Recently in Crime Category

People like this deserve to be horsewhipped.

[W]hen I see a story like this, I don't want to hear about a "plea bargain." I don't want to hear about "parole." I don't want to hear about "what a good mother she is."

I'd rather hear about to which part of the Gates of Hell she'll be chained.

From the NY Daily News:

A heartless Queens woman was arrested for crippling her 11-month-old English bulldog after witnesses caught her on video beating the pooch with a shovel, officials said.

The young bulldog, named Spike, had been abused repeatedly over the past few months.

During his short life, Spike has sustained a hip fracture, a broken leg, three broken teeth and injuries to his ears, according to ASPCA Assistant Director Joseph Pentangelo.

The pup, which is being treated at the ASPCA hospital, is also virtually blind in his right eye.

ASPCA investigators were called to Aguilar's house on Feb. 24 after witnesses reported hearing a dog crying.

One of the witnesses used a camera phone to tape the abuse, also capturing Spike's howls of pain. Aguilar is seen throwing Spike to the ground and then slamming him with a snow shovel.

[The ASPCA] discovered her husband had taken the dog to veterinarians 12 times in the past seven months for treatment.

If you get a pet, and you have no intention of treating it with kindness and getting any self-fulfillment out of it, then, WHY. GET. A. PET?

The story also includes the video of Spike being beaten by his owner.

I could not bring myself to watch it.

The thought of anyone abusing any of the feline members of this household makes me want to reach for the Mossberg 930 12-gauge Autoloader.

Stuart Taylor and KC Johnson's book on the Duke Lacrosse rape allegation and the ensuing madness on the left-wing campus never was the success it ought to have been. Great book, with a few minor typographical or grammatical errors.

The disgusting woman who started it all, Crystal Magnum, a real piece of backyard poop, is in the news. Again.

Today's UL story makes me remember this entry I have yet to publish:

I wonder how that could happen. One word: leniency. In Europe they pull you over and forcibly extract blood if a reasonable suspicion--really just any suspicion--exists about alcohol being in the system, impairing driving.

One case fairly recently of a drunk Charlestown, NH, woman, Marilyn Demond-Surace, who plowed into a motorcycle while turning into their lane. The bike was carrying two young people, Justin Aiken and Robin Flaig, got my attention when sloppy policework and lax county prosecutors let much of the evidence just slip through their incompetent fingers of the suspect police at the scene described as "calm and sarcastic." Yes, blogger, your indignation is well placed.

She got one year for vehicular manslaughter "assault." One year for killing two young people? We're obviously not serious about this grave crime, and their are lawyers like hers--Robert Stein of Concord--who are skilled in using technicalities to get people who cause mayhem and death on the highways and byways to get very little of a sentence.

But in this state don't get caught harming an animal. Then people will really come out of the woodwork to prosecute in a more serious way. At least this disturbing story though the evidence doesn't seem to be more than a "he said/ she said" dispute between alienated neighbors. Notwithstanding this, the man received three and a half to seven years in jail. Which strikes me (no pun intended) as about right, if the DWI killer had received seven to 15 years in jail.

Fourteen days for a DWI conviction of vehicular manslaughter (one death) in Kansas for a guy's second DUI? You've got to be kidding me! I wonder if the defending attorney in that case, Terry Campbell, would have fun swapping stories with Robert Stein about the wonderful tricks they used in getting guilty clients off the hook.

Meanwhile the deaths keep piling up, thousands each year. Rachel Leek, may you rest in peace.

Listening to this BBC History Magazine podcast this morning I thought of this horrific crime when a store clerk is gunned down after he gave the perp the convenience store's cash. Utterly senseless. Be armed, people. I'm reminded of the late WBZ talk show host David Brudnoy who several times over the years mentioned how the barbarians are within for us when in historical terms they'd be without

The BBC discussion--and those accents are utterly delightful, esp. on the women--is of the Vikings and how they engaged in "overkill," not just settling for merely robbing people or monasteries, but in chopping them up, like at Iona where all 68 monks and priests were massacred.

"From the fury of the Norsemen Deliver Us, O Lord."

All those new guns introduced into society and crime lowers? I thought it would lead to blood in the streets, from what my political overlords tell me. John Lott wrote a book arguing that this would be the case. I can now say QED.

HT: Instapundit

The truth doesn't matter. In my est. we're about eight to ten years from a national gun registry, the vital step that leads to gun confiscation. I'm an alarmist, I can almost hear a reader say. Have you realized the Nazi 1938 gun laws were adopted almost whole cloth by the United States in 1968 by the corrupt Senator Dodd the Elder? Boy, the apple hasn't fallen far from the tree.

Reading The Drudge Report, where I go after my homepage of Instapundit, I read this very disturbing story from New Jersey. Looming behind it is the disturbing likelihood that the attackers were black youths, although the story doesn't mention race.

David Muneton, a thirteen-year-old honors eighth-grader, called by the school principal "a model student," was beaten within inches of death on Dec. 18. He's needed facial reconstructive surgery and may lose his eyesight. And the large pack of murderous youths reportedly numbered eleven. That fits the pattern I've seen about blacks attacking isolated individuals. Liberals have so incapacitated truthful talk about black crime that I've continually been met with shouts of alarm for stating the obvious: blacks commit murder in higher rates than whites. I shut them up using the gubmit's own statistics, (this used to work, but Obama's Justice Department appears to be hiding the evidence as I've spent some time rutting around looking for homicide rates by race) though these minimize the differences by including Hispanics with the white rate, making the black murder rate "only" eight times higher than the white. (Here's a Steve Sailer article on race and crime.)

Lawrence Auster has been on the warpath pointing out the cruelty of black crime against whites. One of the pieces of information that would have put the Duke Lacrosse scandal in context is that FBI crime statistics from 2005 indicate whites raped 0-10 black women, while blacks raped over 37,000 white women. Jesus. 

People commenting on this horrible incident are jumping to the conclusion that the psychotic thugs were black, perhaps unconsciously using the bayesian inference. They've obviously had it. It's amazing how angry the commentators are. Haven't they ever attended sensitivity training?

LA calls the disproportionate black-on-white crime wave a "black anti-white intifada."

Maybe you should look at it, before the station erases them. There's anger out there at having  not only to have send one's children to schools where such thugs also attend, but the disgusting fact that many of these dysfunctional or female-headed households who disproportionately produce the thugs are on public assistance.

Responding to the New Century's "Color of Crime," using FBI statistics, report that is available on pdf, Walter Williams writes over ten years ago to the irrefutable evidence that of all the interracial, blacks and whites, blacks were responsible for 90 percent of it, whites just 10 percent.

Williams writes:

Gunpowder justice, American style: burglar dies by gun shot.

Makes me think of the castle doctrine. It's not in New Hampshire? I wish it would be, for the sake of simplicity and putting potential criminals on notice. The burden should never be on the innocent victim when he or she has a reasonable fear for their person or loved ones.

Well, it's been debated in the NH House, including what attendees think was disingenuous statements by Anne Rice representing the state's attoney general's office. Is she the head of the all-female Laconia law firm? And a police representative spoke out against it. And that waste of ACLU space, Claire Ebel, spoke out against "testosterone" and "young men." (She refused to lift a finger when I was persecuted at UNH in 1991 for something I said, but that's for another day. I was found guilty of sexual harassment for the throw-away line to a scandalously dressed co-ed, "Gee, may I touch your leg?" [No, I didn't touch it or attempt to do so.] Defending myself at pretrial hearings at the Stafford Country Courthouse in front of Judge Joseph P. Nadeau, I made the university furiously backpedal.)

These statements were later brilliantly shot down. Here Penny Dean is seen on video doing so. G-d, she makes such good points. Do yourself a favor and listen to it. It's just seven minutes long.

Here in the Granite State we have to be prepared to retreat from places where we have a legal right to be, whenever possible of course. Luckily that doesn't have to be in one's home or "its cutilage," whatever that means, according to Part III, A. 

Why did I have to read the fine print to figure that out? What about somewhere else? I have to retreat from an aggressor?

Here's what we've got as law. But I don't like it much. We can meet non-deadly force with non-deadly force, and deadly force with deadly force. My thought is that we shouldn't be required to wait to find out. Assuming the worst of an attacker is prudential family security, whether I'm at home or in the car or out on the sidewalk.

Pulling out a gun at men who are about to attack at a parking lot, for example, would I guess be against the law, though it's an effective and proven method of deterring crime. NH's Massad Ayoub writes about doing just that in his book In the Gravest Extreme.

The horrific home invasion and murder in Mont Vernon caused a bill to be lodged to expand NH's feeble list of capital crimes offenses. Why isn't a murderous home invasion on the list? I think it should be, but ultimately it was suppressed on party vote. I guess there's a panel looking at the possibility of expanding the death penalty. They're sure taking their sweet time.

We aren't allowed to stand our ground from a place we have a legal right to be. That doesn't seem to be very American. It's about self-defense, man.

Come on, NH, pass the law that's good enough for all those other states like Michigan, Tennessee, and Florida, where it began when a guy was purposively run down when walking.

Expand to read NH's law about defending the person:

As I do physical manual labor at UPS about twenty hours a week, which I'm sure I'm being redundant in stating though it's been a godsend for the financial maintenance of my family, I listen to several podcasts faithfully, including BBC's NewsPod. Much better than anything comparable from NPR.

Well, I heard from one in late November that the UK police are compiling a DNA database of criminals and even anyone they investigate for criminal activity, regardless of the outcome. Gives me the creeps. But we are entering the age of biology.

But one datum was stated on the podcast: seventy-five percent of black men in Britain are on the registry. Can it be? I've heard this before. So I have googled it and come across an AP story of it.

Could anyone explain this without resorting to the tired liberal kneejerk of "racism is to blame"? Under the scientific rigor of Chan, I've been taught to practice Occam's razor: entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem, which should no doubt apply here.

I know Nancy Pelosi doesn't think much of the Constitution, seeing it as an obstruction to creating a truly socialist state much like that of the old Soviet Union, but even she must realize that certain portions of the ObamaCare/PelosiCare bill she rammed down the throats of the House are unconstitutional. Not that she'll let that stop her. After all "the people" must be coerced into doing things she and her fellow socialists have decided is for the good of all, even if it will have just the opposite effect.

Democrats' health bills depend on forcing individuals to buy insurance or face severe fines or imprisonment. In 1994, the Congressional Budget Office said forcing individuals to buy insurance would be "an unprecedented form of federal action," adding: "The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States."

This year, the Congressional Research Service delicately said "it is a novel issue whether Congress may use the (Commerce) Clause to require an individual to purchase a good or service." Congress has the constitutional power to "regulate commerce ... among the several states." But a Federalist Society study by Peter Urbanowicz and Dennis Smith judges it perverse to exercise coercion under the Commerce Clause "on an individual who chooses not to undertake a commercial transaction." As Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, says, there is "a fundamental difference between regulating activities in which individuals choose to engage" -- e.g, drivers can be required to buy auto insurance -- "and requiring such activities" just because an individual exists.

When asked whether any compulsory insurance purchases are constitutional, Speaker Nancy Pelosi was genuinely astonished: "Are you serious? Are you serious?" In 1803, in Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote, "The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the Constitution is written." He was serious.

Nancy's reaction to the question illustrates either her ignorance of what the Constitution actually says or her willful choice to ignore it in favor of her own agenda and the American people's rights be damned.

Should the awful and onerous ObamaCare/PelosiCare bill become law I hope it will be challenged on constitutional grounds and struck down for being overreaching and in violation of the Constitution. But we can't count on such a thing happening. Therefore we must strive to let our Senators know how displeased we are with this legislation because we know its a disingenuous attempt to do an end run around the people's wishes, a flagrant attempt to violate the Constitution, and a blueprint for medical and financial disaster.

That way I'll be given the additional protection hate crimes legislation affords, according to a report based on the Attorney General's presentation at Congress earlier this year. Way to go, Eric Holder. You're PC liberalism knows no bounds, but at least you're honest. From the link:

Under questioning, Attorney Gen. Holder was surprisingly forthright in admitting that the hate bill is not intended to protect everyone, or even the majority. He said only historically oppressed minorities were to benefit. This means Jews, blacks, homosexuals, women, etc. Holder made it clear that if a white Christian male, including a serviceman or police officer, was the victim of a violent hate crime by any minority he would have to find redress from traditional law. He could not avail himself of the triple penalties and rapid government/justice system response given a protected minority.

This might explain Wichita or Knoxville:

In Cobbins' August trial, Judge Baumgartner had abused the jury selection process, in order to rig the sentencing options. Although the victims were both white, and the assailants had committed the atrocity in a jurisdiction that is 88 percent white and only 8.8 percent black, Baumgartner went to 27.5 percent black Davidson County, to fetch a majority-black jury, which he bused in to Knox County. That jury convicted Cobbins of 33 out of 38 felony charges, but sentenced him only to "life without parole". In Gomer Pyle's immortal words, "Surprise, surprise, surprise!"

Imagine a jury pool being racially reconfigured in such a blatant way if the races were reversed! Can't we just treat people as individuals and dump the identity, group-based politics? You know, judge each other by the content of our character, not the color of our skin, as some great Americans have said?

It's also one of the great messages from Harper Lee's classic, To Kill a Mockingbird, which devastatingly chronicles when individuals aren't treated with equality under the law, a central American republican demand.

Now that Obama has gotten his way in regards to Honduras and the return of Chavez protege Zelaya to the presidency, I have to wonder what he will do should Zelaya impose a Chavez-like socialist dictatorship, abolish the Congress, eliminate freedom of speech, muzzle the press, tear up the Honduran constitution, and 'disappear' his political opponents?

I have no doubt our own Chavez fan will praise Zelaya's actions and make some kind of noise about "correcting past American wrongs" by allowing a representative democracy to fall into the hands of his socialist brethren.

I remember a boy bringing a .22 rifle for deposit in the principal's office in the late 1970s at my middle school. He was a member of the rifle team. Mid 1970s.

I used to wear a dangling jack knife from my Webelos belt when I was allowed to dress up in that uniform. Late 1970s.

My, how times have changed.

How does one spell H-Y-S-T-E-R-I-A?

Several years ago a young girl at a Manchester school reported a gun. The school, and a few others, went into lockdown for several hours. No teaching done. Next door a construction site featured the threat, as it turned out, of a nailgun.

I'm reminded when I was a child and there was a sociopath killing children in the Detroit area. The fear was palpable. Uncle Walt even reported it on the CBS News. So when a man stopped to ask directions to me and my friend on a cul-de-sac where we were playing, I was fearful enough and trained by the gubmit teachers to memorize his license plate number. Looking back I have a little guilt, but I reported it to the school officials. I occasionally wonder what kind of havoc I inserted into the man's life.

He didn't pose a threat to me, but the hysteria had taken root.

More recently a man acting apparently erratically--Oh, that never happens at university, does it?--and having a weapon-like instrument sticking out of his pocket caused the Plymouth State College, er, University, and neighboring Holderness Prep to go into lockdown.

If I were a criminal mastermind, I'd be tempted to use a situation like this a diversionary tactic, as police forces from surrounding areas rushed like madmen and -women to investigate, leaving other areas utterly denuded of cops. Can people absorb the following good news: NH doesn't require a license to open carry. I understand the state universities prohibit students there from even having pepper spray, but there's no state law prohibiting someone carrying openly.

Hey, were queer and we're here. It's time for a little civil rights non-violence protest for the right to keep and bear arms. What would PSU do then? Keep the Free Staters at bay!

Good lord. More moderation and less cowardice, please.

I'm not sure what's stupider; the two miscreants in this story or some of the commenters lamenting the fact these two idiots were arrested for breaking the law.

Two men were arrested this morning after police said they gave officers a lot of attitude, cranked up the volume on a car radio after being asked to turn down the blaring music and challenged police to a fight.

"You want some of this?" passenger Nicholas Gamache, 23, of 5 East Haverhill St., Apt. 2. Lawrence, Mass., told the officers. He allegedly followed that up with a string of profanities.

The incident happened about 1 a.m. at a red light on Elm Street. Officers on patrol heard extremely loud music coming from a car and pulled up along side it at the traffic light.

That's stupid thing number one, compounded by the fact the idiots were in possession of cocaine. Stupid thing number two was this comment:

At what point did playing music too loud become a crime? Just curious. Glad that policing noise is what our public servants are paid for. Thank God they were on the job.

Maybe the fact that it was 1AM in a heavily populated area might have had something to do with it.

Need I say more?