Category Archives: Gun Control

quite possibly the most racist article you’ll ever read…

Repost from another blog/friend.  Thanks because this about sums it up (making exceptions where exceptions are due).

Still liberal after all these years.

I am a public defender in a large southern metropolitan area. Fewer than ten percent of the people in the area I serve are black but over 90 per cent of my clients are black. The remaining ten percent are mainly Hispanics but there are a few whites.

I have explanation for why this is, but crime has racial patterns. Hispanics usually commit two kinds of crime: sexual assault on children and driving under the influence. Blacks commit many violent crimes but very few sex crimes. The handful of whites I see commit all kinds of crimes. In my many years as a public defender I have represented only three Asians, and one was half black.

As a young lawyer, I believed the official story that blacks are law abiding, intelligent, family-oriented people, but are so poor they must turn to crime to survive. Actual black behavior was a shock to me.

The media invariably sugarcoat black behavior. Even the news reports of the very crimes I dealt with in court were slanted. Television news intentionally leaves out unflattering facts about the accused, and sometimes omits names that are obviously black. All this rocked my liberal, tolerant beliefs, but it took me years to set aside my illusions and accept the reality of what I see every day. I have now served thousands of blacks and their families, protecting their rights and defending them in court. What follow are my observations.

Although blacks are only a small percentage of our community, the courthouse is filled with them: the halls and gallery benches are overflowing with black defendants, families, and crime victims. Most whites with business in court arrive quietly, dress appropriately, and keep their heads down. They get in and get out–if they can–as fast as they can. For blacks, the courthouse is like a carnival. They all seem to know each other: hundreds and hundreds each day, gossiping, laughing loudly, waving, and crowding the halls.

When I am appointed to represent a client I introduce myself and explain that I am his lawyer. I explain the court process and my role in it, and I ask the client some basic questions about himself. At this stage, I can tell with great accuracy how people will react. Hispanics are extremely polite and deferential. An Hispanic will never call me by my first name and will answer my questions directly and with appropriate respect for my position. Whites are similarly respectful.

A black man will never call me Mr. Smith; I am always “Mike.” It is not unusual for a 19-year-old black to refer to me as “dog.” A black may mumble complaints about everything I say, and roll his eyes when I politely interrupt so I can continue with my explanation. Also, everything I say to blacks must be at about the third-grade level. If I slip and use adult language, they get angry because they think I am flaunting my superiority.

At the early stages of a case, I explain the process to my clients. I often do not yet have the information in the police reports. Blacks are unable to understand that I do not yet have answers to all of their questions, but that I will by a certain date. They live in the here and the now and are unable to wait for anything. Usually, by the second meeting with the client I have most of the police reports and understand their case.

Unlike people of other races, blacks never see their lawyer as someone who is there to help them. I am a part of the system against which they are waging war. They often explode with anger at me and are quick to blame me for anything that goes wrong in their case.

Black men often try to trip me up and challenge my knowledge of the law or the facts of the case. I appreciate sincere questions about the elements of the offense or the sentencing guidelines, but blacks ask questions to test me. Unfortunately, they are almost always wrong in their reading, or understanding, of the law, and this can cause friction. I may repeatedly explain the law, and provide copies of the statute showing, for example, why my client must serve six years if convicted, but he continues to believe that a hand-written note from his “cellie” is controlling law.

The risks of trial
The Constitution allows a defendant to make three crucial decisions in his case. He decides whether to plea guilty or not guilty. He decides whether to have a bench trial or a jury trial. He decides whether he will testify or whether he will remain silent. A client who insists on testifying is almost always making a terrible mistake, but I cannot stop him.

Most blacks are unable to speak English well. They cannot conjugate verbs. They have a poor grasp of verb tenses. They have a limited vocabulary. They cannot speak without swearing. They often become hostile on the stand. Many, when they testify, show a complete lack of empathy and are unable to conceal a morality based on the satisfaction of immediate, base needs. This is a disaster, especially in a jury trial. Most jurors are white, and are appalled by the demeanor of uneducated, criminal blacks.

Prosecutors are delighted when a black defendant takes the stand. It is like shooting fish in a barrel. However, the defense usually gets to cross-examine the black victim, who is likely to make just as bad an impression on the stand as the defendant. This is an invaluable gift to the defense, because jurors may not convict a defendant—even if they think he is guilty—if they dislike the victim even more than they dislike the defendant.

Most criminal cases do not go to trial. Often the evidence against the accused is overwhelming, and the chances of conviction are high. The defendant is better off with a plea bargain: pleading guilty to a lesser charge and getting a lighter sentence.

The decision to plea to a lesser charge turns on the strength of the evidence. When blacks ask the ultimate question—”Will we win at trial?”—I tell them I cannot know, but I then describe the strengths and weaknesses of our case. The weaknesses are usually obvious: There are five eyewitnesses against you. Or, you made a confession to both the detective and your grandmother. They found you in possession of a pink cell phone with a case that has rhinestones spelling the name of the victim of the robbery. There is a video of the murderer wearing the same shirt you were wearing when you were arrested, which has the words “In Da Houz” on the back, not to mention you have the same “RIP Pookie 7/4/12” tattoo on your neck as the man in the video. Etc.

If you tell a black man that the evidence is very harmful to his case, he will blame you. “You ain’t workin’ fo’ me.” “It like you workin’ with da State.” Every public defender hears this. The more you try to explain the evidence to a black man, the angrier he gets. It is my firm belief many black are unable to discuss the evidence against them rationally because they cannot view things from the perspective of others. They simply cannot understand how the facts in the case will appear to a jury.

This inability to see things from someone else’s perspective helps explain why there are so many black criminals. They do not understand the pain they are inflicting on others. One of my robbery clients is a good example. He and two co-defendants walked into a small store run by two young women. All three men were wearing masks. They drew handguns and ordered the women into a back room. One man beat a girl with his gun. The second man stood over the second girl while the third man emptied the cash register. All of this was on video.

My client was the one who beat the girl. When he asked me, “What are our chances at trial?” I said, “Not so good.” He immediately got angry, raised his voice, and accused me of working with the prosecution. I asked him how he thought a jury would react to the video. “They don’t care,” he said. I told him the jury would probably feel deeply sympathetic towards these two women and would be angry at him because of how he treated them. I asked him whether he felt bad for the women he had beaten and terrorized. He told me what I suspected—what too many blacks say about the suffering of others: “What do I care? She ain’t me. She ain’t kin. Don’t even know her.”

No fathers
As a public defender, I have learned many things about people. One is that defendants do not have fathers. If a black even knows the name of his father, he knows of him only as a shadowy person with whom he has absolutely no ties. When a client is sentenced, I often beg for mercy on the grounds that the defendant did not have a father and never had a chance in life. I have often tracked down the man’s father–in jail–and have brought him to the sentencing hearing to testify that he never knew his son and never lifted a finger to help him. Often, this is the first time my client has ever met his father. These meetings are utterly unemotional.

Many black defendants don’t even have mothers who care about them. Many are raised by grandmothers after the state removes the children from an incompetent teenaged mother. Many of these mothers and grandmothers are mentally unstable, and are completely disconnected from the realities they face in court and in life. A 47-year-old grandmother will deny that her grandson has gang ties even though his forehead is tattooed with a gang sign or slogan. When I point this out in as kind and understanding way as I can, she screams at me. When black women start screaming, they invoke the name of Jesus and shout swear words in the same breath.

Black women have great faith in God, but they have a twisted understanding of His role. They do not pray for strength or courage. They pray for results: the satisfaction of immediate needs. One of my clients was a black woman who prayed in a circle with her accomplices for God’s protection from the police before they would set out to commit a robbery.
The mothers and grandmothers pray in the hallways–not for justice, but for acquittal. When I explain that the evidence that their beloved child murdered the shop keeper is overwhelming, and that he should accept the very fair plea bargain I have negotiated, they will tell me that he is going to trial and will “ride with the Lord.” They tell me they speak to God every day and He assures them that the young man will be acquitted.

The mothers and grandmothers do not seem to be able to imagine and understand the consequences of going to trial and losing. Some–and this is a shocking reality it took me a long time to grasp–don’t really care what happens to the client, but want to make it look as though they care. This means pounding their chests in righteous indignation, and insisting on going to trial despite terrible evidence. They refuse to listen to the one person–me–who has the knowledge to make the best recommendation. These people soon lose interest in the case, and stop showing up after about the third or fourth court date. It is then easier for me to convince the client to act in his own best interests and accept a plea agreement.

Part of the problem is that underclass black women begin having babies at age 15. They continue to have babies, with different black men, until they have had five or six. These women do not go to school. They do not work. They are not ashamed to live on public money. They plan their entire lives around the expectation that they will always get free money and never have to work. I do not see this among whites, Hispanics, or any other people.

The black men who become my clients also do not work. They get social security disability payments for a mental defect or for a vague and invisible physical ailment. They do not pay for anything: not for housing (Grandma lives on welfare and he lives with her), not for food (Grandma and the baby-momma share with him), and not for child support. When I learn that my 19-year-old defendant does not work or go to school, I ask, “What do you do all day?” He smiles. “You know, just chill.” These men live in a culture with no expectations, no demands, and no shame.

If you tell a black to dress properly for trial, and don’t give specific instructions, he will arrive in wildly inappropriate clothes. I represented a woman who was on trial for drugs; she wore a baseball cap with a marijuana leaf embroidered on it. I represented a man who wore a shirt that read “rules are for suckers” to his probation hearing. Our office provides suits, shirts, ties, and dresses for clients to wear for jury trials. Often, it takes a whole team of lawyers to persuade a black to wear a shirt and tie instead of gang colors.

From time to time the media report that although blacks are 12 percent of the population they are 40 percent of the prison population. This is supposed to be an outrage that results from unfair treatment by the criminal justice system. What the media only hint at is another staggering reality: recidivism. Black men are arrested and convicted over and over. It is typical for a black man to have five felony convictions before the age of 30. This kind of record is rare among whites and Hispanics, and probably even rarer among Asians.

At one time our office was looking for a motto that defined our philosophy. Someone joked that it should be: “Doesn’t everyone deserve an eleventh chance?”

I am a liberal. I believe that those of us who are able to produce abundance have a moral duty to provide basic food, shelter, and medical care for those who cannot care for themselves. I believe we have this duty even to those who can care for themselves but don’t. This world view requires compassion and a willingness to act on it.

My experience has taught me that we live in a nation in which a jury is more likely to convict a black defendant who has committed a crime against a white. Even the dullest of blacks know this. There would be a lot more black-on-white crime if this were not the case.

However, my experience has also taught me that blacks are different by almost any measure to all other people. They cannot reason as well. They cannot communicate as well. They cannot control their impulses as well. They are a threat to all who cross their paths, black and non-black alike.

I do not know the solution to this problem. I do know that it is wrong to deceive the public. Whatever solutions we seek should be based on the truth rather than what we would prefer was the truth. As for myself, I will continue do my duty to protect the rights of all who need me.


Piers and gun control… my answer to the repeated resurection of tragic events.

I posted a response to a friends post… here is their post (and vid) and my commentary (yes, it reaches novella proportions and I was just getting warmed up lol)  I’m a linear thinker – logic, a followed by b, facts actually have to be based on facts… anyway, here goes;

OTHER POST: That is just what The British Redcoat and USA hater Piers Morgan does not want to happen.

Piers Morgan wants all women to be the victim with no armed defense and to suffer what a victim may suffer as the criminal attacker desires.
Piers hates all American women and he hates the men who love them. To make it personal, which it is to every unarmed woman.


What the gentleman could have added to his argument and for the azzhats who keep bringing up isolated incidents like Sandy Hook – he should have said:

Piers, while Sandy Hook was a tragic event, it is over.

The fatality numbers are fixed. Done. My point is women are dying every day from rape attempts, home invasions, car jackings, muggings…. Unfortunately, the stats I’m giving are not fixed – people, women, daughters, mothers, wives – are dying every DAY when a gun could have saved their lives.

More importantly a Clinton era survey by 2 anti-gun professors, ADMITS guns are used 1.5 million times a year – quote:

“Applying those restrictions leaves 19 NSPOF respondents (0.8 percent of the sample),
representing 1.5 million defensive users. This estimate is directly comparable to the well-known estimate of Kleck and Gertz, shown in the last column of exhibit 7. While the NSPOF estimate is smaller, it is statistically plausible that the difference is due to sampling error. Inclusion of multiple DGUs reported by half of the 19 NSPOF respondents increases the estimate to 4.7 million DGUs.”

DGU = defensive gun use.

NOTE: I’ve read the report. It goes on to “conclude: the respondents/results were full of “false positives” (also note they don’t give credit for having 2 or more DGU in one year – 2 or more equals one as factored/adjusted below).

They want to insist instead of 1 in 100 incidents – the correct results are ADJ DOWN to 1 in 1800 (18X LESS) – whaddever

if one were to concede their “new math” dumbed down results (and I’m not conceding but I damn sure will do the math and make an observation); 

1 in 1800 still equals 177,700 times a year a gun is used in defense, to thwart a crime, a rape, a child kidnapping, a home invasion….

1 8 0, 0 0 0 times a year a gun is used to PREVENT A VIOLENT CRIME – a very conservative estimate !!

Sandy Hook, Columbine Workers Youth League Norway  – all tragic but FIXED events.  Yes, some nut will get a gun and go on to shoot several, even many people.  But let’s not let the few, outweigh the MANY,  at a minimum – TENS OF THOUSANDS who are SAVED EVERY YEAR because they HAD A GUN.

Throwing out the baby with the bath water?

– btw, Norway has very strict gun laws – a quote (re: ownership requirements):  “Other needs can include special guard duties or self-defense, but the first is rare unless the person shows identification confirming that he or she is a trained guard or member of a law-enforcement agency and the second is practically never accepted as a reason for gun ownership.”

Let’s not forget History – or we’re doomed to repeat;

Remember when DC was named “the murder capital of the world: – when? During a period (1976 until SCOTUS ruling) of strict gun laws.  When the gun ban was overturned, what happened to violent crime rates??
A: dropped over 40% – not a typo, dropped 40%+

excerpt “Since the gun ban was struck down, murders in the District have steadily gone down, from 186 in 2008 to 88 in 2012″

As I verified my position – I found, I must stand corrected;  down 52%.

Yeah, somebody needs to tell piers the how illogical …   …..  ya know, would it matter how many facts he hears?

I’ve found facts don’t seem to matter to liberals – they just change the subject, revive another tragic event and assert it’s PROOF of their position, sitting high upon their throne of superiority – as Pier did when asked if the lady who used her gun in self defense – where she Pier’s wife, would he want her to have a gun for self protection??  (we know the answer – he simply can’t articulate the answer and concede his position).

PIERS, no answer, changed the subject to Sandy Hook.

Final observation for Mr. Piers – what has happened in England since guns were effectively banned? THIS IS IMPORTANT (video)

Note:  The UK has the 2nd highest violent crime rate in the EU!  5th in robbery.  4th in burglary.  And the EU named Britain the MOST VIOLENT COUNTRY IN THE EU!!

Again – Britain has STRICT gun ban.  Gun crimes still happen – albeit at a much lessor rate than USA – I concede that fact.  Now, compare VIOLENT CRIMES, robberies, assaults, burglaries…  Britain exceeds the USA.

Obvious question;  what would happen to the violent crime rate in the USA if guns were banned??  Seriously – think about it folks.  This is not a complex puzzle with a trick answer.

Gun bans are causal. Gun ban = violent crime. This is a logical – no, it is an indisputable conclusion.   There is a direct relationship;  gun bans are causal and proportionate to higher rates of violent crimes.

So what is your preference?  Because I have to ask:  Is being a victim somehow morally superior to defending yourself?  I guess for some liberals it may come down to their being the person in the attic – with their children – while some nut is trying to break down the door – and only having the police dispatcher on the other end of the phone – to “save” them.

Yes, think about it being your wife, your children – or you.  Not trying to be overly dramatic – but I do suffer from reality.  This is not the first home invasion.

Or the last.

Since TM has been in the spotlight, how about a little black on white crime? I don’t want to be racist.

Neighbors at Oak Leaf Village heard gunshots around 4:30 p.m. Sunday. Houston police said there was a home invasion at one of the apartments. Lila Pena’s husband, Javier Ortiz, got out his gun and fatally shot two of the men. “They said ‘the money, the money,’” said Pena.

Pena said her kids witnessed the whole thing, including her oldest child, 7-year-old Fernando Ortiz.

[72 yo] Jan Cooper of Anaheim said she loaded her .357-magnum Smith & Wesson revolver and called 911 when she saw the man jump over her backyard fence and attempt to break into the home through her sliding glass door, KTLA-TV, Los Angeles, reported Wednesday.

“They barged in guns pointed at us screaming get on the ground, where is your money, where is your money. And the next thing I know boom, boom, boom, boom,” said “Big John” who lives in the home and did not want to be identified.

One of the people inside the home fired shots, hitting at least one of the intruders, 24-year-old Aaron Antwan Harris.”

Cuplability – lots of it!

Culpability – GZ, don’t follow, observe and call popo. He got out but didn’t get much further than 100 yrds of his vehicle.

TM = 4 minutes a crazy azz cracker was following him so what does he DO?
1) Call police – No
2) keep walking after he lost GZ and go home? Nope
3) keep walking and go back to the store/public place? No
4) stop and ask why are you following me? Not a chance

5) CALL POLICE?  Hang up with that idiot friend and call POLICE?!  If TM was such a scared little boy he’d have called the POLICE (so what if this were a few month later and TM was 18 wth, he was over SIX feet tall and 174 pounds of street fighting FIT).

Had TM called police since he was such a scared little boy *cough*, the dispatcher would have said – oh, I have that crazy azz cracker on the other line, I’ll tell him to leave you alone so you can go home w/o incident.

Culpability – plenty to go around but the bottom line is – what happened the 4 minutes after GZ said I lost him (“pursuit/stalking” ended,  all within 100 yards of GZ vehicle).

oh yeah, I’M GUILTY of PROFILING TOO. Every time I come into my neighborhood, go to the store parking lot, go into a store. go to my friend’s homes…. every time I’m in line somewhere I am looking for anything that doesn’t belong;
a van
a car
a truck
a PERSON – and you don’t have to be black to get my attention.

jus sayin.

GZ should sue FLA prosecutors for Civil Rights Violations!

Is this any shock – the prosecution had to give up important evidence because a whistle blower spoke up – now the whistle blower has been FIRED from the prosecutor’s office.

“The special prosecutor appointed to the George Zimmerman case has sacked a whistle-blowing colleague who testified at the trial that the state attorney’s office failed to comply with the rules of discovery.

Ben Kruidbos, the state attorney’s office IT director, was reportedly fired in the wake of rendering testimony during a June 6 hearing that was potentially damaging to the prosecution regarding cell phone photos and text messages discovered on Trayvon Martin’s phone that were not  furnished to defense attorneys.”

What was so damning to the states narrative that TM was a sweet little boy, a child in fact??

“The cell phone photos reportedly depict, among other things, a clump of jewelry on a bed, underage nude females, marijuana plants, as well as a hand menacingly holding a semiautomatic pistol.”

Not mentioned – pics of TM street fights where he participated and refereed!!  Poor little man-child TM was in fact, a street fighting T H U G.  He’d been caught with burglary tools, drugs, etc.

So I’m clear – I am NOT a fan of vilifying a victim to try and get someone off (ex: rape cases).  This case was a case about self-defense and while the prosecution would have you believe GZ was twice TM size, have you believe GZ was some MMA fighter, that GZ ran down TM and was 100% culpable – thank the good Lord the jury saw the truth.

BTW fla prosecutors – you are FUGGED.  You lied cheated and held back evidence – YOU should be the ones going to JAIL and I hope you receive the same justice you tried to dish out.

FUGGIN unbelievable that our “justice system” operates this way.

and BTW, I posted BO would only come out AFTER the verdict (if at all).  As expected the azzhat waited a day to see if riots would break out so the anointed BO could come out and “calm the nation” and save the day.  What a crock of shit.  BO is trying for a race war… oh well BO, back to the drawing board… 

Riots R US Zimmerman trial

Riots R US Zimmerman trial

It is clear to anyone with half a brain GZimmerman should not have been charged with any crime.  His face was bashed in, a neighbor standing right there testifies TM beating GZ, other neighbor says screams are GZ, and on and on and on…

And there is BO sticking his nose into yet another local issue to comment – “If I had a son he’d look like TM”.

HEY BO – will you come out in ADVANCE of the jury and say – No matter what the verdict is, we are a nation of laws – I call for NO rioting and if you do riot, you will be arrested and prosecuted to the FULLEST EXTENT of the law”.  BO should call the Rev goon squad and tell them – do NOT go stir the pot.  Stay home and shut the fuck up OR if you go on TV, call for CALM because the days of LYNCHING are long gone.

I know this – all my mags are fully loaded and I will stay home as much as possible to avoid the stupidity we’ll see in the streets when GZ is found not guilty of MURDER.   WTH…  murder charge !?

Oh I know why – BO has been clamoring for a race war since his election (make the rich pay their fair share, TM would look like my son, the beer summit, etc).

So I expect BO to be silent so the jackboots/Dept of no home security can try out their new urban assault vehicles and “PDWs” (a PDW is a personal defense weapon = a fully auto AR-15 which is not an “ASSAULT WEAPON” for some reason when the govt is behind the sights).

If you live in a big city – buy a few days of provisions or better, take a few days off work.  If I were on the jury, I’d wait till Monday to announce the only reasonable result – not guilty – to keep the rioting to a minimum. 

God bless and watch your back.