Tag Archives: crime

Iran Set to Execute 18-Year-Old on False Charge of Sodomy

An 18-year-old Iranian is facing imminent execution on charges of homosexuality, even though he has no legal representation. Ebrahim Hamidi, who is not gay, was sentenced to death for lavat, or sodomy, on the basis of “judge's knowledge”, a legal loophole that allows for subjective judicial rulings where there is no conclusive evidence. Hamidi had been represented by human rights lawyer Mohammad Mostafaei, who has since been forced to flee Iran after bringing to international attention the case of another of his clients, Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, a 43-year-old Iranian mother of two who has been sentenced to death by stoning for adultery. Mostafaei was due to arrive in Norway yesterday to begin a life in exile while continuing his campaigns on behalf of his clients, including Hamidi. At the same time, human rights activist Peter Tatchell has written to the foreign secretary, William Hague, urging him to contact the chief justice of Iran and ask that the execution be halted. “Ebrahim's case is evidence that innocent heterosexual people can be sentenced to death on false charges of homosexuality [in Iran],” said Tatchell, co-founder of the London-based gay rights group OutRage. Hamidi was arrested two years ago in the suburbs of the western city of Tabriz in the East Azerbaijan province after a fight with members of another family. Three of his friends were also involved in the incident and were subsequently arrested. Later, the four were accused of homosexual assault on a man and of attempting to abuse him sexually. A person convicted of homosexuality in Iran can be lashed, hanged or stoned to death. The law includes a variety of penalties for different acts: 99 lashes if two unrelated males sleep “unnecessarily” under the same blanket – even without any sexual contact. A boy raped by an adult man would also be lashed if the court decided that he had “enjoyed” the experience. After three days in detention, Hamidi confessed to the crime, allegedly under torture. The other three were cleared of all charges when promised by officials that they would be freed if they testified against Hamidi. added by: Omnomynous

ABC’s Sawyer Paints Ft. Hood’s Nidal Hasan as Just ‘Another Worker with a Gun and a Grudge’

Opening Tuesday’s World News with the workplace shooting in Manchester, Connecticut, anchor Diane Sawyer saw it as one in a long line of incidents involving a “worker with a gun and grudge” as she described the nine killed as “the worst rampage since 13 were killed last November at Fort Hood, Texas.” Army Major Nidal Hasan’s business cards identified him as a “Soldier of Allah” and his actions at Fort Hood, clearly motivated by Islamic jihadism, hardly fits in the same category as an  aggrieved worker with a gun who has gone on a rampage. Nonetheless, Sawyer’s led the August 3 newscast: Good evening. Another American tragedy tonight, another worker with a gun and a grudge. This time, nine people are dead, the worst rampage since 13 were killed last November at Fort Hood, Texas. In the normally quiet down of Manchester, Connecticut, this morning one shift was letting off, another was starting the day at a beer distribution center.

Here is the original post:
ABC’s Sawyer Paints Ft. Hood’s Nidal Hasan as Just ‘Another Worker with a Gun and a Grudge’

Sen. David Vitter Jokes That Rachel Maddow Doesn’t Look Like a Woman, Apologizes [Bad Jokes]

Sen. David Vitter ‘s unforced lady-related issues continue! The Louisianan, who had affairs with prostitutes and employed a “women’s issues” aide who knifed women, joked on the radio today about how Rachel Maddow looks like a dude. Yes, he’s apologizing. More

The Art of Trolling: Inside a 4chan Smear Campaign [Trolls]

Last night, the users of 4Chan.org’s notorious /b/ message board declared war on the lead singer of an obscure electro-pop band. More than 12 hours later, they’re still waging it. This is how the Internet’s worst trolls work. More

Killer of Five Children Executed in Ohio; AP Story Allows Half-Truths and Untruths to Live On

In October 2007, I put up a BizzyBlog post (also cross-posted at the Cleveland Plain Dealer’s short-lived Wide Open Blog ) about William Garner (pictured at right), the Ohio man who killed five children (three of them and the lone survivor also pictured at right) to cover up a burglary in 1992. At the time, it appeared that Garner’s date with the executioner had been indefinitely called off, for specious Miranda-related reasons that you have to read to believe (and even then, it will be difficult). On Tuesday, Garner’s attempts to avoid his death sentence ultimately failed. Sadly, the Associated Press’s unbylined coverage of  his execution by lethal injection Tuesday allowed Garner and his lawyers to put forth one final batch of half-truths and untruths that require refutation (bolds and numbered tags are mine): An Ohio man said he was “heartily sorry” for his carelessness (1) before he was executed Tuesday for the murders of five children in a 1992 Cincinnati apartment fire he set in an attempt to destroy evidence of a burglary. William Garner, 37, died at 10:38 a.m. at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, 18 minutes after the lethal injection began. As he lay on the execution table, Garner held a dreadlock of hair from a female friend and read a mostly inaudible lengthy final statement from notebook paper held by the execution team leader. He thanked several people as well as the state of Ohio. “I’m heartily sorry,” he said. “God bless everyone who has been robbed in this procedure. I thought I’d never be free, but I’m free now.” Garner was sentenced to death for the Jan. 26, 1992, pre-dawn deaths of the children in the apartment of Addie Mack, who was in the emergency room of a nearby hospital. Garner had stolen keys from her purse while she received care and took a cab to the apartment to steal a television, radio, VCR and telephone. Four girls and two boys, ages 8 to 13, were at the apartment alone, and Garner knew they were there when he threw a lit match onto a couch. Garner has admitted setting the fire but said he thought the children would escape (2). Only one, 13-year-old Rod Mack, made it out alive. … Because so many people wanted to witness the execution on behalf of the young victims, the prison opened a second viewing room, prisons spokeswoman Julie Walburn said. Six witnesses for the victims and Garner’s niece and legal team were accommodated in the witness room facing the execution chamber, and another three victims’ witnesses watched on closed-circuit TV in the spillover room, she said. … Garner had said a secondary motivation for setting the fire was to draw attention to the children’s squalid living conditions (3). He told police that he had noticed the bedroom “full of girls” and that one of them had asked him for water, which he provided, according to a report by the Ohio Parole Board. He also said he had been in another bedroom where the two boys slept. His lawyers had argued that the death sentences be set aside because Garner had developmental disabilities, a limited IQ and a violent, abusive upbringing (4) that caused him to function on the level of a 14-year-old at the time of the deaths. How is this AP story incomplete and wrong? Let’s count the ways. But first, brace yourself for the horror that follows. A Cincinnati Enquirer report that is no longer available but is excerpted at the October 2007 BizzyBlog post shows that Garner was a cold-blooded, calculating burglar who did everything he could not to leave any tracks, even if it meant killing six children who were sleeping (as noted earlier, one got out alive): Hours before the fire, Garner slipped into University Hospital, looking for an easy mark. There, he found (apartment unit residents Marshandra) Jackson and Addie Mack, who had fallen and hurt her wrist. Garner snatched up Mack’s purse when she wasn’t looking, stealing money and her apartment keys. He took a taxi to the English Woods apartment, telling the driver to wait while he retrieved his belongings. He carted out electronic equipment, at one point waking up one of the children. Garner spun a tale about her mother sending him to check everyone and sent her back to bed with a glass of water. Before leaving, Garner set three fires in the apartment. Then, he grabbed the phone and smoke detectors and left … Now let’s get to the bolded and tagged items in the AP excerpt. (1) – “Carelessness”? The Enquirer excerpt, which originates in Garner’s original police questioning and confession, thoroughly discredits that risible claim. (2) – He “thought the children would escape”? He set three fires, plural (i.e., earth to AP, he did a lot more than throw “a lit match on a couch”). He removed the landline phone and the smoke detectors. How were these children supposed to call for help? How were they going to escape if they weren’t going to wake up until the flames were already out of control? (3) – He wanted “to draw attention to the children’s squalid living conditions”? Mr. Garner had a sick way of demonstrating his concern. The original Enquirer article gave no indication that Mr. Garner had such “noble” thoughts, and I daresay you won’t find any such thoughts expressed in police or legal documents relating to the original arrest and trial. (4) He had “developmental disabilities, a limited IQ and a violent, abusive upbringing”? Gee, he was clever enough to sneak in and out of a hospital; patient enough to wait for the right moment to snatch a purse; cool-headed enough to keep one of his victims calm, giving her a drink of water before sending her back to bed; and sufficiently forward-thinking to disconnect the children’s two best defenses against getting burned alive. Nobody had the slightest reason to believe that Garner was disabled or mentally challenged in 1992 when he was arrested and confessed, or when he was tried and convicted. There’s plenty of reason to believe that his lawyers’ contention while Garner was on Death Row was a fundamentally dishonest, after-the-fact concoction with no basis in fact whose only purpose was to prevent the state from carrying out its sentence. The AP’s weak coverage of Garner’s heinous crime is perhaps instructive to all who read future establishment press dispatches concerning death-penalty executions. The lesson is that the true story and full circumstances of what the killer did may be much worse than what the press chooses to tell readers on Execution Day. Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .

Original post:
Killer of Five Children Executed in Ohio; AP Story Allows Half-Truths and Untruths to Live On

A Frisking ‘Frenzy’ in NYC, But Only New York Times Reporters Seem to Care

Reporters Ray Rivera, Al Baker, and Janet Roberts combined on a front-page Monday New York Times story questioning the frequency of “stop-and-frisk” policing by the NYPD in high-crime sections of the Brownsville neighborhood in Brooklyn: ” A Few Blocks, 4 Years, 52,000 Police Stops .” The text box: “Frisk Tactic Draws Questions Where It Is Used Most.” It’s a quasi-followup to an overheated May 13 front-page Times story which focused more on the racial aspect of frisking: ” City Minorities More Likely To Be Frisked — Increase in Police Stops Fuels Intense Debate .” The shoe leather analysis of that story was performed by the hard-left Center for Constitutional Rights, which the Times identified only as “a nonprofit civil and human rights organization.” Monday’s story also relied on research from the unlabeled leftists of CCR. Yet the paper’s reporters seem more worried about the frisking “frenzy” than do the residents of the crime-ridden neighborhoods that were the alleged victims of excessive stops and searches. When night falls, police officers blanket some eight odd blocks of Brownsville, Brooklyn…The officers stop people they think might be carrying guns; they stop and question people who merely enter the public housing project buildings without a key; they ask for identification from, and run warrant checks on, young people halted for riding bicycles on the sidewalk. One night, 20 officers surrounded a man outside the Brownsville Houses after he would not let an officer smell the contents of his orange juice container. Between January 2006 and March 2010, the police made nearly 52,000 stops on these blocks and in these buildings, according to a New York Times analysis of data provided by the Police Department and two organizations, the Center for Constitutional Rights and the New York Civil Liberties Union. In each of those encounters, officers logged the names of those stopped — whether they were arrested or not — into a police database that the police say is valuable in helping solve future crimes. These encounters amounted to nearly one stop a year for every one of the 14,000 residents of these blocks. In some instances, people were stopped because the police said they fit the description of a suspect. But the data show that fewer than 9 percent of stops were made based on “fit description.” Far more — nearly 26,000 times — the police listed either “furtive movement,” a catch-all category that critics say can mean anything, or “other” as the only reason for the stop. Many of the stops, the data show, were driven by the police’s ability to enforce seemingly minor violations of rules governing who can come and go in the city’s public housing. …. There are, to be sure, plenty of reasons for the police to be out in force in this section of Brooklyn, and plenty of reasons for residents to want them there. Murders, shootings and drug dealing have historically made this one of the worst crime corridors in the city. The Times issues one sentence perilously similar to its infamously naive headline from 1997, which saw a paradox where there was none: ” Crime Keeps on Falling, But Prisons Keep on Filling .” As if the two trends are unrelated. But now, in an era of lower crime rates, both in this part of Brooklyn and across the city, questions are swirling over what is emerging as a central tool in the crime fight, one intended to give officers the power to engage anyone they reasonably suspect has committed a crime or is about to. Couldn’t one explanation for the “era of lower crime rates” be more assertive police work like stop-and-frisk? Certainly, some say that the New York Police Department has so far failed to convincingly link the explosion in the numbers of stops with crime suppression. And some, from academics to the residents of these streets in Brooklyn, believe the stops could have a corrosive effect, alienating young and old alike in a community that has long had a tenuous relationship with the police. …. To many residents here, care is exactly what is not being used. To them, the flood of young officers who roam the community each day are not equipped to make the subtle judgments required to tell one young man in low-hanging jeans concealing a weapon from another young man wearing similar clothes on his way to school. …. The data show the initiative is conducted aggressively, sometimes in what can seem like a frenzy. During one month — January 2007 — the police executed an average of 61 stops a day. The high number of stops in this part of Brooklyn can be explained in part by the fact that police can use violations of city Housing Authority rules to justify stops. For instance, the Housing Authority, which oversees public housing developments, forbids people from being in their buildings unless they live there or are visiting someone. …. Many residents say they philosophically embrace the police presence. They say they know too well how the violence around them — the drugs and gangs — can swallow up young people. Yet the day-to-day interactions with officers can seem so arbitrary that many residents say they often come away from encounters with officers feeling violated, degraded and resentful. Near the very end the Times allowed this detail, which put an additional damper on the significance of its prominent front-page journalism: The Times, for this article, interviewed 12 current or former officers who had worked in this part of Brooklyn in the last five years, and all defended the necessity of the stop-and-frisks.

Read more here:
A Frisking ‘Frenzy’ in NYC, But Only New York Times Reporters Seem to Care

Roman Polanski Decision Blasted By L.A. District Attorney

‘I am deeply disappointed that the Swiss authorities denied the request to extradite Roman Polanski,’ Steve Cooley says in a statement. By Kelley L. Carter Roman Polanski in 1980 Photo: Central Press/Getty Images Switzerland’s Ministry of Justice announced that it would not extradite director Roman Polanski to the U.S. to face sentencing for child sex charges, but L.A. district attorney Steve Cooley said Monday (July 12) that extradition will be sought if Polanski is arrested someplace else. “I am deeply disappointed that the Swiss authorities denied the request to extradite Roman Polanski,” Cooley said in a statement released to MTV News. “Our office complied fully with all of the factual and legal requirements of the extradition treaty and requests by the U.S. and Swiss Departments of Justice and State. We will discuss with the Department of Justice the extradition of Roman Polanski if he’s arrested in a cooperative jurisdiction.” CNN reported earlier that the 76-year-old director was set free after his arrest last year; the case has been going on for nearly 35 years. At the time, Polanski pleaded guilty in Los Angeles to having unlawful sex with a 13-year-old girl in 1977 and supplying her with champagne and Quaaludes during a photo shoot, but the director fled to Europe before his sentencing. In exchange for his guilty plea, rape and other charges were dropped at the time. Although Polanski pleaded guilty to the one count of unlawful sexual intercourse, the remaining charges are pending since Polanski was never sentenced. “We only formally request when we are notified by a government that the fugitive is in their country,” Cooley said in the statement. “The request was filed immediately by this office after the Swiss notified us of Polanski’s expected arrival at the Zurich film festival in September 2009.” Cooley adds that countries that won’t release Polanski to the U.S. for sentencing are doing a “disservice to justice and other victims as a whole. To justify their finding to deny extradition on an issue that is unique to California law regarding conditional examination of a potentially unavailable witness is a rejection of the competency of the California courts. The Swiss could not have found a smaller hook on which to hang their hat.”

See the article here:
Roman Polanski Decision Blasted By L.A. District Attorney

Hollywood Rorschach: Mel Gibson, Charlie Sheen and Child Rapist Polanski

The timing of today’s announcement from the Swiss that fugitive director Roman Polanski will not face extradition  to the United States coming just a couple days after we all witnessed Hollywood’s reaction to the audio tape of Mel Gibson’s raging, racist rant is fitting. What an interesting opportunity for a side-by-side look at Leftist Hollywood’s values. It’s unlikely that anyone who’s considered a serious part of the Hollywood community will openly work with Mel Gibson again for a long, long time — if ever. WME, his agency, announced they had dropped him  as a client within minutes of the release of the recording, and courtesy of the L.A. Times, the warning has already gone out making clear that anyone foolish enough to work with Gibson again will pay a heavy price: There’s little chance he’ll land at another agency anytime soon — signing would bring down a horrible avalanche of bad PR to any agency that got within smelling distance and, more to the craven point, any agent that signs him has little hope of booking him any roles anyway since there isn’t a studio in town that will hire Gibson. So toxic is the “Braveheart” director that the L.A. Times also “ suggested ” that now would be a “good time” for Tinseltowners to loudly and proudly condemn the former superstar, and a special point was made to single out his longtime friend Jodie Foster (who just finished directing a film that stars Gibson): Actually, strike that, because even now the silence is deafening. This would seem like a good time to make a public statement, Jodie Foster, longtime friendship or not. While I find the L.A. Times’ stand-up-and-be-counted witch huntery a little nauseating, it pales in comparison to Gibson’s sub-human attempt to emotionally break the mother of his child in two with a stream of racist-fueled hate unlike anything I’ve heard before. This is a fool-me-once situation if there ever was one. Like many, I bought Gibson’s contrition tour after his sexist, anti-Semitic tirade in 2006. But how anyone could work with him now is beyond me, and no one in Hollywood is likely to. And yet, who will Hollywood work with? As I write this, Charlie Sheen is about to once again enjoy the superstar treatment on the set of his hit sitcom “Two and a Half Men” even though reports suggest he’s about to plead no contest to charges of domestic violence after allegedly pinning his wife to a bed with a knife to her throat. And today, throughout much of Tinseltown , you can hear the exhales of relief and imagine the quiet celebrating now that their favorite child rapist is once again free to move about the world amongst all the beautiful people eager to worship him. Leftist Hollywood should consider themselves lucky The Fates gave them an entire weekend to feel all sanctimonious and superior about themselves over the Mel Gibson situation before reminding them of what they really are with today’s Polanski news. Two days is two more than they deserved. Originally published at Big Hollywood .

Read the original post:
Hollywood Rorschach: Mel Gibson, Charlie Sheen and Child Rapist Polanski

Roman Polanski Free After Switzerland Rejects Extradition

Oscar-winning director will not be sent to U.S. for sentencing in 1977 child sex case. By Gil Kaufman Roman Polanski in 1980 Photo: Central Press/Getty Images The decades-long legal saga of Oscar-winning filmmaker Roman Polanski took another twist on Monday (July 12), when Switzerland’s Ministry of Justice announced that it would not extradite the director of “The Pianist” to the U.S. to face sentencing for child sex charges. According to CNN , the 76-year-old director was set free after his arrest last year for the nearly 35-year old case, in which he pleaded guilty in Los Angeles to having unlawful sex with a 13-year-old girl in 1977. Polanski admitted to having sex with the underage girl after supplying her with champagne and quaaludes during a photo shoot, but he fled to Europe before his sentencing. In exchange for his guilty plea, rape and other charges were dropped at the time. Polanski had been fighting extradition from Switzerland since his arrest last year, and Justice Minister Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf said the decision by the Swiss authorities was not based on the severity of the charge or whether Polanski was guilty. “It’s not about qualifying the crime,” said Widmer-Schlumpf. “That is not our job. It’s also not about deciding over guilt or innocence.” CNN reported that the American request was rejected because U.S. authorities apparently did not supply all the legal records Switzerland had required and because Polanski had a reasonable right to think he would not be arrested if he visited the country. American authorities can’t apply again to have Polanski extradited from Switzerland, but could try if he’s detained in another country. Polanski fled the U.S. before he was sentenced in the case after learning that the judge might not go through with the short jail term the director expected in exchange for his guilty plea. He has been a fugitive from justice since 1978, mostly living in France before his arrest in Switzerland. The victim in the case, a now-married woman in her 40s named Samantha Geimer, long ago came forward to say she was unhappy with how the criminal case had been handled, but has called for it to be throw out because the airing of the details of the incident causes her harm every time it is re-examined in public.

See the original post here:
Roman Polanski Free After Switzerland Rejects Extradition

Lindsay Lohan to Appeal Jail Sentence; Lawyer Quits

“I’m not going to jail!” – Lindsay Lohan The troubled star vows to appeal the 90-day jail sentence Judge Marsha Revel handed down, according to one source who was with her on Wednesday night. Linds was talking with people in her apartment about appealing the case, and uttered the above quote. Not only a spoiled brat, but also delusional, apparently. The only real basis for an appeal would be arguing that Judge Revel abused her discretion in nailing her with a 90-day sentence, which was a tad extreme.