The Kalkines warning compels subjects to make statements or face disciplinary action up to and including dismissal, but also provides suspects with criminal immunity for their statements. It was promulgated by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in Kalkines v. United States.[1] In that case, a federal employee was fired for not cooperating with an internal investigation. The Court of Claims found that the employee had not been sufficiently advised of his immunity to criminal prosecution, nor sufficiently warned that he would be fired if he refused to cooperate.

As a federal employee, a worker can be threatened with termination and might worry more about their job than jail.  The fedgov can and will lean on someone’s job if they suspect them of criminal activity, but Kalkines lets them know they don’t have to give up their 5th Amendment rights even though their job is being threatened.

It’s an important distinction to note that one can be both administratively looked at and criminally looked at; and makes the point so the employee knows where they stand.  It’s a rock and a hard place, but something they have to balance out.

When Lerner took the Fifth, she announced she wasn’t going to answer what happened at work, and violated her job.  She demonstrated lack of candor.  She can be fired right there for not doing her job.  Then she can plead the Fifth as a private citizen all she likes to avoid criminal prosecution.

-

It’s no different than if she worked at McDonalds and was asked to explain why she got caught pissing in the soft drink machine.  Her boss can fire her right there, and she can plead the Fifth to the health inspector and the police about her attempts to poison the public.  If she works at a big police station as a concessionaire and pisses in the cafeteria soft drink machine, she doesn’t get to plead the Fifth and just keep pissing in the Coke.