Category Archives: Criminal Injustice

Drug-War Goons Gun Down Granny

Criminal Injustice, Drug War, Private Property

It goes without saying that the late Kathryn Johnston, a heroic 92-year-old pistol packing Atlanta resident, had every right and reason to open fire on the goons who were in the process of breaking down her front door. But they were the law, so they shot her dead.

Armed to the teeth, wearing bulletproof riot vests, and carrying riot shields, these big, “brave” men killed a very old lady in her own home. She was armed with a “rusty old revolver,” meant to repel the neighborhood rapists and drug dealers.

The goons have backup. Although neighbors say Miss Johnston lived alone, the Assistant Chief of the Atlanta Police Department and the County district attorney are claiming their “undercover officers bought illegal drugs from a man at the house in the afternoon and the officers returned in the evening to execute a ‘no knock’ warrant, which is used in cases where officers believe that a suspect may have time to hide evidence or escape if given time to answer the door…”

According to FMNN columnist, Radley Balko

a ‘no-knock’ raid occurs when police forcibly enter a private residence without first knocking and announcing that they’re the police. These raids are often launched on tips from notoriously unreliable confidential informants. Rubber-stamp judges, dicey informants, and aggressive policing have thus given rise to the countless examples of ‘wrong door’ raids we read about in the news. In fact, there’s a disturbingly long list of completely innocent people who’ve been killed in ‘wrong door’ raids.
No-knock raids are typically carried out by masked, heavily armed SWAT teams using paramilitary tactics more appropriate for the battlefield than the living room. No-knock raids have been justified on the flimsiest of reasons, including that the suspect was a licensed, registered gun owner (NRA, take note!)

Basically, the protocol followed is for the police to announce themselves, wait a couple of seconds, and then force the door. Imagine how scared and confused a 92-year-old woman would have been. She probably knew nothing about the “no-knock” abomination and failed to spot the “comforting” sight of the marked patrol car in front of the home she thought was her castle, but was in fact the government’s.

O.J.’s Manual For Murder

Crime, Criminal Injustice, Media, The Zeitgeist

What a performative contradiction: cable’s point men and women have been contorting like Cirque du Soleil contortionists because of the despicable antics of HarperCollins publisher, Judith Regan, in publishing the sociopathic rants of the killer, O.J. Simpson. Yet they’re all giving this uninteresting, idiotic development time—almost as much time as they devote to the bubblehead with the double chin and chubby cheeks, Britney Spears.

From an impassioned interview Mark Fuhrman gave Hannity & Comles, it transpired that Allan Colmes is a pretty weird gnome; he believes O.J. is innocent, and has written as much in his “book.” On the program, Colmes attacked Fuhrman furiously.

I admire Fuhrman. He did his job and was slimed for it. He then bootstrapped his way back into so-called polite company. There is something utterly revolting about a liberal who, bereft of an argument, reaches for his standard stock-in-trade: accusations of racism. Colmes threw everything but the kitchen sink at a guest who’d come on to speak about this latest low in the American publishing world—a How-To instructional by a murderer—because he had investigated the case.

Fuhrman told the two talking heads, whose books Regan has published, that he would no longer be dealing with said publisher. Needless to say, the two hosts did not join Fuhrman in a show of principle.

What was also of interest was Hannity’s contaminated perspective. Conservatives have absorbed the therapeutic idiom completely. Hannity expressed the view that O.J. was consumed by guilt—could no longer contain the remorse, and was using a book as a confessional. He, Hannity, wanted closure too.

My God. I don’t know if there’s anything that disgusts me more than this meaningless, immoral mumbo-jumbo. Fuhrman, far more intelligent than his hosts, tried to explain to both about the nature of evil. There are people in this world, O.J. being one such specimen, who can kill another human being (or a couple), and then pop into KFC for some chicken, he said. Murder is nothing to them. (At this stage, Rumpelstiltskin intensified the racism accusations, because of the mention of KFC. Don’t ask me why.)

Neither one of these gents got it. The root-causes rot runs too deep in both. As for publisher Regan, she says, “What I wanted was closure, not money.” Since when is every self-appointed proxy of pain in a position to seek closure (whatever that means) for pain she has not sustained?

The only two people who have the moral authority to forgive this monster have been dead for a decade, their throats slit from ear to ear. (There’s more here. Send these on to Judith Regan so she can have “closure.”)

O.J.'s Manual For Murder

Crime, Criminal Injustice, Media, The Zeitgeist

What a performative contradiction: cable’s point men and women have been contorting like Cirque du Soleil contortionists because of the despicable antics of HarperCollins publisher, Judith Regan, in publishing the sociopathic rants of the killer, O.J. Simpson. Yet they’re all giving this uninteresting, idiotic development time—almost as much time as they devote to the bubblehead with the double chin and chubby cheeks, Britney Spears.

From an impassioned interview Mark Fuhrman gave Hannity & Comles, it transpired that Allan Colmes is a pretty weird gnome; he believes O.J. is innocent, and has written as much in his “book.” On the program, Colmes attacked Fuhrman furiously.

I admire Fuhrman. He did his job and was slimed for it. He then bootstrapped his way back into so-called polite company. There is something utterly revolting about a liberal who, bereft of an argument, reaches for his standard stock-in-trade: accusations of racism. Colmes threw everything but the kitchen sink at a guest who’d come on to speak about this latest low in the American publishing world—a How-To instructional by a murderer—because he had investigated the case.

Fuhrman told the two talking heads, whose books Regan has published, that he would no longer be dealing with said publisher. Needless to say, the two hosts did not join Fuhrman in a show of principle.

What was also of interest was Hannity’s contaminated perspective. Conservatives have absorbed the therapeutic idiom completely. Hannity expressed the view that O.J. was consumed by guilt—could no longer contain the remorse, and was using a book as a confessional. He, Hannity, wanted closure too.

My God. I don’t know if there’s anything that disgusts me more than this meaningless, immoral mumbo-jumbo. Fuhrman, far more intelligent than his hosts, tried to explain to both about the nature of evil. There are people in this world, O.J. being one such specimen, who can kill another human being (or a couple), and then pop into KFC for some chicken, he said. Murder is nothing to them. (At this stage, Rumpelstiltskin intensified the racism accusations, because of the mention of KFC. Don’t ask me why.)

Neither one of these gents got it. The root-causes rot runs too deep in both. As for publisher Regan, she says, “What I wanted was closure, not money.” Since when is every self-appointed proxy of pain in a position to seek closure (whatever that means) for pain she has not sustained?

The only two people who have the moral authority to forgive this monster have been dead for a decade, their throats slit from ear to ear. (There’s more here. Send these on to Judith Regan so she can have “closure.”)

Letter of the Week: A Note from Bobby, Terri Schiavo’s Brother

Conservatism, Criminal Injustice, Ethics, Justice, Law, Morality, Natural Law

Dear Ms. Mercer,

I wanted to sincerely thank you for your column regarding my sister Terri.

It seems to me that many of our conservatives brethren began their exodus when the media made it their mission to justify Terri’s death by misreporting the autopsy report, which by the way, was prejudiced in order to avoid any legal ramifications.

I firmly believe that the jaundiced autopsy results have been and are still being erroneously reported by our popular media as a reason to negatively influence the constituents of those politicians that supported my family’s efforts to help my sister. As a result, it seems to me that no one in Washington had/has the courage to make the point that regardless of someone’s condition, intentionally killing an innocent disabled person, guilty of nothing more than becoming an inconvenience, is intolerable.

However, as you pointed out so eloquently in your column, Terri’s condition (or the autopsy results) should have made no difference in the decision to kill my sister, particularly when so much uncertainly existed in regards to her “wishes”. Not to mention Terri’s suspicious collapse.

It truly was unfortunate that many of our “friends” in Congress were duped by the deliberate inaccurate reporting of Terri’s autopsy and went voiceless when Terri’s issue became an election topic. Just as frustrating, however, was many of your media colleagues also went silent when at one time they were very supportive of Terri and our family. Their silence served to exacerbate the horrible injustice that was endured by my sister.

We all need to recognize that what happened to Terri was happening for many years prior to her death and continues everyday across our nation.

Sincerely,
Bobby Schindler
Terri Schindler Schiavo Foundation
5562 Central Avenue, Suite 2
St. Petersburg, FL 33707
727-490-7603
www.terrisfight.org