Sunday, May 19, 2013
Young Co-ed is taken hostage by thug...
Police officer responds to situation.
...confronted by cop, puts girl into headlock, gun to her skull, and threatens to kill her.
He then reportedly turns gun toward cop, using girl as shield. Cop opens fire, killing both him and the woman.
Who's to blame for Andrea Rebello's death?
Interesting back and forth at Instapundit via reader emails, and some other in the comments of the article linked above.
I think there is some validity to the idea that the cop might have responded to the call differently, as he was fully aware that a hostage situation was in play.
A roommate of Andrea's was sent out to an ATM by the thug to get cash, and she instead called police, so the police knew the somewhat what they were dealing with here.
Perhaps surrounding the house with police might have been better, or perhaps not openly confronting the criminal in a position where the officer could have been fired upon and thus be forced to respond in kind.
As someone mentions on Instapundit, it appears the officer was NOT trained to deal with the kind of shot required to kill Dalton and spare Rebello. That takes specialized training. It would have been better had he gotten that kind of training, in hindsight.
All good points.
Now, having gotten that out of the way, let's also realize that second-guessing is real easy in the aftermath.
The police had no idea what was exactly happening in that house when he got there.
For all the police officer knew, Dalton Smith was torturing, raping and/or murdering Ms. Robello and other people in that house. He went into that house most likely thinking that some truly horrendous could be happening to 3 innocent people while he waited, so he chose to go in. He had every reason to fear for his life, but he went in anyway, hoping to prevent a tragedy. The fact that a tragedy occurred is not his fault, because he was not he one who created the situation in which Andrea Robello lost her life.
Let's assign the blame firmly where it belongs.
You'll notice Mr. Smith is wearing some sort of orange shirt. That is not some sort of bold fashion statement, or part of a pumpkin costume from a Halloween past. It is from a jumpsuit, the kind supplied to you when you have been behind bars.
Dalton Smith was a repeat offender. News reports I have read claim he had previously been convicted of such crimes as armed robbery, assault, auto theft. At the time of this shooting, he was wanted for violating his parole.
Dalton Smith broke into the house where Andrea was sleeping, he took her and others hostage and he put the gun to Andrea's head, and then pointed a gun at a police officer.
Dalton Smith is the one responsible for Andrea's death.
But, he is not alone.
The society that left Dalton Smith roaming the streets after he had proved multiple times to be unfit to be walking around free is guilty. I would love to get a final tally on his rap sheet, being that he was only 30 years old when killed, but suffice to say he was not some wayward youth. He was a grown man for whom the thug life was a way of life.
The society that decided that such a reprobate, who had on multiple occasion committed acts of violence and criminality, should have the freedom to do what he did, leading to Andrea's death, is guilty as well. By being kind, or at least indulgent, to a person who had shown they could not behave in a lawful and civilized manner, they were in the end very cruel to Andrea Rebello, and to the officer who will now have to live with what he was forced to do.
At the time he was standing in a sorority house, holding a gun to the head of a young woman who I am betting was about half his size, Dalton Smith deserved to be chained up, breaking rocks or picking up garbage. Had be been so, not only would Andrea be alive, but perhaps in 10 or 20 years, Dalton might have been tame enough, or broken, enough, that he could have returned to society and live out some semblance of a decent life.
INSTEAD, he's lying in a morgue somewhere, as is Andrea, and he will go to the afterlife with the death of a young woman added to his list of sins.
Good job, indulgent society!
Now, those of the progressive ilk (I don't call them liberals, I will explain why in another post), will try and blame society for not "helping" Dalton Smith, for "failing him", forcing him into his life of crime. Instead of condemning society for not keeping an animal off the streets, for exposing innocent people to violence and death, they will bemoan how poorly society performed in assisting Mr. Smith, leading to his villainy.
First, society will never completely eliminate men like Dalton Smith, and that being the case, it has a duty and obligation to keep them apart from the people who don't make theft and violence a way of life. When it fails to do so, it fails, period.
Second, progressives will always credit the idea of a systemic failure of society creating criminals by failure to care or empathize enough with them, but never seem willing to embrace the idea that the systemic coddling and leniency of deviancy they advocate might in fact be a contributing cause.
They will also accept no criticism of cultural practices and behaviors which they view as being politically incorrect, no matter the evidence indicating they are indeed contributing factors to the creation of a "man" like Dalton Smith.
Why? Because reducing violent crime, even against women, is of minor importance when it comes to maintaining certain narratives.
Thursday, May 16, 2013
Whether it is housing or food stamps or loans or WHATEVER, when you come to rely on it, the government can then threaten to take it away unless you do their bidding.
HOW people do not understand this principle, I cannot fathom. It is a common theme in entertainment, i.e., someone gets in deep with someone for money or a favor granted, and then is horrified when the bill comes due.
Another case in point...
Wednesday, May 15, 2013
I am annoyed by the people who will NOT make a decision about something when you offer them choices, but will THEN do so after you go ahead and make a decision to cut short the back and forth, vetoing what you suggested/offered.
"Where would you like to eat?"
"I don't know. Somewhere close."
"Well, there is A, B and C..."
"OK, but how about D, E and F?"
"Okay, how about we meet in front of F?"
"Uhmm, let's meet in front of E. It has X..."
"Why the F*** did you not just suggest that in the first place."
It is interesting to try and form a snapshot of the world around us today, and wondering how that picture will look in a year, two years, and then 5. I am betting it will not look pretty, but am I wrong?
We have a president in office, elected for a second time, who truly seems to believe in autocracy. He is not the first to exert his executive power overzealously, no doubt, but it is more troubling this time. Why?
He, and his administration, truly don't seem to give a damn what a good portion of the country thinks, even the majority on certain issues, and seems determined to rule rather than govern. He seems openly contemptuous (and he is not alone) of anyone or anything that seems to challenge his will. And the same seems to go for much of the "watchdogs" who are supposed to guard against such hubris and protect the little people, but whom seem just as disgusted by the peasants who refuse to get with the program.
Perhaps it does not help that a professor of constitutional law at a major university thinks the constitution is passe', and that the "newspaper of record" would publish it without comment, let alone rebuttal.
Perhaps it is also that he is not the first person of supposed position and esteem who has espoused the same view in recent years.
Perhaps it is some of the same people, and certainly the same side, which just a few years earlier was screaming "Fascist!" when a different man held the office.
Could it be that I am wrong about that future when a nation which already has the best armed, by far, populace in the world, feels the need to buy even more guns, or guns for the first time, even as the political class talks about "getting them off the streets". People even like my spouse, who two years ago, did not want ANY gun in the house, and now ponders whether we should get a second?
Am I in error to worry about a worldwide financial system which seems increasingly based on cheap parlor tricks to keep it chugging along, even as the wheels falls off?
Am I paranoid to think that an Arab Spring which supposedly would usher in a new era of freedom and democracy more resembles the lights going out in Europe circa the 1930's or the march of Communism post 40's?
As Hindenburg reportedly claimed, maybe God does look after drunks, little children and the United States of America.
Of course, we are busy pushing God out of the public square, mocking him in the private, except when he is worshipped by those who take such actions as legitimate cause for murder. So, God may decide to sit events out for a while. Sorry.
The point of taking this snapshot now is to keep in mind these kind of ironies...
Interesting that I would return to this blog, to find this unpublished post, at this time, when much evidence of what I am talking about is coming to light.
"We have a president in office, elected for a second time, who truly seems to believe in autocracy."
The IRS admits to using the power of it's organization for partisan political ends.
Allegations that the EPA did very much the same thing.
The Department of Justice secretly obtaining phone records of a media outfit, and then hedging on who ordered it.
The continuing Benghazi cover-up.
There have been plenty more indications that this administration simply does not care about the rule of law and simple accountability, but this week seems to a particularly busy one for scandals.
Will it amount to anything?
Well, if history is any measure, no.
A compliant press corp, even if annoyed at being bullied and spied, will likely fall back in line as it has done before.
A Republican leadership, too drunk on the same power which fuels their opposition, will be unwilling to pursue this kind of malfeasance far enough to make a difference because that will mean diminishing governmental power when it's their turn.
Monday, May 02, 2011
Thursday, January 13, 2011
"Here's my, my take in it. I think that, as film makers, as politicians, as artists, we have to understand that all, whatever we do goes out in the universe. And you should be aware of what you're doing. And you cannot just say "Well I just did this and, and my - had nothing to do with what happened." That's, that's not, that's not the case. Also the United States of America is the most violent country in the history of civilization. And this NRA thing. We gotta turn this around. You know these, these guns are out of hand. And I know they have a very powerful lobby but something has to be done about the gun control in this country. That's my opinion."
Hat tip:Media Research Center
And the left gets SO annoyed when they are accused of hating their country.
Spike was on the Today to promote his line of children's books, but maybe if Spike cracked open a few books himself, he might actually be embarrassed to be spewing such laughably false bullshit.
I don't care what metric you try to use, that is nothing but an American-hating fantasy. Don't make me have to break it down for you. If you can't think of something to dispute it right off the bat, you are an ignorant jack-off.
But the real kick is this little biographical note:
"His personal life has become somewhat well known, too. He had a relationship with Halle Berry and started a family with Tonya Lewis Lee, with whom he has two children."
Got that? This guy has two kids and unless I missed his move to France, he still resides in the good ole' USA. So, he chooses to raise his children in "the most violent country in the history of civilization."
Me? I like children in general, and am really fond of my own, and if I found myself living in the demonic abattoir that he apparently believes the United States to be, I would move them the fuck out, especially if I had the juice to do it. Spike sure does, so I can only surmise he really does not care about his kids all that much, or he REALLY digs violence. Maybe both.
"Lee is also known to have an obsessive love of the New York Knicks."
Interesting. Spike hates his country enough to slander it viciously, but he has a profound love for perpetual losers.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Case in Point: Gawker
"Sarah Palin Blames the Media for 'Blood Libel'
After the horrific Tucson shootings last weekend, future U.S. president Sarah Palin retreated to her prayer cave and prayed for guidance. Today, she's announced her findings: The real tragedy here is "journalists and pundits" who "manufacture a blood libel."See, after days of a left-wing orgy of accusations that Sarah Palin was a blood-soaked murderer for all intents and purposes, the editors and readers of Gawker are now pissed at her for calling bullshit on bullshit.
It is now readily apparent to anyone with remaining brain cells, or who is not a complete ideological hack, that the tragic shooting in Tuscon was in no way related to ANYTHING happening in this reality politically, despite numerous claims to contrary from the left. Everyone from Palin, to Rush Limbaugh, to Republicans, the Tea Party to the right in general were told "YOU DID IT, YOU BASTARDS!" by the media and the left-wing moonbats, but then I repeat myself.
It is also BLINDINGLY obvious that despite the lack of facts early on, and then in spite of them later, the left attempted to exploit the tragedy in Tuscon for political gain, trying to stoke incendiary anger against the right while decrying all things incendiary. Oh, wait, did I say "attempted", as in past tense? It still continues with fucktards like Bill Maher and the cretins at Gawker.
Of course, this is, in a sense, brilliant. Having being caught out, AGAIN, as dishonest fanatics, the Left will try to Ju Jistsu the discussion back to Palin, the topic of discussion being, as always, "Sarah Palin is an asshole because we were losers in high school, and still are. So there!"
Apparently, Gawker feels it is unfair and insensitive for Palin to use the term "blood libel" when describing the vicious smear campaign the Left engaged in over the shooting in Arizona.
First, we would not really need to go further, would we?
Pot. Kettle. Unfair Asshole.
Basically, Gawker is saying:
"How DARE you use overheated rhetoric and make ridiculous accusations that point out our overheated rhetoric and ridiculous accusations!!"
Short note to Gawker.
Is "blood libel" really an unfair use of the term? Let's see how Gawker explains their umbrage:
"Maureen O'Connor pointed out that "blood libel" actually "refers to a false accusation or claim that religious minorities, almost always Jews, murder children to use their blood in certain aspects of their religious rituals and holidays." Is Sarah Palin accusing the liberal media of murdering Jew babies? Where does the ADL stand on this? "
The whole accusing the media of murdering Jewish babies line is not just meant as a witty crack. It's meant to distract from the fact that the metaphor immediately previous is actually pretty accurate when read.
The Left is continually trying to pin the actions of lunatics who go on murderous rampages on the right, either by claiming they were of the right (when they are most typically, NOT) or that the right influenced their decision to kill. As has been pointed out numerous times over the last few days by others, it was done in the case of JFK, RFK, Oklamahoma City, and even 9/11. It happens when the maniac is even demonstrably of the left mindset.
So the left is repeatedly making collective false accusations of murder against sections of a population, claiming they do so to further their ideology, libeling them.
So, HOW does this analogy not work again?
Of course it does. It's accurately pretty on target (heh) as analogy or metaphor, but it cuts way too close to the truth; it demolishes yet again one of the Left's precious narratives that make them feel superior despite their bitter mediocrity.
So Gawker and its cretinous cohorts act like it is some sort of bizarre comparison, claiming Palin was saying something she was not, making cracks about "prayer caves", because, you know, anyone who prays is a primitive.
It would be entirely infuriating if it were not for the fact that their smug delusional asses are getting whacked in public opinion. Our job is to make sure to kick them while they are down, and if you have a trouble with that violent rhetoric, kiss my fucking ass!
Hey, looks like a whole lot of people agree with me, right and left!
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Even for someone who loathes the Left, and sees their worldview as destructive, I am in awe of the balls on display here. There is just simply too much bullshit to tackle out there, but luckily there are many people on the case. Let me focus in on a particular piece of trash that I just came across:
Democrats move to limit guns, threatening language in shooting's wake
Reacting to the assassination attempt on one of their own, two House members on Monday said they will introduce legislation that would ban certain ammunition clips and make it illegal to threaten a federal official, both of which they say contributed to the mass casualties in a shooting rampage in Tuscson over the weekend.
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., plans to introduce a bill that would ban high-capacity ammunition clips like the one used by Jared Loughner, the gunman accused of killing 6 and injuring 14, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., as they gathered at a “Congress on Your Corner” event.
And Rep. Robert Brady, D-Pa., will introduce legislation that would make it illegal to uses threatening words or symbols or incite violence against a lawmaker or federal official."
The gun control issue is a farce in its own way, but I want you to reread that last bit.
At least 2 levels of bullshit here...
First, why make it illegal to just threaten or incite violence against a Federal official or lawmaker? Don't we ALL deserve equal protection under the law? Is what we need right now even more special privilege for our Lords and Ladies?
If I am a working dad, or single woman, who has some psycho stalking me, sending me or my family psycho shit, should I not also get to drop the legal hammer on his ass?
Second, can we make this more vague? Make it illegal to use threatening words or symbols? And what, pray tell, would be defined as threatening words or symbols, and who would get to define them?
Why, I do believe it would believe it would be some of the same Lord and Ladies who feel themselves worthy of special treatment!
This is a bad, bad, BAD idea, wrapped in supposedly good intentions with a crunchy, candy coating of crisis. What it will be used for is make, with the force of law behind it, freedom of speech unacceptable when it comes to close to challenging authority. What is "threatening" will be applied both liberally and selectively, to suit the needs of those already wielding power.
We already have laws covering harassment, terroristic threats and the like to deal with true threats from fanatics and nut-jobs. Making certain terminology or metaphors verboten is just one more way the authorities try to rig the game in their favor.
Sorry. We are paying attention now, and are onto your game.
BTW, I have gone back and forth over using strong language and frothing at the bit, or trying to be more measured on this site. I have decided I can't do either exclusively. I will try to be measured in my words and tone as much as possible, but when something pisses me off, I intend to vent. God KNOWS I need to vent. If you have a problem with that, then fu-, er, go away....