Tag Archives: Crime

Murder rates rising in U.S. cities as police respond to anti-cop rhetoric / violence

Crime rates in major cities, all Democrat-run
Crime rates in major cities, all Democrat-run

(Note: Chicago is one of the most anti-gun cities in the United States, if not the most anti-gun)

This is from the leftist New York Times, so I’ll have to separate fact from fiction.

Here’s some fact:

Cities across the nation are seeing a startling rise in murders after years of declines, and few places have witnessed a shift as precipitous as this city. With the summer not yet over, 104 people have been killed this year — after 86 homicides in all of 2014.

More than 30 other cities have also reported increases in violence from a year ago. In New Orleans, 120 people had been killed by late August, compared with 98 during the same period a year earlier. In Baltimore, homicides had hit 215, up from 138 at the same point in 2014. In Washington, the toll was 105, compared with 73 people a year ago. And in St. Louis, 136 people had been killed this year, a 60 percent rise from the 85 murders the city had by the same time last year.

Now, non-Americans might be tempted to think that America is filled with gun violence, but actually, the gun violence is relegated to the major cities, which are run by Democrats. And sometimes, like with Detroit, there has not been a Republican running things for years. Cities like Washington and Chicago have very, very anti-gun policies, so criminals understand that they can commit crimes with impunity – their victims are likely to be unarmed. The only thing standing between law-abiding citizens and crime are the police and the prisons. Unfortunately, liberals are opposed to both the police and the prison system. They want to handicap the police by crying “racism” all the time, and they want to release criminals from the prisons. Bottom line: in cities run by Democrats, there is no deterrent.

President Obama has been particularly hard on police officers, claiming that their attempts to enforce the law are motivated by racism. And Obama’s supporters are getting the message.

Warning: Strong language here.

Let’s talk a look at some rhetoric from a radio show.

Breitbart News reports:

One of the F***YoFlag organizers is called “Sunshine.” She has a radio blog show hosted from Texas called, “Sunshine’s F***ing Opinion Radio Show.”

[…]During the show, callers clearly call for “lynching” and “killing” of white people.

Callers:

They conspired that if “cops started losing people,” then “there will be a state of emergency.”

[…]Another black man spoke up saying they needed to kill “cops that are killing us. The first black male said, “That will be the best method right there.”

So there are actually police officers getting killed. Here’s one story from Reuters:

Houston-area officials on Saturday blamed the shooting death of a sheriff’s deputy on anti-police sentiment around the country over policing and race.

[…]Harris County deputy Darren Goforth, in uniform, was pumping gas into his patrol car on Friday night when the gunman approached from behind and fired several shots, sheriff’s officials said. No motive has been reported.

[…]”Our system of justice absolutely requires a law enforcement presence to protect our communities, so at any point where the rhetoric ramps up to the point where calculated cold-blooded assassination of police officers happen(s). This rhetoric has gotten out of control,” Hickman said.

[…]The suspect in video of the Goforth shooting appeared to be black. The deputy was white.

Television stations showed footage provided by police, from a gas station surveillance video that caught the ambush of Goforth, a 10-year veteran of the sheriff’s department, who left behind a wife and two young children.

Now it’s important to note that in this Houston killing, we don’t have the clear motive yet that we had in the case of the two New York police officers who were murdered. In fact, the shooter here has a history of medical illness. Still, this event will have an affect on police.

What happens to police officers in the face of these murders, and in the face of this rhetoric, and in the face of these Democrat politicians like Obama and Holder blaming police for enforcing the law? Well, the police naturally start to wonder whether it’s worth it to risk their lives so much.

In Alabama, one white police officer was so scared about being perceived as racist, that he let a black criminal take his gun and pistol whip him. The UK Daily Mail explains:

Alabama police are outraged after photos of a detective beaten bloody by a suspect who stole his gun during a traffic stop were shared by witnesses and praised on social media.

The suspect, 34-year-old Janard Cunningham, is charged with attempted murder for allegedly assaulting the six-year veteran following a traffic stop at a shopping center in Roebuck around 11am Friday.

[…]During the traffic stop, the detective pulled over Cunningham’s SUV and told him to stay in the car while he waited for backup to arrive.

Cunningham is said to have fled the scene after beating the officer until he didn’t move anymore. A second suspect was released without any charges

The suspect disobeyed that order, questioned why he had been stopped and then struck the officer in the head with his own weapon, AL.com reported.

The beating reportedly continued until the officer was no longer moving, with Cunningham then fleeing the scene.

[…]After the arrest, photos of the bloodied detective began popping up on social media, with some commenters applauding what happened.

Other Alabama officers were angered by the outpouring of support for the suspect.

Birmingham police Sgt Heath Boackle, president of the Fraternal Order of Police, said: ‘He was laying there lifeless and people were standing around taking pictures.

‘If the tables were turned, and that was a suspect lying there, they would be rioting.’

So what does this all mean? Well, to me it means that I need to be very careful about where I am going to live, because I can’t count on the police to come and rescue me as much as I could before. They are seeing what is happening, and they don’t want to die for people who don’t respect them. What is interesting is that the epidemic of black on black crime is going to get worse if police withdraw. And I think they should really think twice about stopping crimes in places where they are likely to get into trouble. Eventually, people will get the message. I would also say that now would be a good time to move to states that allow you to own firearms, and allow you to use them – i.e., states dominated by Republicans. The Democrat plan to control crime is this: you can’t own guns, and the police need to be intimidated into not doing their jobs. And it doesn’t help that Democrats keep encouraging fatherlessness by paying women to have babies before they get married. Fatherless men commit more crimes.

Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy paper: gun control doesn’t lower murder rate

Guns are for self-defense against criminals
Guns provide effective self-defense against violent criminals

Doug Ross linked to this study published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy.

He writes:

The Harvard study attempts to answer the question of whether or not banning firearms would reduce murders and suicides. Researchers looked at crime data from several European countries and found that countries with HIGHER gun ownership often had LOWER murder rates.

Russia, for example, enforces very strict gun control on its people, but its murder rate remains quite high. In fact, the murder rate in Russia is four times higher than in the “gun-ridden” United States, cites the study. ”Homicide results suggest that where guns are scarce other weapons are substituted in killings.” In other words, the elimination of guns does not eliminate murder, and in the case of gun-controlled Russia, murder rates are quite high.

The study revealed several European countries with significant gun ownership, like Norway, Finland, Germany and France – had remarkably low murder rates. Contrast that with Luxembourg, “where handguns are totally banned and ownership of any kind of gun is minimal, had a murder rate nine times higher than Germany in 2002.

The study found no evidence to suggest that the availability of guns contributes to higher murder rates anywhere in the world. ”Of course, it may be speculated that murder rates around the world would be higher if guns were more available. But there is simply no evidence to support this.”

The authors also took a look at the effect of gun control laws in various U.S. states, gun ownership in rural and urban areas, and across racial lines. The long and short of it is that a small number of extremely active criminals with lengthy criminal records are responsible for the overwhelming super-majority of all gun crimes, and these criminals are psychopaths that ignore all laws.

The study also cited a previous report that was unable to find a single gun control law implemented in the United States that is proven to have reduced violent crime.

This is not the first time that a study in a presitigious journal has challenged the liberal gun control narrative. People who oppose guns oppose them because of feelings. Guns are scary and guns are loud, they say. That’s their reasoning. But if you actually look at the data, you’ll find that guns do reduce crime rates.

The peer-reviewed research

Whenever I get into discussions about gun control, I always mention two academic books by John R. Lott and Joyce Lee Malcolm.

Here is a paper by Dr. Malcolm that summarizes one of the key points of her book.

Excerpt:

Tracing the history of gun control in the United Kingdom since the late 19th century, this article details how the government has arrogated to itself a monopoly on the right to use force. The consequence has been a tremendous increase in violent crime, and harsh punishment for crime victims who dare to fight back. The article is based on the author’s most recent book, Guns and Violence: The English Experience (Harvard University Press, 2002). Joyce Malcom is professor of history at Bentley College, in Waltham, Massachusetts. She is also author of To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an AngloAmerican Right (Harvard University Press, 1994).

Upon the passage of The Firearms Act (No. 2) in 1997, British Deputy Home Secretary Alun Michael boasted: “Britain now has some of the toughest gun laws in the world.” The Act was second handgun control measure passed that year, imposed a near-complete ban on private ownership of handguns, capping nearly eighty years of increasing firearms restrictions. Driven by an intense public campaign in the wake of the shooting of schoolchildren in Dunblane, Scotland, Parliament had been so zealous to outlaw all privately owned handguns that it rejected proposals to exempt Britain’s Olympic target-shooting team and handicapped target-shooters from the ban.

And the result of the 1997 gun ban:

The result of the ban has been costly. Thousands of weapons were confiscated at great financial cost to the public. Hundreds of thousands of police hours were devoted to the task. But in the six years since the 1997 handgun ban, crimes with the very weapons banned have more than doubled, and firearm crime has increased markedly. In 2002, for the fourth consecutive year, gun crime in England and Wales rose—by 35 percent for all firearms, and by a whopping 46 percent for the banned handguns. Nearly 10,000 firearms offences were committed.

[…]According to Scotland Yard, in the four years from 1991 to 1995 crimes against the person in England‟s inner cities increased by 91 percent. In the four years from 1997 to 2001 the rate of violent crime more than doubled. The UK murder rate for 2002 was the highest for a century.

I think that peer-reviewed studies – from Harvard University, no less – should be useful to those of us who believe in the right of self-defense for law-abiding people. The book by economist John Lott, linked above,compares the crime rates of all U.S. states that have enacted concealed carry laws, and concludes that violent crime rates dropped after law-abiding citizens were allowed to carry legally-owned firearms. That’s the mirror image of Dr. Malcolm’s Harvard study, but both studies affirm the same conclusion – more legal firearm ownership means less crime.

If you still think that guns are somehow bad for reducing crime, why not check out a formal academic debate featuring 3 people on each side of the debate?

If you want to know why the Democrat parts of the United States have such high rates of violence, then you need to look at the enormously high out-of-wedlock birth rates in the Democrat parts of the United States. Democrats have no problem with having fatherless children, and they support paying people welfare in order to do it. No wonder they have a crime problem that’s caused by the fatherlessness that is caused by their own values and policies. When Democrats stop paying single mothers money to have fatherless kids, then the crime rates in the Democrat parts of the United States will go down.

Illegal immigrant released by Obama administration sexually assaults 14-year-old girl

Should Keane Dean get amnesty?
Illegal immigrant Keane Dean

This story is in the radically leftist Los Angeles Times, of all places.

Excerpt:

A convicted sex offender charged last week with sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl in Santa Clarita is in the country illegally and had recently been released on bail from immigration custody, according to federal authorities.

Keane Dean, 26, a citizen of the Philippines, was released in April on $10,000 bond so he could be free while he contested his immigration case. He had been targeted for deportation because of his criminal record.

The 14-year-old girl, who was found in Dean’s garage, told investigators that Dean befriended her at a grocery store the previous day, according to the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department.

Dean has been charged with two counts of child sexual abuse and is being held in lieu of $110,000 bail.

This was not his first offence:

In March 2014, Dean was caught inappropriately touching himself inside a Macy’s department store and was banned from the Glendale Galleria for three years. He was sentenced to six months in state prison for indecent exposure and 16 months for burglary, to be served concurrently, a district attorney’s spokesman said.

Dean also has a 2008 conviction for lewd conduct in public.

There are interesting quotes in the articles from people who agree with giving detainees “bond hearings” where they can be released if they post bond.

[…]Dean was released April 29 after posting $10,000 bond.

A Democrat appointed judge named Kim Wardlaw said this about the bond hearings:

“This injunction will not flood our streets with fearsome criminals seeking to escape the force of American immigration law,” Judge Kim Wardlaw of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals wrote in an April 2013 opinion affirming the need for the bond hearings.

This is Kim Wardlaw:

Justice Kim Wardlaw, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
Justice Kim Wardlaw, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

Before she was appointed by Bill Clinton, she volunteered to help his presidential campaign in California in 1991-1992. She later served on the Clinton-Gore presidential transition team. A few years later she was appointed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which many regard as the most liberal appeals court in the United States. She is a Democrat.

Now let’s move to a second case.

Do you remember how Obama is always talking about his DREAMers? These are children of illegal immigrants who got a blanket amnesty from Obama.

Breitbart News reports on another case. This time, a 10-year-old boy was tortured and murdered by an illegal immigrant.

Excerpt:

At a Tuesday Senate hearing dedicated to the families who lost loved ones thanks to illegal aliens, Laura Wilkerson gave testimony on her youngest son Joshua’s horrific death while some in the silent audience wept.

[…]“This was our family’s 9/11 terrorist attack by a foreign invader,” she said at the most pivotal point in her testimony. “It is going to take another life lost by a Senator, a Congressman, the President, even another of today’s heroes, someone from Hollywood before someone in a position moves on this.”

“My son’s name was Joshua Wilkerson,” she began. “On November 16, 2010, he was beaten, strangled, tortured until he died. He was tied up, thrown in a field, and set on fire. His killer, Hermilo Moralez, was brought here illegally by his illegal parents when he was ten years old, so he fit the ‘DREAM’ kid description. He was sentenced to life in prison, which means it will be 30 years before he’s up for parole. He’ll be a 49-year-old man, who I don’t expect to be deported. And I just hope he doesn’t come to live in your city.”

[…]Wilkerson read aloud portions of the gut-wrenching autopsy: “‘This body is received in a grey body bag. There’s a tag on his toe that bears the name, Joshua Wilkerson. This is a white male weighing a hundred pounds. He is tied up with braided rope — 13 loops around his neck in a slipknot. It goes behind his back through his back belt loop. It goes to his hands and his feet, behind his body. He has multiple fractures in his face and nasal cavity. His throat and his voicebox are crushed.’”

Wilkerson took a deep breath and continued, looking at the senators before her with a steady gaze. “He was kicked so hard in the stomach that it sent his spleen into his spine, and sliced it in two… The medical examiner said it was torture.”

She went on to attack the sanctuary cities which are supported by Democrats, and in particular, by Hillary Clinton.

I think the part in bold is interesting – about how nothing will change until someone famous and powerful is a victim of an illegal immigrant.

One of my favorite authors, British psychiatrist Theodore Dalrymple, makes the point often that the effects of “compassionate” laws made by rich leftists are never felt by the rich leftists themselves. The leftists are insulated from the effects of their own laws. They live in gated communities where they don’t have to worry about being the victims of crime. The rich leftists pass these laws to feel generous without actually having to give away anything of their own. But the people who do feel the effects of these laws are the people in the lower classes. The poor people, who have to live with the laws and policies passed by rich leftists seeking to feel superior. And so, because the rich leftists need to feel compassionate and superior, we get victims like that 14-year-old girl, and like that 10-year-old boy.

UPDATE: The Obama administration on victims of crime committed by illegal immigrants:

The White House vowed Thursday to veto a bill to punish sanctuary cities, instead calling on Congress to legalize illegal immigrants as the way to solve the problem of criminals who shouldn’t be on the streets.

The threat came just hours before the House was expected to pass a bill that would withhold money from states or localities that don’t abide by a federal law that requires them to cooperate when federal immigration authorities request help identifying illegal immigrants.

It’s no problem. As long as it’s your kids, and not their kids. Because the important thing is that they feel good, and get the votes from their special interest groups.

Illegal immigrants released by ICE into U.S. commit murder

He's better at golf than foreign policy
He’s better at golf than border security

The leftist Washington Post has a decent article on illegal immigration. Let’s take a look at the numbers to see how many illegal immigrants are released by the Obama administration inside the United States, and then go on to commit serious crimes.

Excerpt:

It got little notice, but on May 28, Sarah Saldana, director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, admitted in a letter to Sens. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) that between fiscal years 2010 and 2014, the Obama administration had released “121 unique criminal aliens who had an active [deportation] case at the time of release and were subsequently charged with homicide-related offenses.”

Think about that: 121 times over the past four years, the administration has released an illegal immigrant with prior criminal convictions who went on to be charged with murder. That is one every 12 days.

Now just think about that for a minute. Think about the fact that taxpayers are paying government workers in ICE to enforce the laws, and the government is refusing to enforce the laws, which then get the taxpayers murdered. Murdered!

How much contempt must the Democrats have for us, that they consider 121 Americans expendable for their pro-amnesty policies? We pay their salaries!

Here’s an example:

In one case, an illegal immigrant and felon named Apolinar Altamirano allegedly gunned down a 21-year-old Arizona convenience store clerk, Grant Ronnebeck, over a pack of cigarettes. Altamirano had been convicted of felony burglary and was in the middle of deportation proceedings. But ICE released him after he posted a $10,000 bond — which allowed him to allegedly go kill an innocent young man. Asked by Sens. Flake and Grassley whether she had notified state and local authorities when Altamirano was released, Saldana replied, “ICE does not routinely notify local authorities when a detainee is released on bond from ICE custody.”

Sex offenders, too:

ICE also does not routinely notify local authorities when it releases illegal immigrants who are sex offenders. Last month, a Boston Globe investigation found that between 2008 and 2012, ICE released 424 sex offenders into communities across the country — including “convicted rapists, child molesters and kidnappers” — and that “immigration officials have released them without making sure they register with local authorities as sex offenders.” The paper further found that “At least 34 of the 424 released sex offenders . . . were back in jail as of last month, state records show, some for heinous crimes committed after ICE released them.”

Here is the total number for all convictions of illegal immigrants who were released:

In 2013, the Obama administration released 36,007 illegal immigrants with criminal convictions — 1,000 of whom were subsequently convicted of other crimes after their release. Last year they released 30,558 such immigrants. According to the House Judiciary Committee, only 8 percent of those were due to the Supreme Court’s decision in Zadvydas v. Davis, which requires that illegal immigrants be released after 180 days if their home countries won’t take them back. The other 92 percent were released because of Obama’s policies.

The Democrats take a soft stance on crime in general, but they especially soft on illegal immigration. And it is very clear that there is a cost for this laxity – innocent Americans are suffering as a result of this lack of seriousness about the law. The mainstream media and the Democrat politicians don’t make a big deal out of these victims, because they are not useful victims. They are taxpayers. And the criminals who commit these crimes are not the right kind of criminal. They are illegal immigrants. That’s why this is being hushed up.

Previously, I blogged about the crime rates for illegal immigrants in general, and as you might expect, the rates are higher than for the general public.

Are illegal immigrants more likely to commit crimes than the general public?

Kathryn Steinle was murdered by an illegal immigrant.
Kathryn Steinle was murdered by an illegal immigrant.

So we had a case in the news where an illegal immigrant who had been arrested and deported numerous times was allowed to stay in the U.S. thanks to San Francisco’s very Democrat “sanctuary city” policy. All the people running for the Democrat presidential nomination support sanctuary cities, and amnesty for illegal immigrants as well. But how do these policies affect American taxpayers?

Breitbart News has the numbers from the U.S. Sentencing Commission.

Excerpt:

While illegal immigrants account for about 3.5 percent of the U.S population, they represented 36.7 percent of federal sentences in FY 2014 following criminal convictions, according to U.S. Sentencing Commission data obtained by Breitbart News.

According to FY 2014 USSC data, of 74,911 sentencing cases, citizens accounted for 43,479 (or 58.0 percent), illegal immigrants accounted for 27,505 (or 36.7 percent), legal immigrants made up 3,017 (or 4.0 percent), and the remainder (about 1 percent) were cases in which the offender was either extradited or had an unknown status.

Broken down by some of the primary offenses, illegal immigrants represented 16.8 percent of drug trafficking cases, 20.0 percent of kidnapping/hostage taking, 74.1 percent of drug possession, 12.3 percent of money laundering, and 12.0 percent of murder convictions.

Now a lot of those convictions will be related to immigration… what happens when we take those out?

The sentencing rate is still higher than normal:

Eliminating all immigration violations, illegal immigrants would account for 13.6 percent of all the offenders sentenced in FY14 following federal criminal convictions — still greater than the 3.5 percent of the population illegal immigrants are said to make up.

All that crime is not only dangerous and expensive, but we have to pay for the fails and law enforcement to catch them, too. Now, let’s review Hillary Clinton’s views on illegal immigration.

The Washington Times reports that she favors amnesty:

Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton vowed Tuesday that if elected, she would try to expand President Obama’s deportation amnesty to more illegal immigrants, saying this administration has left out a number of aliens who deserve to be granted legal status.

Speaking in Las Vegas at a Cinco de Mayo meeting focused on immigration, Mrs. Clinton also called for granting attorneys to illegal immigrants facing the complex immigration system, and said she would like to re-examine detention to ensure more illegal immigrants are released as they await deportation.

Mrs. Clinton delivered on just about every question from immigrant rights activists, who had been pressing her to reject Mr. Obama’s detention policies and go beyond his amnesty.

The Daily Caller reminds us that she also supports sanctuary cities:

Clinton last weighed in publicly on sanctuary cities during the 2008 presidential campaign.

“You would allow the sanctuary cities to disobey the federal law?” Clinton was asked by Tim Russert during a Sept. 6, 2007, debate at Dartmouth College.

“Well, I don’t think there is any choice,” she responded.

Clinton said she backed the sanctuary city concept because without it, illegal immigrants refuse to cooperate with police because they are afraid of being deported.

“Local law enforcement has a different job than federal immigration enforcement,” Clinton said. “The problem is the federal government has totally abdicated its responsibility.”

Clinton again expressed her support for sanctuary cities in a 2008 interview with Fox’s Bill O’Reilly.

“Are you going to crack down on the sanctuary cities?” O’Reilly asked.

“No, I’m not,” Clinton said, eliciting a shocked response from the host.

I’m all for more skilled immigration, but that’s not what is happening on our southern border. If Hillary becomes president, that situation will only get worse.