Posts Tagged ‘Crime’
April 14, 2017
File this one under “How is this even legal?”
Legislators in Texas are taking steps to curb the practice of celebratory gunfire after state Rep. Armando Martinez was hit by a stray bullet last New Year’s Eve.
“I was hit with a stray bullet. It pierced my skull and it was lodged in my brain. …We’re talking about two millimeters from (me) not being here today,” said Martinez, who introduced the bill on Monday. “With that in mind, I’m an NRA gun-carrying member and I have a CHL, but this isn’t about preventing people from carrying or purchasing a gun. This is about being a responsible gun owner.”
The House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee heard testimony Monday for House Bill 2583, which would create a penalty for individuals who knowingly discharge a firearm without an intended target.
Under Martinez’s bill, those who shoot a gun without an intended target would be charged with a Class A misdemeanor — or a first-degree felony if a serious bodily injury or death occurs as a result. There would be no offense if the shooting occurred at a gun range, while legally hunting or using blanks.
“This is mainly to deter celebratory gunfire. It is a solution to a problem that should not exist,” Martinez said. “People firing randomly puts life at risk.”
“Most people don’t have any concept that a bullet can travel three to four miles in a blink of an eye. I think education is one thing, but I think that people need to know this is idiotic,” state Rep. Terry Canales Canales said at Monday’s hearing.
But CJ Grisham with Open Carry Texas testified that the law, as written, is too broad and may complicate what constitutes as a warning shot.
“The goal of House Bill 2583 is to prevent reckless shootings because they can kill someone,” Martinez said. “All you have to do is shoot at a target. If you shoot at a target, you are not liable.”
Makes sense to me, but then again, so does following the four rules of gun safety even though there is no law requiring me to.
What do you think: is this a good piece of legislation or an unnecessary regulation?
By Bob Owens
March 30, 2017
A soft-spoken 79-year-old Alabama man who has been the target of burglaries more than a dozen times in recent years regrets that he killed a teen-aged home invader yesterday, but doesn’t sound like he’ll be losing a great degree of sleep over it, either.
For 21 years, John Croft lived in his Center Point virtually problem free until last summer.
“I’ve been a prisoner in my house,” he said.
Croft, who is 79, says the burglaries began last June. Since then, he says his house has been broken into 13 times.
The most recent case came around 1:15 Wednesday morning
“When I heard the noise, that’s when they opened the window from the basement coming to the level where the bedrooms are,” he recalled.
Jefferson County deputies say there were two men inside. Another, driving the getaway car, waited outside.
“I have three bedrooms. I think they checked the other two bedrooms out and then he came over there and said, ‘Don’t move!’ He heard the bed squeak. I was getting my gun. He said, ‘Don’t move’ and he used the ‘N’ word and I shot,” Croft recounted later Wednesday.
“I hate that boy dead, but I don’t hate I shot him.”
Croft was wounded in the ankle when the burglar shot back, but the wound is not serious. He also seems to think he knows who the other two suspects in the home invasion may be, and has relayed that information to police.
Authorities have already deemed this a case of justified self defense by Mr. Croft.
By Bob Owens
April 7, 2017
Last week we wrote about the experience that Phoenix News Times journalist Stephen Lemons had while attempting to cover a left-wing open carry march, and asked if we were edging towards a civil war.
Mr. Lemon managed to synch up with one of the representatives of the group of communists, anarchists, and amusingly titled “antifascists” (who are clearly fascists themselves, right down to their nice brown shirts) this week, and his account provides some interesting information about the militant left wing group.
Members of the group dress like they just stepped out of historical photos showing anarchists, communists, and others battling fascists during the Spanish Civil War.
Communist imagery appears on the personal websites of some JBGC members. And the red bandannas they tie around their necks emulate those worn by West Virginia coal miners during a violent 1921 labor uprising known as the Battle of Blair Mountain.
Their list of principles on the Redneck Revolt site include statements against capitalism, white supremacy, the nation-state, and “the wars of the rich,” while advocating for the “right of militant resistance.”
Yet, Payne cited the group’s work tabling at gun shows as an attempt to find common ground with right-wing militia members. Both the JBGC and militias are wary of the federal government’s power and cherish their rights under the Second Amendment.
This gives Redneck Revolt a “foot in the door” with the patriot types, Payne avowed.
Sure, both sides like to play with guns, but a Grand Canyon-sized chasm divides them.
For instance, the black banner JBGC unfurled at the Capitol declares that they seek liberty for all working people, including “trans and queer,” refugees, migrants, people of color, and “Muslims and Jews.”
In other words, not folks with whom militia and patriot types wanna cuddle.
Payne seems to agree with the maxim that an armed society is a polite society.
“If anything, the fact that both groups know that the other group has arms keeps things much less threatening,” she said.
March 25 was not her group’s first time out, and it will not be the last, she insisted.
But isn’t this an escalation, I asked?
“I don’t think we’re escalating,” she replied. “We weren’t the first ones to show up armed at a political event … We’ve had militia showing up at leftists’ events for years.”
But judging from many of the comments to the video and to my initial report, there are many right-wingers eager for a shootout with Payne and her comrades.
It’s probably predictable that the rabble on the radical left would attract the denizens of the radical right, and that both sides would puff out their chests, like two dim-witted playground bullies sizing one another up for a rumble. I know many on the right simply assume that their far better trained than those on the left, but that’s clearly not necessarily the case. Photos and videos the open carry march Lemon covered did show some serious “clown shoes” moments, such as people with poorly set-up plate carriers, mag pouches for the wrong weapon on web gear, and magazines stored wrong end up or oriented the wrong way in magazine pouches. Of course, we’ve seen the exact same thing from right wing militias playing at being soldiers for years.
What people seem to be discounting is that neither side is completely full of mouthy, clueless blowhards intent on virtue-signaling, who will run away in disarray at the first tough moment.
Just as there are some really squared-away folks on the militant right, there are so[me] folks who appear to know what they’re doing on the militant left. Video Mr. Lemon shot of the march no[t] only showed people who clearly knew next to nothing about what they were doing, but also a number of people in-shape people with what appear to be military tattoos, well-laid-out battle belts, functional and well-used firearms that appear to bear the scars of training, and a general air of confident competence you would expect from former grunts.
Not everyone who serves in our military leans to the right, and some that were leaning that way when they went in developed other ideas when in the service or since they got out.
Personally, I’m not at all impressed with Beth Payne, the anarchist Mr. Lemon interviewed for her article. She strikes me as an idealist, but not someone who has extensive tactical training, or who would have a clue how to execute a bounding maneuver if her life depended on it.
But there were guys in her group that I suspect would, and I think the fools on both sides chomping at the bit for militant conflict aren’t going to be quite as thrilled when the well-trained folks on both sides start laying down accurate fire and people wearing “Make American Great Again” hats are writhing on the ground beside anarchists with sucking chest wounds.
Let us make no mistake: both sides are going to take horrendous casualties if things escalate to the point of violence, am I’m not sure than anyone has a clear view of what future this nation has as a republic if things escalate to the point of factionalized warfare in American cities.
By Bob Owens
March 31, 2017
Criminals like Liz Rodriguez, the “mastermind” of the Broken Arrow (OK) home invasion earlier this week that saw her three masked knife and brass knuckle-armed accomplices killed when they ran into the homeowners adult son who [w]as armed with an AR-15, doesn’t have any compassion at all for the man she and her friends traumatized.
“I’m sorry we broke into his house. I’m sorry we scared him or whatever, but I’m not going to be sorry he shot somebody. He could’ve shot them boys in the leg. I understand he was scared, had every right, he has his rights, has his rights, I’m understanding of him. I affected his life, I’m sorry, but am I compassionate for him? He’s on the bottom of my list to be compassionate for,” Rodriguez said.
She said she’d done other break-ins in Tulsa County and near Owasso, but no one had ever been home.
She said they’d already broken into the Peters’ garage and loaded items into the trunk, then the boys went to kick in the door of the main house – she heard the kicks, then gunshots and waited.
Rodriguez said, “Jake came out and slid across my car. I put it in park, got out and before he fell down. He said, ‘I got hit.’ I said, ‘Where, bro,’ and I pulled up his shirt and saw the gunshot in his chest and all the blood. I was holding on to him, ‘C’mon bro, get in the car, get in the car, get out of here,’ but he just grabbed my hand and said go, told me to leave.”
Criminals live by a different moral code and think in different ways than normal people. They do not care who they hurt or victimize, and only care for themselves.
Rodriguez doesn’t think it’s fair that she’s being charged with the first degree murder of her accomplices under Oklahoma’s interpretation of the felony murder rule.
I wonder if she ever thought about how fair it was to make her living by burglarizing decent members of society, every time potentially putting the lives of innocent men, women, and children at risk.
By Bob Owens
March 31, 2017
The grandfather of one of the three armed home invaders who were shot and killed breaking into a home in Broken Arrow (OK) earlier this week laments that the resident’s AR-15 carbine wasn’t fair against the knife and brass knuckles carried by the mask-wearing criminals.
“What these three boys did was stupid,” said Leroy Schumacher.
Schumacher agrees his grandson and his friends made a bad decision, but not one worthy of deadly consequences.
“They knew they could be punished for it but they did not deserve to die,” said Schumacher.
Redfearn, 19-year old Maxwell Cook and 16-year old Jake Woodruff were shot by the homeowner’s son while breaking into the Wagoner County house Monday.
Schumacher says his grandson didn’t have a chance. The 17-year old, he says, never got into trouble.
“Brass knuckles against an AR-15, come on, who was afraid for their life,” said Schumacher.
Since the shooting, Wagoner County deputies have arrested 21-year-old Elizabeth Rodriguez, the alleged getaway driver.
Schumacher believes she was the ring leader, and investigators say she admitted to planning the whole thing.
The homeowner’s son has not been charged with a crime. Deputies believe he fired in self-defense.
“There’s got to be a limit to that law, I mean he shot all three of them; there was no need for that,” said Schumacher.
Schumacher does say he supports the right to bear arms and protect your home. But he doesn’t agree with shooting and killing intruders.
I somewhat suspect that Mr. Schumacher’s position on shooting masked and armed robbers would be radically different if he was the victim of the sort of a terrifying home invasion carried out by his grandson and his three accomplices.
By Bob Owens
March 30, 2017
Sybrina Fulton, the mother of the Trayvon Martin, refuses to let reality intrude into her fantasy world. Sadly, biased news media like the Miami Herald allow her to spew forth her easily disproven lies.
On Feb. 5, my son Trayvon Martin would have been 22 years old. Just like every year, my family celebrated his birthday surrounded by friends and loved ones. And like every year since his death, I mourned my son, whose life was cut short by someone who decided to shoot first just because of the color of Trayvon’s skin.
Clearly, Fulton didn’t pay any attention at all during the trial of George Zimmerman, even though she did attend it. Zimmerman didn’t know Martin’s race when he called Sanford police, a fact proven by the recorded conversation with the dispatcher. Zimmerman became suspicious of Martin when he saw a shadowy figure lurking under the window of a recently burgled home in the rain. He only saw Martin’s face and race well after he began talking to the dispatcher.
Further, eyewitness evidence and forensics alike indicate that after Trayvon Martin attacked George Zimmerman from behind as Zimmerman was returning to his truck in what may have been a gay-bashing attempt. Multiple 911 calls and witness statements establish that Martin viciously committed felony assault on George Zimmerman for the better part of a minute before a dazed Zimmerman pulled his pistol as a last resort and fired a single shot to stop Trayvon Martin’s vicious criminal assault.
Trayvon was only 17 years old when he was followed and killed by a stranger who believed he looked threatening. He was visiting with his father, walking home from the store, unarmed. He had just a packet of candy and a can of iced tea. This person killed my son for simply walking through his own neighborhood. He claimed that he was acting in self-defense, though Trayvon never approached him and he pursued my son before attacking him.
No sane person who watched any part of the trial or who knows anything at all about the case will believe Fulton’s lie that Martin was shot for “simply walking through his own neighborhood.” As noted above, Trayvon Martin waited four long minutes to sneak up behind George Zimmerman as Zimmerman was walking back to his truck, allegedly screamed, “What you followin’ me fo?!” then launched his attack on Zimmerman. Let’s be very clear on the point that Trayvon Martin was the aggressor.
Everything Fulton said about Zimmerman attacking Martin is an abject lie, unsupported by anything other than a mother’s refusal to face the facts about the son she raised.
Our state’s laws allowed him to claim he was standing his ground, and it took the public crying out for police to even make an arrest. This is common in Stand Your Ground cases. The law is applied inconsistently and studies have found that it is difficult for police to enforce it. The American Bar Association found that Stand Your Ground laws can actually increase homicides, and that the policy carries an implicit bias against African Americans.
Stand your ground laws played no role at all in the Zimmerman/Martin confrontation, a lie Fulton continues to spread. Neither the prosecution nor the defense in the Zimmerman case made any mention of Florida’s implementation of stand your ground laws for one very simple reason: George Zimmerman never had a chance to stand his ground. Zimmerman was approached from behind, sucker punched, mounted, and viciously attacked by a violent young criminal named Trayvon Martin. Zimmeran’s defense was a straight self-defense case.
And he was victorious.
Like almost all gun control advocates, Sybrina Fulton must lie to support her new career. If she admitted the truth that her son was a violent criminal justifiably shot during the commission of a felony assault, she’d have to get a real job.
By Jenn Jacques
March 23, 2017
A Collinsville, IL family is learning just how harsh zero tolerance is in today’s schools.
Kristy Jackson says her 4-year-old preschool son Hunter is growing up around guns, and sadly, that’s having a detrimental impact on his education. Jackson said when she went to pick the boy up at his school, Tuesday, she learned he’d been given a seven-day suspension.
“I was met with a stone-faced teacher who said that my son had a shotgun bullet and I was horrified, thinking ‘where could he have got this?’” Jackson said.
Turns out it wasn’t a shotgun bullet, it was a .22 casing the boy acquired on an outing with his grandfather, a Caseyville police officer, who is teaching the young boy about hunting and responsible gun use. Jackson said her son didn’t tell anyone that he had innocently picked up the casing and put it in his pocket that day.
“He’s cried about it and he doesn’t understand why his school hates him,” said Jackson, whose Facebook post on the incident has gone viral.
According to a letter Jackson received from Mallory Lengermann, Director of A Place to Grow in Troy, IL, if Hunter continues to be a typical 4-year-old boy, the next step the school will take is expulsion.
Hunter Crowe has continually chosen actions and behaviors that require a suspension from A Place 2 Grow Child Care and Learning Center.
On Tuesday, March 21, 2017, Hunter was seen showing his fellow classmates a bullet casing that he brought to school from home. He had the casing in his pocket. The casing was removed from the classroom by his teachers and taken to the office. Hunter has been told that guns, hunting, etc. are not subjects that are to be discussed at school. He has been redirected to other activities when he has chosen to make guns out of other toys. Hunter’s teachers have made multiple attempts to redirect these behaviors, however we believe that other actions need to be taken to correct these behaviors.
If after returning to school, these issues continue to be present or new issues arise, Hunter will be expelled from A Place to Grow Child Care and Learning Center effective immediately.
I hope that Hunter can take the next seven days as a learning experience and return to school with a new outlook and understanding about these issues and the safety of his fellow classmates.
A Place to Grow’s vice-president also informed Jackson that he was notifying the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) of the incident.
How toys being fashioned into guns or a spent bullet casing taken from an outing with a child’s grandfather is detrimental to the safety of preschool students, I’m not quite sure. Nor do I know what keeping a 4-year-old child out of preschool for seven days is supposed to teach him.
Hunter’s mom agrees.
“It’s paranoia,” Jackson said. “It’s something that’s become quite an epidemic where guns are automatically assumed that they’re bad…and I’m not sure how a 7-day suspension teaches my son anything about tolerance or anything about why he was wrong. It just means his school doesn’t want him there because of things he enjoys.”
By Bob Owens
March 23, 2017
A woman on a multi-day violent crime spree who was firing at Tusla (OK) police officers trying to arrest her was intentionally struck and killed by another officer in a dramatic conclusion to a deadly-force situation.
A woman wanted for a string of gun-related crimes was killed Saturday afternoon when an officer intentionally ran over her in south Tulsa after she exchanged gunfire with police following a vehicular chase.
Madison Sueann Dickson, 21, was pronounced dead at 3:07 p.m., Tulsa homicide Sgt. Dave Walker said.
Officers roped off the scene in the 8900 block of South Harvard Avenue outside of Jenks East Elementary School.
Police had been searching for Dickson because of her alleged involvement in a spree of gun-related crimes over the past week.
Officers found Dickson at an apartment at 81st Street and Sheridan Road on Saturday, police spokesman Leland Ashley said. Dickson then got into a pickup as a passenger and fled from the officers, Ashley said.
Dickson eventually bailed out of the truck and presented a handgun, Ashley said, which was when at least two officers shot at her. She fired gunshots at officers, Ashley said.
During the altercation, she was run over by a patrol cruiser, Ashley said, noting police desperately were trying to stop her because of the threat she represented. He said no one was struck by gunfire.
“She had every opportunity to stop and turn herself in,” he said.
By Beth Baumann
March 20, 2017
Amy Schumer, gun control group’s favorite advocate, decided to go on a gun rant in her latest Netflix special, The Leather Special.
In her rant, Schumer attempts to use sarcasm and “humor” – assuming you find her funny – to go after lawful gun owners. The problem with her rant is his logic is severely flawed. She’s simply spewing the typical gun control talking points.
Schumer explains she got into the gun control debate when two women were shot and killed in a movie theater when they went to see her movie.
“I found out that the guy who did this was mentally ill and a domestic abuser,” she says. “And I was like ‘Oh. Okay. Well, how could he get a gun?’ I didn’t – I wasn’t educated about it. I learned that if you’re severely mentally ill or have been convicted of domestic violence, there are loopholes where it’s not that hard to get a firearm.”
FACT: In order to legally possess a firearm, you have to go through a background check to acquire said firearm. Anyone who is convicted of domestic abuse would not pass a background check.
“I believe in the Right to Bear Arms, the Second Amendment. I’m friends with gun owners but what I learned was no matter what you say as soon as you say the word ‘gun’ with gun nuts here is just, ‘You want to take all our guns!’” Schumer explains, mocking gun owners.
FACT: Just because you have friends who are gun owners does not mean you’re in favor of the Second Amendment. Stop using your friends as your political get out of jail card.
“Then I found – and I’m sure most of you probably know this already – that if you’re on a terrorist watch list, not just the no-fly list but the straight up terrorist watch list, you can easily get a gun,” Schumer claims.
FACT: Again, background checks come into play. If you’re buying a gun legally from a federally licensed dealer, you have to go through a background check. If you’re on the terrorist watch list, you can’t pass a background check and you won’t be sold a gun. These “terrorists” you speak of are getting their guns off the black market because, you know, criminals – and terrorists – don’t follow laws.
Hey, Schumer – It’s insulting that you believe every gun owner in America is a white trash, trailer park hillbilly. The truth is simple, and it’s probably hard for you to understand, but gun owners come in every race, religion, creed, political party and all across America. The Second Amendment protects each and every one of us: even you with your armed bodyguards.
But if you pointed that out you would be called hypocritical, no?
By Bob Owens
March 7, 2017
Gun-grabbing grifter Gabby Giffords recently attempted to use the killing of Albuquerque Police Department officer Daniel Webster to argue for more infringement on the rights of American citizens.
Webster’s widow Bernalillo County Sheriff’s Detective Michelle Carlino-Webster, is outraged at Gifford’s attempt to exploit her husband’s death to go against everything he stood for in life.
Former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords’ recent visit to New Mexico to call for restrictive firearms legislation is further evidence that House Bill 50 and Senate Bill 48 are products of a national gun control agenda. Her organization, Americans for Responsible Solutions, joins the chorus of outside groups led by billionaire New Yorker Michael Bloomberg pushing for burdensome regulations on the sale and temporary loaning of your personal firearms, even to people close to you, such as friends, neighbors, co-workers and even some family members.
I am offended by the tactics that some of the sponsors, advocates and organizations backing these bills are using to push their unpopular proposals. It is bad enough that they have poured more than a quarter of a million dollars into our state over the past few months in an attempt to influence elections and legislation. Then, at the public hearing on HB50 before the New Mexico House Consumer and Public Affairs Committee, it became more personal for me. The bill’s author, as well as her lead witness, both invoked the name of my late husband, Albuquerque Police Department officer Daniel Webster, to promote the measure. Along with the media, they continue to imply that had these proposed laws been in place, my husband’s death would have been prevented; in doing so, they actually remove accountability from the criminal who caused it. Focus must be placed on the individual who committed the horrific crimes. We, as a nation, have gotten too far removed from self-accountability and responsibility for one’s actions.
I am not okay with this, and I know Dan would not have wanted his name associated with this bill either. He was against expanded background checks of any kind and stood behind our Second Amendment rights with honor and appreciation. The idea of him having to go to a licensed firearms dealer, complete federal paperwork and pay a fee for a records check on his buddy at work or on my dad if he wanted to sell or loan a gun to either of them is not only ridiculous, but intrusive. He certainly did not believe this type of gun control would solve the larger problems in our communities.
Dan believed that tough-on-crime legislation, such as increased penalties and stiffer sentencing, would have the most positive effect on violence in our state.