A three-man crime spree on the morning of Nov. 10 ended in the murder of an Indianapolis pastor’s pregnant wife, according to a newly released legal filing.
Officials on Monday announced murder charges against two men—Larry Jo Taylor, Jr., 18, and Jalen Watson, 21—in the shooting death of Amanda Blackburn in the Indianapolis home she shared with her husband Pastor Davey Blackburn. A third man, Diano Gordon, 24, faces related burglary charges.
The Marion County prosecutor’s office announced the charges on Monday, hours after police announced Taylor’s arrest. He and Watson also face charges for felony burglary, theft, robbery and auto theft.
[…]The Blackburns moved to Indianapolis in January of 2012 “with a dream and a calling to start a life-giving church that would connect with people who normally wouldn’t connect with church,” the couple wrote on Resonate Church‘s Web site.
[…]But on the morning of Nov. 10, the couple’s seemingly perfect life shattered.
[…]Sometime before 5:30 a.m., police say, Watson, Taylor and Gordon embarked on a small crime spree in search of money that would end at the Blackburn residence.
They allegedly broke into an apartment miles away from the Blackburns where they stole an iPhone from the sleeping occupant’s bedroom, car keys, a laptop and a wallet, according to an account provided to the police by an unnamed “cooperating individual” and outlined in a probable cause affidavit.
After discovering a security camera in the residence, Taylor wanted to kill the sleeping occupant, but Watson and Gordon talked him down, the account says. According to the affidavit, the trio then moved on to another house where they stole TV’s and a laptop, loading them into the previously stolen car.
In search of even more money, they finally arrived at the unlocked Blackburn residence, with Amanda, then 12 weeks pregnant, and her 15-month-old son inside. Authorities say Taylor hit Blackburn with his gun and stayed at the house while the other two drove off to retrieve money from an ATM using her card.
Afterwards, Taylor reportedly told Watson, Gordon and two others that he killed Blackburn, authorities say.
“Taylor stated that she charged at him and he shot her somewhere in the upper body so he would not be scratched,” the document states. “Taylor then told them that he leaned over her body and shot her in the back of the head. He leaned further, looked at her face, and watched her bleed.”
Her husband returned home from the gym around 7:30 a.m. that morning, but remained on the phone with a friend in the driveway until about 8:20 a.m., according to the affidavit. When he entered the house, he found his wife nude and face down in blood on the living room floor.
I don’t know what to say to this. It just made me angry how the media makes justified shootings of criminals by police into such a huge scandal, and then when actual law-abiding citizens get murdered, it’s no big deal. Nothing for anyone to be upset about, apparently. Are we going to have a national movement over the murder of this pastor’s pregnant wife? I think not. Instead, people on the left want to ban guns and disarm potential victims of crime so they can’t resist criminals. Let me make this clear – police are good, criminals are bad, and law-abiding civilians owning guns to defend themselves from criminals is also good. Why are the Democrats on the wrong side of all three of these issues?
I keep hearing all these compassionate Democrats complaining that too many people are behind bars. The solution? Release lots and lots of prisoners.
The leftist Washington Post reports on efforts by the Obama administration to release harmless drug offenders at the federal level:
The Justice Department is set to release about 6,000 inmates early from prison — the largest one-time release of federal prisoners — in an effort to reduce overcrowding and provide relief to drug offenders who received harsh sentences over the past three decades, according to U.S. officials.
The inmates from federal prisons nationwide will be set free by the department’s Bureau of Prisons between Oct. 30 and Nov. 2. About two-thirds of them will go to halfway houses and home confinement before being put on supervised release. About one-third are foreign citizens who will be quickly deported, officials said.
[…][Democrat Attorney General Eric]Holder supported the change, but he proposed more restrictive criteria that would exclude people who had used weapons or had significant criminal histories. But the Sentencing Commission decided to leave the decisions to individual judges.
It always seems to be the Democrats who want to release criminals and confiscate the guns of law-abiding civilians. The Republicans always want to put criminals in jail and let law-abiding civilians defend themselves.
Anyway, let’s see what happened in New York where one of these harmless drug-offenders was allowed to go free, thanks to the rules made by one of the most Democrat-dominated cities in the United States.
The suspect in the fatal shooting of a New York police officer was only on the street because he was not sent to jail earlier this year for dealing crack as part of a diversion program for drug offenders.
Tyrone Howard, 30, had a lengthy rap sheet featuring 28 arrests since age 13 when he pleaded guilty again in May to selling crack at an East Harlem public-housing complex. He was sentenced to two years in jail but rather than being sent behind bars, he was ordered into an outpatient drug-rehabilitation program for that period.
The diversion program is designed to reduce overcrowding in the city’s jails, and courts in New York and across the country are increasingly turning to rehabilitation and treatment options rather than incarceration for drug offenses.
[…][A] spokesman for the New York state court system said that Howard was an addict and thus should not be in jail for drug offenses.
“Actually, he’s the perfect candidate in many ways” for diversion programs, state court system spokesman David Bookstaver told The Associated Press in an interview.
[…]According to NYPD Chief of Department James O’Neill, Howard was wanted in connection with a gang-related shooting in Manhattan in September but police couldn’t find him for arrest — even though he was on supervised release for two years.Howard didn’t show up for status meetings and would not be home when investigators made repeated efforts to find him there.
An arrest warrant was issued for Howard on Sept. 21.
Howard’s long criminal record included two terms in state prison since 2007 on drug-related charges. He also was arrested in connection with a 2009 shooting, but the AP said the disposition of that case was unclear.
OK so that’s one measly case. Let’s see the aggregate numbers so we can make a real conclusion here.
This study explores the recidivism outcomes of 1,804 serious and violent delinquents sentenced under a blended sentencing statute and released early by juvenile correctional authorities without continuing their blended sentence in adult prisons. Released at an average age of 19, roughly 50% of releases were rearrested for a felony-level offense postrelease. The remaining 50% of all releases did not incur a postrelease arrest or were rearrested for an offense no higher than a misdemeanor. Measures for assaultive institutional misconduct and prior delinquent adjudications were predictive of recidivism in models examining rearrest for any offense and rearrest for a felony only. Substance abusers, gang members, those with a gang-related commitment offense, and homicide-related state commitments were significantly more likely to be rearrested for any offense postrelease. This article ends with a discussion of implications specific to this high risk cohort of released delinquent offenders.
If you really want to do something about the crime rate, then government needs to promote natural marriage and stability during parenting. That’s not what selfish adults want to hear, but it is what works to lower crime rates. Instead of paying women to have fatherless babies outside of marriage, we should pay them to get married and have kids and stay together to raise the kids. That’s what REALLY lowers the crime rates, and empties the prisons. It probably doesn’t help that we are throwing pastors out of the prisons, either.
Look. We all have to decide whether we have more sympathy for convicted criminals, or whether we have more sympathy for law-abiding taxpayers. Democrats are there to serve the criminals: give them goodies and disarm their victims. Republicans are there to serve the law-abiding taxpayers, and let them defend themselves from criminals. Please vote accordingly.
At the urging of labor unions, President Obama has pushed for higher minimum wages that price a disproportionate percentage of blacks out of the labor force. At the urging of teachers unions, he has fought voucher programs that give ghetto children access to better schools.
Both policies have a lengthy track record of keeping millions of blacks ill-educated and unemployed. Since the 1970s, when the federal government began tracking the racial achievement gap, black test scores in math, reading and science have on average trailed far behind those of their white classmates. And minimum-wage mandates have been so effective for so long at keeping blacks out of work that 1930, the last year in which there was no federal minimum-wage law, was also the last year that the black unemployment rate was lower than the white rate. For the past half-century, black joblessness on average has been double that of whites.
Last week the Justice Department said it would release some 6,000 inmates from federal prison starting later this month. The goal, according to the White House, is to ease overcrowding and roll back tough sentencing rules implemented in the 1980s and ’90s.
But why are the administration’s sympathies with the lawbreakers instead of their usual victims—the mostly law-abiding residents in low-income communities where many of these inmates eventually are headed? In dozens of large U.S. cities, violent crime, including murder, has climbed over the past year, and it is hard to see how these changes are in the interest of public safety.
The administration assures skeptics that only “nonviolent” drug offenders will be released, but who pays the price if we guess wrong, as officials have so often done in the past?
When Los Angeles asked the Rand Corp. in the 1990s to identify inmates suitable for early release, the researchers concluded that “almost no one housed in the Los Angeles jails could be considered non-serious or simply troublesome to their local communities” and that “jail capacity should be expanded so as to allow lengthier incarceration of the more dangerous.”
A 2002 federal report tracked the recidivism rate of some 91,000 supposedly nonviolent offenders in 15 states over a three-year period. More than 21% wound up rearrested for violent crimes, including more than 700 murders and more than 600 rapes. The report also noted the difficulty of identifying low-risk inmates. Auto thieves were rearrested for committing more than a third of the homicides and a disproportionate share of other violent offenses.
Keep in mind that when criminals are release, they don’t go move into wealthy progressive neighborhoods. It’s not the wealthy leftists elites who have to deal with the released inmates. It’s the poor, low-income minority neighborhoods that have to deal with them.
That covers the first 3 policies. This article from The College Fix covers the fourth policy, affirmative action.
A UCLA law professor critiques affirmative action as detrimental to the very people it strives to aid: minority students.
Professor Richard Sander, though liberal-leaning, has deemed affirmative action practices as harmful, a notion that contradicts a liberal view in college admissions, said Stuart Taylor, a nonresident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.
[…]Sander began teaching law at UCLA in 1989. After a few years he garnered an interest in academic support and asked permission to analyze which strategies most effectively assist struggling students.
After reviewing statistics on performance, especially those of students with lower academic merit, he noticed correlations between race and academic success.
“I was struck by both the degree to which it correlated with having weak academic entering credentials and its correlation with race,” Sander said in a recent interview with The College Fix. “And as I looked into our admissions process I realized that we were giving really a large admissions preference.”
Sander noticed that students admitted into the law school with lower academic credentials than their peers had significantly lower percentages of passing the Multistate Bar Examination, Sander said. This especially pertained to minority students who were given special consideration in the admittance process due to their race rather than their academic preparedness.
He then began thinking about whether or not these students would have better chances of succeeding if they went to a less elite university, he said.
He called this discrepancy a mismatch; when minority students with lower credentials than their peers are accepted into more challenging universities and then suffer academically as a result.
And the fifth policy is welfare. Welfare encourages women to not marry the men that they have sex with, since they will lose their single mother benefits if they do. Children who are raised fatherless are more likely to struggle in a number of areas, and they are especially likely to be poor. What we should be doing (if we really want to help the poor) is paying people to get married and stay married. But Democrats are opposed to that. The connection between welfare, fatherlessness, poverty and crime is explained in a previous post.
The number of sanctuary cities in the United States has risen to 340, resulting in the release of roughly 1,000 detained illegal immigrants each month despite objections from the federal government, according to a new study.
The Center for Immigration Studies, a nonprofit organization that advocates for decreased immigration, reported that local authorities acting in these sanctuary cities released more than 9,000 illegal immigrants whom the government was seeking to deport last year.
The majority of those shielded from ICE had prior felony charges or convictions, including rape, battery, and drug violations, the analysis of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement data from January to September 2014 found.
[…]David Inserra, a policy analyst in homeland security at The Heritage Foundation, said such policies encourage further illegal immigration, degrade state and local budgets, and, in some cases, harm U.S. citizens.
“Cities that actively work to shield illegal immigrants, especially those with a criminal record or those charged with a crime, do themselves no favors and only hurt their communities,” he said.
Because those jurisdictions are not going to “fix themselves” and the Obama administration remains inactive, Vaughan said, action falls on Congress.
The Senate is moving to vote on legislation next week that would withhold federal funds from cities that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration officials. The White House already threatened to veto legislation that cracks down on sanctuary cities after the House passed a similar bill in July.
Elsewhere, the Democrats also released 6000 criminals with drug convictions, including those who have prior convictions for illegal weapons, like guns. Why would the Democrats want more criminals on the streets?
Well, remember Fast and Furious? Fast and Furious was a Democrat-run operation that had the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms overseeing the trafficking of assault weapons to drug cartels across the Southern border. The Democrats later tried to cover all this up by withholding documents during the investigation. (See links below for details)
Why were the Democrats doing this? Well, the lead organizer was a well-known advocate of gun banning and gun confiscation. The point of Fast and Furious was to give criminals powerful assault weapons, have them commit crimes, and then use the dead bodies of the victims (including one Border Patrol agent) to advocate for confiscating the guns of law-abiding citizens. The operation was run by Eric Holder and the Department of Justice.
Democrats do not like the idea that citizens who own property can defend themselves from criminals who do not. It’s “unequal” and an easy way to fix this “inequality” is by disarming the property owners so that the criminals can take some and then everyone is equal. They really are crazy enough about “inequality” that they will literally put guns in the hands of criminals to shoot civilians and border patrol agents in order to “solve” the inequality problem.
We now know that the shooter in the Oregon shooting did not have a close relationship with his father – he was fatherless.
According to reports, Harper-Mercer was born in the UK to a British father before the family moved to the US in the mid-90s. His parents divorced in 2006 and he had lived most recently with his mother in Oregon,OregonLivereported.
My friends Patrick C. and William B. both messaged me about this article by sociologist W. Bradford Wilcox, who points out the link between fatherlessness and crime.
Another shooting, another son of divorce. From Adam Lanza, who killed 26 children and adults a year ago at Sandy Hook School in Newtown, Conn., to Karl Pierson, who shot a teenage girl and killed himself this past Friday at Arapahoe High in Centennial, Colo., one common and largely unremarked thread tying together most of the school shooters that have struck the nation in the last year is that they came from homes marked by divorce or an absent father. From shootings at MIT (i.e., theTsarnaev brothers) to the University of Central Florida to the Ronald E. McNair Discovery Learning Academy in Decatur, Ga., nearly every shooting over the last year in Wikipedia’s “list of U.S. school attacks” involved a young man whose parents divorced or never married in the first place.
[…]The social scientific evidence about the connection between violence and broken homes could not be clearer. My own research suggests that boys living in single mother homes are almost twice as likely to end up delinquent compared to boys who enjoy good relationships with their father. Harvard sociologist Robert Sampson has written that “Family structure is one of the strongest, if not the strongest, predictor of variations in urban violence across cities in the United States.” His views are echoed by the eminent criminologists Michael Gottfredson and Travis Hirschi, who have written that “such family measures as the percentage of the population divorced, the percentage of households headed by women, and the percentage of unattached individuals in the community are among the most powerful predictors of crime rates.”
Why is fatherlessness such a big deal for our boys (almost all of these incidents involve boys)? Putting the argument positively, sociologist David Popenoe notes that “fathers are important to their sons as role models. They are important for maintaining authority and discipline. And they are important in helping their sons to develop both self-control and feelings of empathy toward others, character traits that are found to be lacking in violent youth.” Boys, then, who did not grow up with an engaged, attentive, and firm father are more vulnerable to getting swept up in the Sturm und Drang of adolescence and young adulthood, and in the worst possible way.
So where do fatherless children come from? It turns out that government programs incentivize women to make them.
Dr. Michael Tanner of the libertarian Cato Institute explains how welfare causes fatherlessness in his testimony to Congress:
Welfare contributes to crime in several ways. First, children from single-parent families are more likely to become involved in criminal activity. According to one study, children raised in single-parent families are one-third more likely to exhibit anti-social behavior.(3) Moreover, O’Neill found that, holding other variables constant, black children from single- parent households are twice as likely to commit crimes as black children from a family where the father is present. Nearly 70 percent of juveniles in state reform institutions come from fatherless homes, as do 43 percent of prison inmates.(4) Research indicates a direct correlation between crime rates and the number of single-parent families in a neighborhood.(5)
As Barbara Dafoe Whitehead noted in her seminal article for The Atlantic Monthly:
The relationship [between single-parent families and crime] is so strong that controlling for family configuration erases the relationship between race and crime and between low income and crime. This conclusion shows up time and again in the literature. The nation’s mayors, as well as police officers, social workers, probation officers, and court officials, consistently point to family break up as the most important source of rising rates of crime.(6)
At the same time, the evidence of a link between the availability of welfare and out-of-wedlock births is overwhelming. There have been 13 major studies of the relationship between the availability of welfare benefits and out-of-wedlock birth. Of these, 11 found a statistically significant correlation. Among the best of these studies is the work done by June O’Neill for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Holding constant a wide range of variables, including income, education, and urban vs. suburban setting, the study found that a 50 percent increase in the value of AFDC and foodstamp payments led to a 43 percent increase in the number of out-of-wedlock births.(7) Likewise, research by Shelley Lundberg and Robert Plotnick of the University of Washington showed that an increase in welfare benefits of $200 per month per family increased the rate of out-of-wedlock births among teenagers by 150 percent.(8)
The same results can be seen from welfare systems in other countries. For example, a recent study of the impact of Canada’s social-welfare system on family structure concluded that “providing additional benefits to single parents encourages births of children to unwed women.”(9)
The secular left in this country believes that fathers need to be separated away from their children, and that’s why they support welfare programs that redirect money from husbands in intact families to single mothers. They believe that fathers are harmful because they set boundaries on children, and judge them and punish them when they act immorally. To the secular left, boundaries, judgments and punishments on children are bad, and must be stopped. So how can the secular left discourage men from marrying and teaching their own children morality? Well, they can tax married men, and they can give the money to single mothers.
Not only is crime caused by fatherlessness, but poverty is. as well.
Census data and the Fragile Families survey show that marriage can be extremely effective in reducing child poverty. But the positive effects of married fathers are not limited to income alone. Children raised by married parents have substantially better life outcomes compared to similar children raised in single-parent homes.
When compared to children in intact married homes, children raised by single parents are more likely to have emotional and behavioral problems; be physically abused; smoke, drink, and use drugs; be aggressive; engage in violent, delinquent, and criminal behavior; have poor school performance; be expelled from school; and drop out of high school. Many of these negative outcomes are associated with the higher poverty rates of single mothers. In many cases, however, the improvements in child well-being that are associated with marriage persist even after adjusting for differences in family income. This indicates that the father brings more to his home than just a paycheck.
The effect of married fathers on child outcomes can be quite pronounced. For example, examination of families with the same race and same parental education shows that, when compared to intact married families, children from single-parent homes are:
More than twice as likely to be arrested for a juvenile crime;
Twice as likely to be treated for emotional and behavioral problems;
Roughly twice as likely to be suspended or expelled from school; and
A third more likely to drop out before completing high school.
The effects of being raised in a single-parent home continue into adulthood. Comparing families of the same race and similar incomes, children from broken and single-parent homes are three times more likely to end up in jail by the time they reach age 30 than are children raised in intact married families.  Compared to girls raised in similar married families, girls from single-parent homes are more than twice as likely to have a child without being married, thereby repeating the negative cycle for another generation.
Finally, the decline of marriage generates poverty in future generations. Children living in single-parent homes are 50 percent more likely to experience poverty as adults when compared to children from intact married homes. This intergenerational poverty effect persists even after adjusting for the original differences in family income and poverty during childhood.
People on the left claim that poverty causes crime, but they don’t look for the root cause of poverty. The root cause of poverty is the decline of marriage, which produces fatherless children.