Search
Archives

You are currently browsing the archives for the Crime category.

Categories

Archive for the ‘Crime’ Category

Predictably, Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy were quick to call for more gun laws within minutes of the slaughter of 26 parishioners at a church in Texas. Their mindless diatribe should be ignored. Further, they should get ridiculed for making this argument. According to this article, Devin Patrick Kelley “was court-martialed in 2012 for two counts of assault on his then-wife and assault on their child, Stefanek said. He received a bad conduct discharge, and reduction in rank and confinement for 12 months. The Air Force tells CBS News Kelley’s case was a general court martial, the most serious level of military trial proceedings. It is reserved for more serious criminal allegations, those substantially similar to felonies in civilian jurisdictions. While personnel tried under general court martial can be subject to dishonorable discharge, Kelley received the less severe bad conduct discharge. Federal law prohibits those who have been dishonorably discharged from buying a firearm, but the law does not prohibit those who have received a bad conduct discharge.”

Further, it was reported that Kelley was dressed all in black, including a face mask with a white skull on it. Additionally, “Neighbors said that they heard intense gunfire coming from the direction of the address listed for Kelley in recent days. ‘It’s really loud. At first I thought someone was blasting,’ said Ryan Albers, 16, who lives across the road. ‘It had to be coming from somewhere pretty close. It was definitely not just a shotgun or someone hunting. It was someone using automatic weapon fire.'”

This video should shut up the gun grabbers (but it won’t):

His application was rejected. He wore an attention-getting black outfit. His neighbors heard him firing weapons. How many other warning signs were missed? Shouldn’t we focus on how many existing laws were missed? Shouldn’t we focus on the mental illness part of this equation?

Perhaps, what we should focus on is the fact that we need to enforce existing laws. Another thing that’s likely to pay big dividends is having government do what it’s supposed to do. These sorts of things shouldn’t happen:

Before 26-year-old Devin Kelley received a bad conduct discharge from the U.S. Air Force in 2014, he was court-martialed in 2012 for assaulting his wife and child. Kelley “intentionally” fractured his stepson’s skull, The New York Times reported Monday. “He assaulted his stepson severely enough that he fractured his skull, and he also assaulted his wife,” retired colonel Don Christensen, formerly the chief prosecutor for the Air Force, told the Times. “He pled to intentionally doing it.” As punishment, Kelley was confined in military prison 12 months, received a reduction in military rank and was discharged for “bad conduct” — a step above a dishonorable discharge.

Finally, there’s this:

SUTHERLAND SPRINGS, Tex. — A day after a gunman massacred parishioners in a small Texas church, the Air Force admitted on Monday that it had failed to enter the man’s domestic violence court-martial into a federal database that could have blocked him from buying the rifle he used to kill 26 people.

In other words, existing laws should’ve prevented this horrific slaughter.

If this story doesn’t get your attention in a positive way, I don’t know what will. The article starts by saying “A Minnesota farmer was presented with a $7,000 reward for finding a missing teenage girl and then just moments later gave the money to the girl, who was a captive of three men for a month. Earl Melchert, 65, of Barrett, turned the reward money over to the  girl Friday at police headquarters.”

That’s the uplifting part of the article. Unfortunately, there’s a disgusting part to the article. That’s when Fox9 News reported that the “15-year-old girl was abducted from her home on Aug. 8 in Alexandria, Minn., and taken to an abandoned house where she was physically and sexually assaulted.” According to the article, the “three suspects” have “been charged with kidnapping, criminal sexual conduct, assault and false imprisonment.”

The girl’s identity wasn’t revealed by Fox9 News because they don’t “name alleged victims of sexual assault without their consent.” What they did report was that “the girl escaped Sept. 5 by swimming across a lake. Melchert found her when she came running toward him.” Here’s a picture of Minnesota’s newest hero and Alexandria Police Chief Rik Wyffels:

Here’s hoping the young lady’s kidnappers get imprisoned for a very long time.

I won’t question Jimmy Kimmel’s sincerity because of his anti-NRA, anti-GOP rant the night after a domestic terrorist with an automatic weapon killed 59 people while wounding over 500 more people. After reading this transcript of Kimmel’s monologue, what I will do is demand that he try to propose actual solutions. It isn’t good enough to express outrage. If you’re going to speak out on the issues of the day, then you’d better have a solution. Ranting to express your outrage is just a waste of time.

What’s obvious is that Kimmel hasn’t thoroughly thought things through about this. He all but officially admitted it when he said “All these devastated families who now have to live with this pain forever because one person with a violent and insane voice in his head managed to stockpile a collection of high-powered rifles and use them to shoot people. The guy was an accountant; he has no criminal record. His brother who lives in Florida seems totally shocked, genuinely dumbfounded, he said he saw no sign of any of this. The owner of the store that sold the killer some of the rifles said he passed the government-mandated background check when he was in the store.”

Everything that Kimmel said is accurate. In other words, all of the well-thought-out policies that have been signed into law throughout the years didn’t prevent a depraved individual from killing 59 people. What are the odds that hastily-written new legislation will stop the next depraved individual from killing dozens of people? Passing new laws will help people feel better about themselves because they didn’t just do nothing but it won’t stop the next killer with a death wish.

Kimmel continued:

He wasn’t on any watch list. He didn’t seem to have been a religious or political extremist. Came out of nowhere. Because of that, because there weren’t any of the usual signs, I’ve been reading comments from people who say, “This is terrible, but there’s nothing we can do about it.” But I disagree with that intensely. Because of course there’s something we can do about it, there’s a lot of things we can do about it.

I’d love hearing Kimmel explain what we could do that would’ve stopped this mad man. Disagreeing intensely might feel therapeutic for a minute but it isn’t a solution.

The point I’m attempting to make is that we’ve been down this path more times than I’d care to admit. Within minutes of a horrific massacre, Democrats insist that we need new laws. Their policy prescription is virtually always the same thing: universal background checks, banning assault weapons, large capacity clips and bump stocks, banning people with mental disorders from purchasing weapons.

Why do we always go after a maniac’s tools rather than going after the maniac? Why don’t we attempt to identify the maniacs more proficiently? Why don’t we attempt to be a more virtuous society that strives to live up to higher ideals?

I’m tired of getting lectured by the Jimmy Kimmels of the world. I’m tired of people who try treating the symptoms rather than fixing the disease. Attempting to take a maniac’s tools away is a fool’s errand. If history has taught us anything, it’s that depraved individuals will invent new tools to kill with.

On 9/11, terrorists used box cutters and airplanes to kill 3,000 people. In the 1990s, Timothy McVeigh used a truck and some fertilizer to bring down the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City. The point is that terrorists will always invent new ways to kill people. Anyone thinking that it’s possible to eliminate evil from the world isn’t dealing from a full deck of cards.

This article features a tweet from a “community college professor” who tweeted “I’m not wishing for it…but I’d be ok if #BetsyDevos was sexually assaulted. #SexualAssault #TitleIX”.

The professor’s name is Robert Ranco. He’s “currently an adjunct Professor of Paralegal Studies at Austin Community College, where he teaches the ‘Advanced Research and Writing’ class. He is also a member of The Carlson Law Firm.” What type of disgusting person would make a statement like that? Here’s hoping that Professor Ranco doesn’t have his contract renewed. Saying that you’re ok with a person getting sexually assaulted is about as disgusting as it gets.

Later, Professor Ranco tweeted “Yes, @twitter. My words were harsh. I don’t wish harm on anyone. I wish there’s some way #BetsyDevos would understand and care about others.” Rather than stop there, Ranco tweeted “Twitter trolls are now due process experts! Priceless. #TitleIX” If that isn’t dripping condescension, it doesn’t exist. Why does Professor Ranco think it’s beyond Twitter users’ ability to understand one of the foundational principles of the Constitution? Here’s another of Professor Ranco’s tweets:

While I don’t know this for certain, I’d say there’s a 90+ percent chance that Ranco is a Democrat. First, he’s a lawyer. Next, he’s a college professor. While that doesn’t guarantee that he’s a Democrat, it’s still highly likely that he’s a bitter Democrat.

Berkeley’s mayor is getting called out in Allahpundit’s post. In his post, AP quotes Mayor Arreguin as saying “I don’t want Berkeley being used as a punching bag. I’m very concerned about Milo Yiannopoulos and Ann Coulter and some of these other right-wing speakers coming to the Berkeley campus, because it’s just a target for black bloc to come out and commit mayhem on the Berkeley campus and have that potentially spill out on the street. I obviously believe in freedom of speech, but there is a line between freedom of speech and then posing a risk to public safety. That is where we have to really be very careful; that while protecting people’s free-speech rights, we are not putting our citizens in a potentially dangerous situation and costing the city hundreds of thousands of dollars fixing the windows of businesses.”

Actually, it isn’t obvious that Mayor Arreguin believes in free speech. I’d argue quite the contrary, in fact. It’s obvious that Mayor Arreguin is letting thuggish rioters like Antifa cast a ‘rioters veto’, thereby chilling the exercise of free speech.

If Mayor Arreguin wants to restore free speech to Berkeley, he should take a page out of President Trump’s immigration handbook. Before President Trump took office, Fox News interviewed Sen. Schumer. One of the topics discussed was building the wall. Sen. Schumer insisted that Democrats wouldn’t budge on building the wall, that they’d insist on “comprehensive immigration reform” instead. I said at the time that Schumer was blowing smoke because Jeff Sessions could stop Sen. Schumer in his tracks simply by enforcing the law.

The point is that Gen. Sessions’ enforcement and President Trump’s belligerent tone on immigration, illegal immigration has slowed to a trickle. The point Mayor Arreguin should take from this is simple: If you’re willing to enforce the law and dangle the possibility of stiff prison sentences in front of Antifa, the conditions on the ground shift pretty dramatically. BTW, forget about expensive fines. They won’t work because Soros is willing to pay the fines.

Enforcement is the only way to restore free speech in Berkeley or any other place where Antifa threatens to cast a rioter’s veto. If they know you’re serious, they’ll stop. If they don’t stop, then they’ll be thrown in prison for a lengthy stay. According to this TV segment, there was a standoff between law enforcement and Antifa:

The reporter then said that law enforcement “withdrew.” If Mayor Arreguin wants to be seen as a wimp who won’t defend his citizens’ civil rights, then he should be impeached, then immediately thrown out of office without his pension. When rioters threaten citizens’ civil rights, it’s time to take action.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

According to this St. Cloud Times article, a “Level 3 predatory offender will be returning to the St. Cloud community after serving his prison sentence, according to the St. Cloud Police Department. James Ross Forbes II, 30, of St. Cloud, engaged in sexual contact with a two-year-old girl he was babysitting, according to the St. Cloud Police Department. The contact included penetration. Forbes also had a history of sexual contact with a seven-year-old boy, according to police.”

What type of sick bastard engages in “sexual contact with a two-year-old girl”? What type of society essentially looks the other way when that type of predator gets a slap on the wrist? According to the article, “The St. Cloud Police Department is holding a community notification meeting at 6 p.m. Aug. 28 at the St. Cloud Police Department, Training Room C, 101-11th Avenue North. Representatives from the police department and the Minnesota Department of Corrections will be available to provide information on public safety.” It’s worse than that, though. The article says that “Forbes plans to move to the 100 block of East St. German Street on Aug. 21.” This is what Forbes looks like:

I did a little digging into Minnesota’s FAQ Page on sexual predators. Here’s one of the FAQs:

Q: What is a risk level?

Here’s Minnesota’s reply:

Risk levels are assigned by the Minnesota Department of Corrections (DOC) not the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA).
Risk Levels are assigned to registrants who are released from prison on or after January 1, 1997.
Risk level one indicates the least likelihood to re-offend. Risk level two indicates a moderate likelihood to re-offend. Risk level three indicates high likelihood to re-offend.
Information about Level 3 offenders is available on the DOC web site.

According to the article, Forbes “also had a history of sexual contact with a seven-year-old boy” prior to having “contact with a two-year-old girl he was babysitting.”

According to this fact sheet on sex offender treatment in prison, “Seventeen percent of Minnesota inmates are incarcerated for a governing sex offense, and an additional 14 percent have a prior felony conviction for a sex offense1. More than 90 percent will be released back into the community. Long-term, intensive residential sex offender treatment is used to reduce their risk of reoffending.”

Rather than having to waste time holding community notification meetings, I’ve got a simpler solution. Don’t let Level II or Level III sex offenders out of prison. Any predator that’s penetrated a 7-year-old buy and two-year-old girl” isn’t capable of being rehabilitated. Further, any government that won’t protect children from sexual predators has failed its primary responsibility of protecting its citizens. That government needs to be replaced by a government that puts its highest priority into protecting little children.

Finally, rewriting these sexual predator statutes is required. It should be written this fall and passed the first week of session next winter. No research is needed. Either politicians are serious or they’re part of the problem.

UPDATE: This morning, I wrote about the Level-3 sex offender that’s moving into an apartment on St. Cloud’s east side. Just a few minutes ago, I tried visiting the article to see what the comments were to the article. The article had disappeared. I suspect that it was pulled quite a while ago because there weren’t any comments. On a hot button topic like this, there’d normally be 25-50 comments.

The question now becomes about why the Times pulled the article from their website. Another question for the Times is why they ran the article on Saturday. Was it because they weren’t informed by the police? I suspect that isn’t why but that’s speculation. Surely, the SCPD knew long before this that this predator was likely to land in St. Cloud. Why weren’t St. Cloud residents notified before this morning?

Whatever the explanation, someone dropped the ball. That’s anything except acceptable.

Technorati: , , , ,

Donald Trump highlighted Rahm Emanuel’s homicide crisis recently. According to the article, 762 homicides were committed in 2016, which is a 57% increase from 2015.

Thus far, Mayor Emanuel has counted on friendly media treatment to essentially sweep this crisis out of sight. Thus far, it’s worked, with the important part of that being ‘thus far.’ According to the article, “Donald Trump used his Twitter bully pulpit on Monday to blast Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel for allowing his city’s murder and firearms shooting rates to spiral out of control. ‘Chicago murder rate is record setting – 4,331 shooting victims with 762 murders in 2016,’ Trump tweeted. ‘If Mayor can’t do it he must ask for Federal help!'”

The article continued, saying “Chicago’s statistics underline a story of bloodshed that has put the city at the center of a national dialogue about gun violence. The numbers are staggering, even for those who followed the steady news accounts of weekends ending with dozens of shootings and monthly death tolls that hadn’t been seen in years.”

Then there’s this:

Police and city officials have lamented the flood of illegal guns into the city, and the crime statistics appeared to support their claims: Police recovered 8,300 illegal guns in 2016, a 20 per cent increase from the previous year.

Imagine that. Criminals didn’t use legal guns. I’m shocked, shocked I tell you. That’s more proof that we need additional gun laws. NOT!

It’s time for Mayor Emanuel to crack down on gang-on-gang violence. I don’t care if they kill each other. It’s that innocents get caught in their crossfire. That can’t continue. If Emanuel won’t fix that, then he should be booted from his office.

The first priority of a mayor, governor or president is to protect his people. If he can’t do that, then he’s a failure. That shouldn’t be tolerated. Further, he shouldn’t be replaced with another liberal who pretty much agrees with Emanuel. That’s just kicking the can down the road. That’s unacceptable. Period.

This CBS report highlights the fact that Keith Lamont-Scott was a violent man. In fact, the report hints that the world is a better place without him. That isn’t a statement on whether Scott was carrying a gun when he was shot. It’s just a statement that he had a history of being a violent man.

The article opens with a statement that says “The black man killed by Charlotte police had a restraining order filed against him a year ago when he threatened to kill his wife and her son with a gun, according to court documents obtained Tuesday. Keith Scott’s wife filed the order on Oct. 5, saying that law enforcement officers who encounter him should be aware that he ‘carries a 9mm black’ gun.”

A man that’s threatened to murder his wife and son isn’t to be trusted.

Later in the article, it said “In the restraining order last fall, Rakeyia Scott sought to keep her husband away because ‘he hit my 8-year-old in the head a total of three times with his fist,’ she said in the restraining order document.” Still later in the report, it said this:

“He kicked me and threaten to kill us last night with his gun,” she said in the order filed in Gaston County, where the couple then lived. “He said he is a ‘killer’ and we should know that.”

Whenever the Democrats talk about African-Americans getting shot, the portray them as innocent victims who wouldn’t hurt a fly. Then they portray the officer as being a trigger-happy racist.

Consider this video of Hillary talking about the Lamont Scott shooting:

After unenthusiastically praising the police, Hillary went into the heart of her rant, saying “This much is certain. Too many people have lost their lives who shouldn’t have. Sabrina Fulton has become a friend of mine. Her son, Trayvon Martin, was killed not far from where we are today. Sabrina says that this is about saving our children and she’s absolutely right. We need to come together, work together, white, black, Latino, Asian, all of us, to turn the tide, stop the violence, build the trust.”

Mrs. Clinton just missed her Sister Soldjah moment. Time after time, the outrage over Ferguson, Baltimore and other places was built on fictions like ‘Hands up, don’t shoot’, only to have the myth demolished by verifiable forensic evidence.

This time, it’s likely that the black police officer who shot Keith Lamont Scott will be exonerated:

Homicide Unit Detectives interviewed multiple independent civilian witnesses at the scene and at police headquarters. Those witnesses confirmed that officers gave numerous loud verbal commands for Mr. Scott to drop the weapon and also confirmed that at no time did Mr. Scott comply with their commands.

A lab analysis conducted of the gun crime scene investigators recovered at the scene revealed the presence of Mr. Scott’s DNA and his fingerprints on the gun. It was also determined that the gun Mr. Scott possessed was loaded at the time of the encounter with the officers. The investigation also revealed that Mr. Scott was wearing an ankle holster at the time of the event.

Then there’s this:

It’s heartless for Democratic politicians to stoke racial tensions for political gain. What’s worse is those same Democratic politicians not speaking out against black-on-black violence.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

Saying that Hillary Clinton will want to change the subject of this article is understatement. Let’s start by saying that articles like this virtually guarantee that she’ll announce her VP pick this afternoon. The bad news for Mrs. Clinton is that this ties into the case that Donald Trump emphasized during last night’s acceptance speech.

According to the article, “John McNesby, president of the Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 5” in Philadelphia, criticized Hillary for “inviting relatives of victims of police shootings to speak at the Democratic National Convention next week, but failing to include relatives of slain police officers.” It’s still possible for Mrs. Clinton to invite some police officers to speak time-wise, though I don’t think it would go over well with Democrats in the hall. Think of how Black Lives Matter and the New Black Panther Party would react to police officers talking about what they face while protecting the public.

President McNesby read from a prepared statement while expressing his disgust with Mrs. Clinton:

The Fraternal Order of Police is insulted and will not soon forget that the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton are excluding the widows and other family members of police officers killed in the line of duty who were victims of explicit and not implied racism.

Then he said this:

He said it’s “sad that to win an election Mrs. Clinton must pander to the interests of people who do not know all the facts, while the men and women they seek to destroy are outside protecting the political institutions of this country.

“Mrs. Clinton, you should be ashamed of yourself, if that is possible.”

I’d expect the Trump campaign to jump all over this unforced mistake. This fits perfectly into Trump’s narrative that he’s the law and order candidate. Further complicating this situation is that these officers are stationed in Philadelphia, the site of the Democratic National Convention. If these officers wanted to cause trouble, they could invite Mr. Trump to a quickly-organized rally right outside the Democrats’ convention hall.

McNesby wasn’t too happy in this clip:

Suffice it to say that this isn’t the last time Mrs. Clinton will find herself defending the decision to invite the mothers of Michael Brown and Eric Garner to speak at the Democratic National Convention. I’d bet the proverbial ranch that Mr. Trump will emphasize this as proof that Hillary Clinton is soft on crime and that she’ll to the Democrats’ special interest groups in order to win votes. Let’s see if that works.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Donald Trump’s acceptance speech last night has been characterized as being scary or dark by Democrats. Mo Elleithee, a former Hillary campaign spokesman, said that this was a dreadful week for the GOP. That’s spin but not very good spin.

Kellyanne Conway, Trump’s pollster, said that she expects Trump and Hillary to be tied in all of the major swing states when the swing state polls start coming out. While it’s wise to take anything from a candidate’s pollster with a grain of salt, I’ve watched Mrs. Conway since she was Ms. Fitzpatrick. She isn’t a spinner. She’s earned the benefit of the doubt with me.

As for Trump’s speech, it was different in important and profound ways. He stripped away the façade that the Obama administration has hidden behind for 8 years. It started when Mr. Trump said “It is finally time for a straightforward assessment of the state of our nation. I will present the facts plainly and honestly. We cannot afford to be so politically correct anymore. So if you want to hear the corporate spin, the carefully-crafted lies, and the media myths, the Democrats are holding their convention next week. Go there.”

Think of that as Trump’s way of telling the elitists in the media and in the Democratic Party (pardon the repetition) that America would hear the truth. Here’s an example of that truthfulness:

These are the facts:

Decades of progress made in bringing down crime are now being reversed by this administration’s rollback of criminal enforcement. Homicides last year increased by 17% in America’s fifty largest cities. That’s the largest increase in 25 years. In our nation’s capital, killings have risen by 50 percent. They are up nearly 60 percent in nearby Baltimore.

In the president’s hometown of Chicago, more than 2,000 have been the victims of shootings this year alone. And almost 4,000 have been killed in the Chicago area since he took office. The number of police officers killed in the line of duty has risen by almost 50 percent compared to this point last year.

Democrats say that the speech was dark. Let’s ask this question: Are those the type of statistics that should make us feel happy? Or are they the type of statistics that make your heart ache? If that wasn’t enough information to make a decision on, this will help thoughtful people make the right decision:

One such border-crosser was released and made his way to Nebraska. There, he ended the life of an innocent young girl named Sarah Root. She was 21 years old and was killed the day after graduating from college with a 4.0 grade point average. Her killer was then released a second time, and he is now a fugitive from the law. I’ve met Sarah’s beautiful family. But to this administration, their amazing daughter was just one more American life that wasn’t worth protecting. One more child to sacrifice on the altar of open borders.

There’s no spinning that story. If I were to put it in tennis language, that story would be “Game. Set. Match. Championship.” Thoughtful people can’t hear that story and think we need to continue this administration’s immigration policies.

This is a powerful indictment of Hillary’s incompetence:

In 2009, pre-Hillary, ISIS was not even on the map. Libya was stable. Egypt was peaceful. Iraq had seen a big reduction in violence. Iran was being choked by sanctions. Syria was somewhat under control.

After four years of Hillary Clinton, what do we have? ISIS has spread across the region and the entire world. Libya is in ruins, and our ambassador and his staff were left helpless to die at the hands of savage killers. Egypt was turned over to the radical Muslim Brotherhood, forcing the military to retake control. Iraq is in chaos. Iran is on the path to nuclear weapons. Syria is engulfed in a civil war and a refugee crisis that now threatens the West. After 15 years of wars in the Middle East, after trillions of dollars spent and thousands of lives lost, the situation is worse than it has ever been before.

This is the legacy of Hillary Clinton: Death, destruction and terrorism and weakness.

That’s a devastating and accurate before and after portrait of Hillary’s incompetence. Think of it as the indictment the Justice Department didn’t attempt to get.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,