Posted on by

This is not a great victory It helps, but still leaves open the possibility that the State can regulate whom you allow to enter your home

Hypocrite Gavin Newsom violates his own orders on private gatherings.

I admit it: I had never heard of Governor Gavin Newson’s (D-CA) prohibition on gatherings of people from more than three households in private homes, but I can’t say that I am surprised; only liberals would think that the government has any authority on whom you can invite into your own home. Fortunately, thye United States Supreme Court invalidated it, at least for in-home Bible study groups:

Supreme Court again blocks California Covid restriction on religious activities

By Joan Biskupic, CNN legal analyst & Supreme Court biographer | Updated 1:31 AM ET, Saturday, April 10, 2021

(CNN) The Supreme Court by a 5-4 vote on Friday blocked another state Covid-19 restriction on religious services, with another late-night order, over protests from California officials that the limits affecting some Bible study sessions did not impinge on religious rights and were to be lifted within days.

The unsigned order for the high court majority also revealed the deep ideological fissure, with conservatives (including the three appointees of former President Donald Trump) in control and liberals dissenting bitterly.

Chief Justice John Roberts also dissented, although he did not sign the statement by the three justices on the left, written by Justice Elena Kagan.

“In ordering California to weaken its restrictions on at-home gatherings, the majority yet again insists on treating unlike cases, not like ones, equivalently,” Kagan wrote, adding that “the law does not require that the State equally treat apples and watermelons.”

“And (the majority) once more commands California to ignore its experts’ scientific findings, thus impairing the State’s effort to address a public health emergency.”

Throughout the coronavirus pandemic, religious adherents have implored the justices to prevent certain state health restrictions affecting religious services and they have notably prevailed since October’s addition of Justice Amy Coney Barrett, succeeding the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Then we must thank God that Justice Barrett replaced Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, because Justice Ginsburg had voted to allow such restrictions before she went to her eternal reward. By what right does the government, whether local, state or federal, have the authority to determine whom we allow into our homes?

I know, I know, Governors in many states issued such restrictions, including Governor Andy Beshear (D-KY). I am happy to state that we violated Governor Beshear’s authoritarian decrees on both Thanksgiving and Christmas (he ordered no more than ten persons, from no more than two households), and had the Governor himself showed up at the door, I would have given him the finger and told him to get the f(ornicate) off my property.[1]Though the gatherings were of fewer than ten people, they were from three households. More, when my sister, who didn’t attend the dinner itself, came by to pick up a Thanksgiving dinner plate, … Continue reading

But a whole lot of the sheeple accepted this, accepted the idea that the State could tell them whom they could invite into their homes, with whom they could associate, and how. The decision in Tandon v Newsom was based on the Pyrite State treating religion differently, and more strictly, than some other gatherings — the Governor’s attorneys claimed that the in-person Bible study sessions were being treated no differently than any other in home gatherings — but that ignores the fact that the state was limiting freedom of association as well as freedom of religion. From the unsigned Per Curiam order:

(N)arrow tailoring requires the government to show that measures less restrictive of the First Amendment activity could not address its interest in reducing the spread of COVID. Where the government permits other activities to proceed with precautions, it must show that the religious exercise at issue is more dangerous than those activities even when the same precautions are applied.

This paragraph accepts the idea that the government’s “interest in reducing the spread of COVID” extends into the individual homes of the American people; the decision simply holds that California’s orders were not well-written enough.

Applicants are likely to succeed on the merits of their free exercise claim; they are irreparably harmed by the loss of free exercise rights “for even minimal periods of time”; and the State has not shown that “public health would be imperiled” by employing less restrictive measures.

Translation: if the State could show that public health would be imperiled by not intruding into people’s private homes, the Court could allow it.

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States specifies that:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

What are we to conclude that, if the State could demonstrate that public health — or whatever other “compelling” government interest the authoritarians could dream up — would be imperiled, it would be reasonable for the authorities to enter your home and siese the “persons or things” to be removed, even if there was no crime committed?

I get it: the Supreme Court likes to narrowly tailor its own decisions and precedents, but this decision, while a victory for freedom or religion, does not go far enough, and leaves open the possibility that the State can control who enters your private home.

References

References
↑1 Though the gatherings were of fewer than ten people, they were from three households. More, when my sister, who didn’t attend the dinner itself, came by to pick up a Thanksgiving dinner plate, that constituted a fourth household. Up yours, Governor Beshear!
Posted on by

Killadelphia

While I normally check the Philadelphia Police Department’s Current Crime Statistics page in the morning, I don’t on the weekend, because “statistics reflect the accurate count during normal business hours, Monday through Friday.” But I did check it today, after seeing an article in The Philadelphia Inquirer about two more people being killed. The page still shows the 132 listed as having been killed in Philly at the end of April 8th, but noted that at the end of Friday, April 9th, there had been an even 100 homicides in the City of Brotherly Love on that date in 2020.

2 dead, 8 shot in violent overnight in Philly

Two of the five shootings involved a total of three victims on their way to the store. And a triple shooting occurred at an illegal after-hours club, police said.

By Diane Mastrull | Saturday, April 10, 2021

Two men are dead and six others injured in a total of five shooting incidents in less than nine hours Friday night into Saturday morning throughout Philadelphia, police said.

All but one of the shootings were in North Philadelphia, and three of the victims had been on their way to the store when struck by bullets, according to police. One incident was a triple shooting outside of an illegal after-hours club, police said.

The first of the shootings was reported just after 10 p.m. Friday at Front and East Champlost Avenue. There, on the 5900 block of North Front Street, police said they found a 20-year-old shot multiple times. He was transported to Einstein Medical Center Philadelphia, where he was pronounced dead at 10:47, police said.

That makes the total 133 by the end of Friday; the Philadelphia Police close their daily count at 11:59 PM each day.

For every three people murdered in Philadelphia last year, four have been killed so far this year.

The second murder victim was pronounced dead a few minutes after midnight, at 12:12 AM Saturday morning at Temple University Hospital. I suppose that he will be counted as part of today’s statistics.

Still, 133 dead, compared to 100 last year, is a 33% increase, a very neat 1/3. For every three people murdered in Philadelphia last year, four have been killed so far this year.

Yeah, that’s a kind of ghoulish calculation, but I’m kind of a numbers guy. I like hard data, information not tainted by politics, and the raw numbers of homicides isn’t something that can be massaged.

The Philadelphia Police Department and District Attorney Larry Krasner like to claim that, overall, crime has decreased in the city. The obvious question is: is that true?

There are two kinds of crimes: crimes of evidence and crimes of reporting. If a man rapes a woman on the streets of Philadelphia, as far as the police are concerned, if it wasn’t reported, it didn’t happen. It is commonly assumed that most rapes go unreported, with some guesstimates being as high as 90% not reported. Crimes like robbery might go unreported if the victims do not trust the police or think it will do any good, or are fearful of revenge by the criminals. When your city is stuck with a District Attorney like Mr Krasner, who doesn’t believe in prosecuting criminals, or sentencing them harshly when they are prosecuted and convicted, what reason is there to report that you were robbed?

But murder is different: it is a crime of evidence. It isn’t easy to dispose of a dead body in a way that it won’t be found, especially if you haven’t carefully planned things. You’re looking at 100 to 300 pounds of dead meat, bone and fat, and something which will put off a strong and nasty odor after very little time. The vast majority of dead bodies get found.

Of course, in Philadelphia, a whole lot of murders are open and in public: drive up or drive by shootings, essentially public executions, in which the shooters are only concerned with escape, not hiding the fact that someone was killed.

So when I read that most crime had decreased in Philadelphia, I just flat don’t believe it. Murder isn’t normally an entry-level crime; guys who shoot other people have usually been bad guys before that. And if they’ve been bad guys before that, District Attorney Krasner and his ‘social justice’ prosecution policies don’t really believe in getting them locked up for long anyway.

That’s something that the reporters and editors of the Inquirer ought to investigate. Send reporters door-to-door in the same neighborhoods in which the majority of the murders have occurred, and investigate, ask the public whether they have been crime victims and have decided against reporting such to the police. It will take a while, and it will take more than one reporter, but isn’t that what investigative reporting requires?[1]The Inquirer article author, Diane Mastrull, lists as her biography blurb, “I’m a distance runner – in real life, as a breaking news editor, and as president of the NewsGuild.” I … Continue reading

References

References
↑1 The Inquirer article author, Diane Mastrull, lists as her biography blurb, “I’m a distance runner – in real life, as a breaking news editor, and as president of the NewsGuild.” I will be forwarding this article to her via e-mail and Twitter.
Posted on by

Judge Phillip Shepherd once again decides that his judgement supersedes that of our elected representatives He just loves enabling authoritarian dictators . . . as long as those dictators are Democrats!

Franklin Circuit Judge and Authoritarian Enabler Phillip Shepherd. Photo: Kentucky Administrative Office of the Courts.

We have thrice reported on Franklin Circuit Judge Phillip Shepherd, a continual thorn in the side of Republican Governor Matt Bevin, and a partisan supporter of current Governor Andy Beshear, a Democrat. Judge Shepherd blocked several of the bills passed by the General Assembly to limit the Governor’s emergency powers, not actually ruling against those laws, but imposing a temporary injunction and partially stayed the effectiveness of the three new laws. The laws remain on the books, but cannot be enforced, and the Judge has yet to tell us when he will rule on Governor Beshear’s lawsuit.

Shepherd said the court “is mindful that the challenged legislation seeks to address a legitimate problem of effective legislative oversight of the governor’s emergency powers in this extraordinary public health crisis” but “is also mindful that the governor and the secretary (Health and Family Services Secretary Eric Friedlander) are faced with the enormous challenge of effectively responding to a world-wide pandemic that has resulted in the deaths of thousands of Kentuckians and over 500,000 people in the United States.”

The judge said all parties in the case “are acting in good faith to address public policy challenges of the utmost importance” but “the governor has made a strong case that the legislation, in its current form, is likely to undermine or even cripple, the effectiveness of public health measures necessary to protect the lives and health of Kentuckians from the COVID-19 pandemic.”

Translation: the Judge recognized the legislature’s authority to change the law, but didn’t think that the legislature’s actions were wise ones. Who knew that a judge had the authority to decide that a legitimately passed law was simply unwise?

One of Governor Beshear’s arguments was that the legislature might not approve extensions of his executive orders, which the held-in-abeyance Senate Bill 1 limited to 30 days without legislative approval. The legislature passed House Joint Resolution 77, passed to go along with Senate Bill 1, which granted the Governor extensions on some, but not all, of his executive orders.

Kentucky governor notches another court victory for his emergency COVID-19 orders

By Jack Brammer | April 8, 2021 | 9:26 AM EDT | Updated April 8, 2021 | 12:45 PM EDT

Franklin Circuit Judge Phillip Shepherd has added another legislative measure to the temporary injunction he issued earlier this year to block laws that limit Gov. Andy Beshear’s powers to deal with the coronavirus pandemic and other emergencies.

The judge’s nine-page order handed down late Wednesday afternoon temporarily blocks House Joint Resolution 77. The move keeps Beshear’s COVID-19 restrictions in effect, including the mask mandate.

The resolution, sponsored by House Speaker David Osborne, was enacted by the legislature to implement Senate Bill 1, which would limit the governor’s emergency orders, such as one that requires Kentuckians to wear a face covering in public, to 30 days unless the legislature extends them. . . .

In blocking the resolution, Shepherd said, “In general, it appears that the General Assembly has ratified the governor’s actions related to economic relief for regulated businesses and professions but has attempted to impose a general termination of executive authority to impose public health restrictions (such as masking in public, social distancing, seating capacity or limitations on public gatherings.)“

“Whether HJR 77 represents a valid exercise of legislative authority or an unconstitutional usurpation of executive authority” is a legal issue that supports the issuance of a temporary injunction, Shepherd said.

The judge called Beshear’s existing executive orders and emergency regulations “proper responses to a public health crisis.”

“They should remain in full force and effect until the entry of a final judgment or until after notice and a hearing on any motion to terminate any such specific executive action,” he said.

That pretty much tells you how Judge Shepherd will rule; he thinks that the Governor’s orders were the proper responses.

Fortunately, our would be dictator isn’t having it all his way!

KY judge blocks Beshear’s COVID-19 orders at some restaurants and bars

By Jack Brammer | April 9, 2021 | 01:18 PM EDT | Updated April 9, 2021 | 4:00 PM EDT

A Kentucky judge has temporarily blocked the state from enforcing some of Gov. Andy Beshear’s executive COVID-19 orders against several restaurants and breweries.

The preliminary injunction issued Friday by Scott Circuit Judge Brian Privett runs counter to recent actions by Franklin Circuit Judge Phillip Shepherd, which blocked the implementation of new laws that would have ended some of Beshear’s emergency restrictions against the coronavirus pandemic.

Oliver Dunford, an attorney with Pacific Legal Foundation who represented the businesses, said the differing rulings “probably will expedite all this going to the Kentucky Supreme Court for a final court decision.”

“We are thrilled that Judge Privett issued the injunction, which prevents the governor from enforcing the restrictive orders against our clients,” said Dunford “The order recognizes that the governor is obligated to follow the laws, just like everyone else.”

Beshear spokeswoman Crystal Staley said late Friday afternoon that Privett’s ruling has been appealed to the Kentucky Court of Appeals.

Well, of course he has!

Judge Privett’s orders are narrow in scope, but by appealing them to the state Court of Appeals, this may well move the decisions out of Judge Shepherd’s court, where he has been slow-walking everything in what appears to be an effort to give Governor Beshear as much time as possible on his repugnant orders before a legal decision is reached.

“This action, at its most basic level, is simple,” said Privett in his order “The governor has two kinds of power: those given to him in the Constitution, and those given to him by the legislature under statute. The emergency powers of the governor at issue in this case are not inherent.”

The state constitution limits the General Assembly to a thirty-day session in odd-numbered years, and the legislature is done for the year, unless the Governor calls them back into a special session, which he will do about as soon as Hell freezes over, unless the state Supreme Court eventually upholds Senate Bill 1. We can expect no saving by the legislature now before next year.

But what really needs to happen is for the voters of the Commonwealth of Kentucky to vote out this wannabe dictator in the 2023 elections. He needs to be sent home, his tail between his legs, and a conservative Governor, one who respects our constitutional rights, elected to replace him.

Posted on by

The Philadelphia Inquirer tries to make the Derek Chauvin trial about racism and stereotypes rather than the arrest of a criminal It seems that Cassie Owens doesn't like the fact that Mr Chauvin's defense attorney is actually trying to defend him

I confess: it might seem that my many referrals to The Philadelphia Enquirer Inquirer may seem close to an obsession, but, let’s face it, the paper seems to provide more silliness and stupidity every single day. You’ll love this one!

Stereotypes of larger Black men still persist at the Derek Chauvin trial

Research shows that big and tall Black men are more likely to be seen as threatening, and these notions trace back to slavery.

by Cassie Owens | April 9, 2021

During the trial of Derek Chauvin, the former Minneapolis police officer charged with killing George Floyd, Chauvin’s defense attorney Eric Nelson has repeatedly pointed to Floyd’s size.

Nelson raised size again Tuesday, when he confirmed with a police instructor that officers are trained to consider size difference for use of force. He first brought it up during opening statements in late March.

“You will see that three Minneapolis police officers could not overcome the strength of Mr. Floyd,” Nelson said. “Mr. Chauvin stands five-foot-nine, 140 pounds. Mr. Floyd is six, three, weighs 223 pounds.”

In the conversations around victims of police brutality, pointing to a victim’s size to justify or disregard the violence has become a feature, not a bug. Prominent examples include Eric Garner, Alton Sterling, and Michael Brown. But why is size so often mentioned in these cases?

Uhhh, maybe because all of these suspects were big men? If you do a Google search for George Floyd gentle giant you’ll get 2,690,000 results, including George Floyd: “Gentle Giant” Who Became Symbol Of Fight Against Racism, which lists Mr Floyd’s height as 6’4″, not 6’3″, Friends Remember George Floyd As A Gentle Giant, and George Floyd was ‘very loving’ and a ‘gentle giant,’ friends and family say.

Read more: The Chauvin trial so far, by John Hinderaker on Powerline.

When I searched for eric garner gentle giant, I got 878,000 results, including Friends: Eric Garner was a ‘gentle giant’, ‘Gentle Giant’ Dies After NYPD Cop Puts Him In Chokehold, and Friends: Man in NYC chokehold case ‘gentle giant’. The latter article stated that Mr Garner was 6-foot-3, and 350-pounds.

St George of Floyd

My search for alton sterling gentle giant yielded 480,000 returns, including returns which noted that he was a convicted felon, was brandishing a firearm at police when he was killed, and a registered sex offender for knocking up a 14 year old girl; he had a long criminal record and spent much of his life behind bars. Giant maybe; gentle, not so much.

My search for michael brown gentle giant yielded 8,270,000 results in 0.69 seconds, including Michael Brown remembered as a ‘gentle giant’, and Brown Remembered As a Gentle Giant, even though Mr Brown, all 6’4″ of him, was caught on video roughing up an elderly shopkeeper during a robbery just minutes before his ‘encounter’ with Officer Darrin Wilson.

So, why was the size of these criminals — and let’s make no bones about it, they were criminals — mentioned? Because they were all large men, men who used their size for physical advantage.

Back to the Inquirer:

Anna Mollow, a Santa Rosa, Calif.-based disabilities studies expert who sees similarities in the cases of Barbara Dawson and Tamir Rice, said in a recent interview this reflects forms of oppression that are familiar in our society.

“I would, indeed, say that the defense’s comments about George Floyd’s size do draw upon, and do recirculate, stereotypes of Black people as possessing superhuman physical strength,” wrote Mollow, “while at the same time calling up dehumanizing stereotypes about Black people’s supposed moral and intellectual inferiority — for example, the notion that they need to be brought ‘under control,’ as Chauvin said of Floyd.”

Cassie Owens, the Inquirer article author, is trying to claim that Eric Nelson, Derek Chauvin’s defense attorney, was playing on stereotypes, but Mr Nelson is doing his job the best he can, in trying to defend his client. It is not playing a stereotype to note that George Floyd, a drug-addled convicted felon caught in the act of passing counterfeit money, was significantly larger than Officer Chauvin. At 5’9″, Officer Chauvin was very much of average height, in the 50th percentile of adult male height, while the 99th percentile begins at 6’3½”, roughly where Mr Floyd stood. Mr Floyd outweighed Mr Chauvin by roughly 80 lb, more than half again the officer’s mass.

Miss Owens is, of course, utterly appalled that Mr Nelson is doing something really radical like defending his client.

Ben Brooks, a diversity and inclusion expert who was one of the first Black officers to enlist in the Pennsylvania State Police in 1961, said that bias, in general society, isn’t well understood. People use bias to detect danger, Brooks continued, and for some, their danger detectors don’t respond fairly to Black people. . . .

“If you approach [an] individual with dignity, respect, and self worth, then you’re on an even keel,” he said. “But when it’s anything other than that, that means psychologically the temperature rises.”

Empathy, he said, is critical for officers: “When you can approach members of the public with an empathic approach, you’re more likely to make an emotional connection and see them on a human level.”

(Anna Mollow, a Santa Rosa, Calif.-based disabilities studies expert) noted that it was important to be mindful of how different forms of oppression, like racism and sizeism, intersect. Thinking that way, she said, invites more space for self-criticism for everyone across groups, rather than thinking confrontationally: “It’s more about continuing to really explore the way that we might be perpetuating forms of oppression without realizing it, and then to explore the ways that we can work together and change that.”

In all of this, in all of her attempts to paint Mr Floyd as a victim of racism and stereotypes, Miss Owens, whose Inquirer bio says, “I cover sociocultural dynamics, as well as how Philadelphians contend with them these days,” ignores that Officer Chauvin was called to the scene by the officers who arrived there first, noting that Mr Floyd was acting drugged up. Mr Chauvin would already have been on alert when he arrived, in that the suspect was described as acting erratically and irrationally, and was resisting arrest.

Yes, Officer Chauvin (probably) was “thinking confrontationally,” given that he was called as backup to a confrontation with a resisting perpetrator. While it is certainly arguable that Officer Chauvin used excessive force against Mr Floyd — that Mr Floyd dies while being restrained certainly makes the officers’ actions subject to question — this trial is about the proper use of force against a resisting criminal suspect, not about racism. But the left want to make it about racism, so they’ll have yet another excuse to riot and loot and burn if Mr Chauvin is acquitted or even just convicted on a lesser charge than second-degree murder.

Posted on by

How NBC News tried to obscure falling #COVID19 cases in states dropping restrictions

NBC News has noticed that states like Texas have seen decreases in the numbers of COVID-19 cases, while the states with the greatest restrictions have seen increases. Naturally, NBC wants to explain that away.

Now, if you open the video, you’ll see that NBC is trying to claim that the states with decreases just aren’t testing enough. As we noted previously, the moving seven day average of new COVID-19 cases in the Lone Star State has declined dramatically since Governor Greg Abbott (R-TX) lifted the mandatory mask order, effective March 10th. On March 10th, the moving average was 4,909 new cases. On April 7th, it was 3,702.

Perhaps someone wiser than me can tell me how NBC News wasn’t engaged in propaganda rather than journalism, because I sure can’t figure it out!

Look further down the chart. On March 10th, the moving seven day average of tests performed was 75,452; on April 6th, it was 73,373, a bit lower, 2.8% lower, but not significantly so; certainly not so much lower as to have been responsible for a 24.6% decrease in the number of new cases.[1]April 7th data were not available on The New York Times link.

But, let’s assume that it somehow was the testing. COVID-19 makes people sick, and some people get hospitalization-sick. On March 10th, the moving seven-day average of number of patients hospitalized was 5,362; on April 7th it was 3,373. That’s a 37.1% decrease in hospitalizations due to COVID-19.

How about actual deaths from the virus? On March 10th, the moving average was 190 per day; on April 7th, it was 76, a 60.0% decrease.

Yeah, if there are fewer tests run, fewer positive cases will be found, but that can’t cover for the fact that far fewer hospitalizations and deaths due to the virus have happened. The report specifically cited Alabama as running a low number of tests. Using the same dates, Alabama saw hospitalizations drop from 643 to 426, a 31.6% decrease. Responsible journalism would have included that fact, but no one said that NBC practiced responsible journalism.

What about the far more restrictive Commonwealth of Pennsylvania? On March 10th, the Keystone State’s moving average of tests was 47,117; on April 6th, it was down to 43,019, an 8.7% decrease. On March 10th, average daily cases was 2,490, which had moved up to 4,241 by April 7th. An 8.7% decrease in tests still yielded a 70.3% increase in cases. Average number of hospitalizations moved up from 2,002 to 2,646, a 32.2% increase, and deaths, from 39 down to 27, thankfully a 30.8% decrease, so at least there was some good news.

Of course, NBC could have looked up those numbers just as easily as I did; they are on The New York Times website, not exactly an evil reich-wing source.

But they didn’t do that, did they? Nope, they simply blamed what they claimed were lower testing rates. Perhaps someone wiser than me can tell me how NBC News wasn’t engaged in propaganda rather than journalism, because I sure can’t figure it out!

References

References
↑1 April 7th data were not available on The New York Times link.
Posted on by

I am wryly amused

As my too-few regular readers know, I have not been exactly charitable in my writings concerning The Philadelphia Enquirer Inquirer.[1]RedState writer Mike Miller called it the Enquirer, which brings to my mind the National Enquirer, probably by mistake, so I didn’t originate it, but I thought it very apt.

Thus, I was somewhat amused when I received this in my e-mail:

<

Dear Dana,

We wrote to you earlier this week to share the news of our $20,000 match to raise support for The Inquirer’s high-impact journalism. Your generosity ensures that The Philadelphia Inquirer can continue to tell important stories like the recent Under Fire series on the tragedy and impacts of gun violence in Philadelphia.

We invite you to support this kind of public service journalism by making a gift to support The Philadelphia Inquirer’s High-Impact Journalism Fund.
Yes, double my gift!

Best,
Rebecca

Rebecca Forman
The Lenfest Institute for Journalism

Of course, being the [insert slang term for the rectum here] that I am, I had to respond:

Dear Miss Forman:

 
I might consider making such a gift when the Inquirer stops referring to “gun violence” and starts calling it what it is: criminality on the part of a criminal population.
 
I know, I know: it isn’t politically correct, but you can never solve a problem if you are not honest about what the problem is, and the Inquirer is not honest. Guns do not have some sort of malevolent intelligence all their own, like the One Ring of Sauron, but are inanimate objects which are picked up and misused by criminals.  
 
I live out in the country, where almost every home has a firearm or three, yet people out here, despite a too-large illegal drug problem, simply aren’t killing each other at anywhere near the rate that Philadelphians are. 
 
When I lived in Jim Thorpe, from 2002 through 2017 just seventy miles up the Northeast Extension of the Turnpike, the county went eight entire years without a homicide, and when that streak ended, the murder was committed not with a gun, but by strangulation. The next murder, a few years later, was committed with a knife. All of this, in a county with thousands of hunters, a county in which firearm ownership was widespread. And Carbon County was under the same gun control laws as Philadelphia, as the rest of Pennsylvania. Perhaps the Inquirer ought to ask why this disparity exists, but I’m certain that such a question cannot ever be asked, because the answers that might be found could never, ever, be published.
 
I have written frequently on what passes for journalism in the Inquirer; you may read my articles at your leisure.
 
Sincerely, Dana R Pico.

I do not anticipate a response. 🙂

References

References
↑1 RedState writer Mike Miller called it the Enquirer, which brings to my mind the National Enquirer, probably by mistake, so I didn’t originate it, but I thought it very apt.
Posted on by

Why can people never tell the truth about homicide?

As is my wont, I checked the Philadelphia Police Department’s Current Crime Statistics page this morning. I noted yesterday, on Twitter, that, as of 11:59 PM EDT on Tuesday, April 6th, that 125 people had been murdered in the mean streets of Philadelphia, a 28.87% increase from the 97 killed by the same day last year. Since 2020 was a leap year, April 6th was the 97th day of 2020, while only the 96th day of this year.

On the 97th day of 2020, 97 dead, exactly one per day.

Well, that was then, and this is now. When I opened the Current Crime Statistics page this morning, the total had jumped to 132 people killed. On the 97th day of 2021, the City of Brotherly Love was seeing an average of 1.36 souls being sent to their eternal rewards early. That’s an average which, if it continues throughout the year, would see 496 homicides in Philly, which would be three fewer than in 2020. But, as we all know, the murder rate usually increases in the long, hot summer. Philadelphia is certainly getting a head start on last year!

Which brings me to The Philadelphia Inquirer’s story:

Philly police officer wounded, man killed during gun battle

The officer was shot in the foot on the 1500 block of West Somerville Avenue.

by Robert Moran | April 7, 2021

A man was fatally wounded and a Philadelphia police officer was shot in the left foot during a traffic stop that escalated into a gun battle Wednesday evening in the city’s Logan section, police said.

With Fraternal Order of Police President John McNesby on the left, Police Commissioner Danielle Outlaw comments, from the 35th District station, on the alleged exchange of gunfire that left a man dead and an officer wounded on the 1500 block of West Somerville Avenue on April 7, 2021.Elizabeth Robertson, Philadelphia Inquirer Staff Photographer

About 6:45 p.m., police on patrol initiated a traffic stop on a blue Kia Optima on the 1500 block of West Somerville Avenue, said Police Commissioner Danielle Outlaw.

The officers ran a check on the four occupants — three men and a woman — and found that two had warrants, Outlaw said. The officers then asked for backup and two other police vehicles arrived.

Four officers approached the Kia and asked a 24-year-old man in the back seat to exit the vehicle, Outlaw said. Then one of the officers allegedly saw that he had a firearm and declared, “He’s got a gun.”

There’s more at the Inquirer original. And is it my imagination, or does Police Commissioner Danielle Outlaw, covered up in her uniform and cover and face mask, kind of look like an Afghan woman wearing a burqa, with only her eyes visible?

That the police officers’ union president was there sure looks like he was making sure that the Commissioner didn’t somehow trash her officers!

Commissioner Outlaw went on to explain that her officers reported that the armed man fired a shot at the officers from inside the Kia, and then got out and engaged in a gun battle with police. That turned out to be a poor tactical decision on his part, as he managed to hit one officer in the foot, but took multiple rounds in the chest.

“It just speaks to the level of gun violence in the city,” (Police Department spokesman Sgt Eric) Gripp said about the incident, in which one man allegedly opened fire on the officers, apparently without provocation.

Yeah, I suppose that a Police Department spokesman — the Inquirer referred to him as a “spokesperson,” but The First Street Journal does not go along with that politically correct bovine feces — would have been trained to use the term “gun violence,” but we need to start telling the truth here: it wasn’t “gun violence” but criminality! The now deceased criminal was already being sought by the law; there was an active warrant out for his arrest. He was stupid enough to have been carrying a gun, and stupid enough to start shooting at police officers, officers he had to know outnumbered him several to one. He started firing from inside the vehicle, thereby putting the other three people in the Kia in danger of being wounded or killed by return fire from the police.

But, maybe it wasn’t so stupid after all. Maybe the criminal knew that the gun, when ballistics are run on it, will turn out to have a body or three on it, maybe he knew that, if he was arrested, he’d wind up in prison for the rest of his miserable life. In Philadelphia, that’s always a possibility.

But, whatever his reasons, whether a cold, calculated estimate that it was shoot it out or face life in prison, or whether he was just messed up on alcohol and/or drugs and not thinking clearly at all, the deceased decided to risk the death penalty, and received it, all in just a few minutes. I do not support capital punishment, but it’s difficult not to see Philadelphia as being better off without the deceased alive and out on the streets.[1]While Pennsylvania has capital punishment on the books, District Attorney Larry Krasner does not seek the death penalty for any crimes.

Within minutes of the shootout, two men from another shooting also arrived at Einstein hospital by private vehicle. A 21-year-old man who had been shot twice in the head was pronounced dead. A 22-year-old man was shot in the left leg, and was listed in critical condition.

Well, that’s two of the seven people who were killed on April 7th; the Inquirer had no mention of the other five, although, the way statistics can be, it is possible that the others were shot or stabbed or whatevered a day or two earlier, and only expired on the 7th.

The sad fact is that the Inquirer doesn’t run many stories on homicides; there was that one short paragraph about the second murder victim, and that would never have generated a story were it not for the police-involved shooting. The truth is that, unless there’s something ‘special’ about a killing, such as the victim being an innocent bystander, and child, or, most importantly, a cute little white girl, it’s just not news in Philadelphia!

References

References
↑1 While Pennsylvania has capital punishment on the books, District Attorney Larry Krasner does not seek the death penalty for any crimes.
Posted on by

More #woke reporting from The Philadelphia Inquirer

We noted last week that the Lexington Herald-Leader declined to post the freely available mug shot of a suspected murderer on its website, even though all of the other media sources in that fair city did so, and I speculated — and yes, that is the correct word — that the editorial decision not to do so was because the suspect is black.

Justin Smith, named a ‘person of interest’ in the murder of Dianna Brice, as pictured in the New York Post.

Now comes The Philadelphia Enquirer Inquirer doing the same thing. The New York Post ran a story on Dianna Brice, 21, a missing and pregnant Delaware County woman, whose body was found in:

a wooded area in southwest Philadelphia, about one mile from where the car of her boyfriend, Justin Smith, 23, was found engulfed in flames hours after she vanished on March 30, WPVI reported.

CBS Philadelphia, citing police, said she had been shot. Smith is a person of interest in her slaying, the station reported.

One would think that the Inquirer would, as a public service to its readers, include the photo of Mr Smith, whom the Philadelphia Police Department have named as a ‘person of interest’ in the investigation of Miss Brice’s murder, in case one of the readers happened to spot Mr Smith, so that he could call the police. But if you thought that, you would be wrong.

Body of missing Upper Darby woman found in Southwest Philadelphia; boyfriend still missing

Dianna Brice had been reported missing March 30. Police tracked her cellphone and found her body in a wooded area in Southwest Philadelphia. Her boyfriend remains missing.

by Vinny Vella | Updated April 6, 2021

A pregnant woman reported missing from her home in Upper Darby was found dead late Monday, nearly one week after she disappeared, police said. Meanwhile, detectives continued their search for Justin Smith, the woman’s boyfriend and the last person seen with her.

Philadelphia police recovered the body of Dianna Brice, 21, in a wooded area near 58th Street and Eastwick Avenue in Southwest Philadelphia, according to Kevin Ryan, a private investigator working with Brice’s family. Officers found the body about 11 p.m. Monday, and forensic investigators later identified it as Brice’s, he said.

Upper Darby Police Superintendent Timothy Bernhardt on Tuesday said the investigation into her death is being handled by Philadelphia police and is being treated as a murder case.

It remained unclear how Brice died. Sources familiar with the investigation said officers found the body by tracking the young mother’s cellphone.

The Inquirer story was updated the day before the Post story was published, so while the Inquirer might not have known, at the time of publication, that the Philadelphia Police Department said that Miss Brice had been shot, they did know, as they published, that it was being treated as a murder case.

So, why not post a photo of the ‘person of interest’ on the Inquirer’s story? Yes, the Inquirer is a non-profit business now, and yes, bandwidth costs money, but the Inquirer had enough bandwidth available to include a photo by staff photographer José F Moreno of the site in which Miss Brice’s body was found. That means, among other things, that the Inquirer spent the money to send Mr Moreno out to the site to take the picture.

Now, to be fair, in an earlier story, the Inquirer did embed a tweet from the Upper Darby Police, in a story on the search for Miss Brice when she was missing, and that included a photo of Mr Smith:

But the newspaper couldn’t manage to include it in the story in which Miss Brice’s death was noted and in which Mr Smith was named as someone whom the police sought in the case. [1]This story was last checked by me at 11:49 AM EDT on Wednesday, April 7th, and this statement was accurate at that time. The photo might be added in a subsequent update, but I have no way of knowing … Continue reading

So, why wouldn’t a credentialed media source I have mockingly called The Philadelphia Enquirer not have published Mr Smith’s photo? [2]RedState writer Mike Miller called it the Enquirer, probably by mistake, so I didn’t originate it, but I thought it very apt. The paper had the photo, and the paper had enough bandwidth available to include a photo of the street near where Miss Brice’s body was found. I can think of four possible reasons:

  1. Vinny Vella, the author of both stories on Miss Brice, forgot that he had included that tweet, with the photo, just the day before. If that is the case, Mr Vella isn’t particularly bright.
  2. Mr Vella’s editor — and yes, I am presuming here that an editor actually reviewed the story, as has been a journalistic tradition for, oh, more than a hundred years — didn’t remember the included tweet from the previous day, and never asked a question as to whether Mr Smith’s photograph was available, in which case that editor wasn’t doing a very good job;
  3. The Inquirer has taken an editorial decision not to publish very many photographs of suspects in criminal cases; or.
  4. The Inquirer has taken an editorial decision not to publish very many photographs of suspects in criminal cases, if those suspects are black.

Reasons 1 and 2 are evidence of incompetence. Could it be the third reason, that the Inquirer doesn’t print photos of suspects, period, for whatever reasons? That, I suppose, is possible, though if they are going to print the suspects’ names, that would seem more damaging, as those names could be much more easily found in future Google searches by prospective employers or whomever.

How about the fourth reason? That, I believe, is the more probable one, and given the #woke nature of the Inquirer staff, the ones who forced the firing resignation of Executive Editor and Senior Vice President Stan Wischnowski over the headline Buildings Matter, Too, I think it is a reasonable suspicion.

References

References
↑1 This story was last checked by me at 11:49 AM EDT on Wednesday, April 7th, and this statement was accurate at that time. The photo might be added in a subsequent update, but I have no way of knowing that at publication of this article.
↑2 RedState writer Mike Miller called it the Enquirer, probably by mistake, so I didn’t originate it, but I thought it very apt.
Posted on by

No media bias there, huh?

I have previously referred to The City of Brotherly Love’s venerable newspaper as The Philadelphia Enquirer, in mocking reference to the National Enquirer, and it seems as though every day brings more justification of that.[1]RedState writer Mike Miller called it the Enquirer, probably by mistake, so I didn’t originate it, but I thought it very apt.

Had an experience with extremists or conspiracy theories? Tell us about it.

Have you experienced extremism in your community, or seen family or friends divided by conspiracy theories? Tell us about it and a reporter may reach out to you.

by David Gambacorta | April 7, 2021

We are living in a paranoid time.

Communities of conspiracy theorists have sprouted online in recent years in response to school shootings, the COVID-19 pandemic, and the 2020 presidential election — distorting reality, amplifying divisions, and fueling real-world harm.

» READ MORE: From Philly to the Capitol, conspiracy adherents have fractured families and harmed communities

A recent Quinnipiac University poll found that 73% of Americans believe that conspiracy theories are out of control. The Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, which left five people dead, illustrated the risks of allowing extremism, and conspiracy theories like QAnon, to spread unchecked.

Have you experienced extremism in your community, or seen family or friends divided by conspiracy theories? Tell us about it in the form below and a reporter may reach out to you.

That’s all of the text. Mr Gambacorta’s end of article bio blurb is a short one:

I work on the investigative team, and narrative-driven projects.

I guess that the older style, something along the lines of “Mr Gambacorta is part of the Inquirer — to use the newspaper’s real name — investigative team,” isn’t young or #woke enough, and has to be more personalized.

But I digress. The article then gives four options in a response form:

Which extremist groups or conspiracy movements have you had an experience with?

  • QAnon
  • Proud Boys
  • Covid-19 Truthers
  • Other

Did you notice? All of the “extremist groups or conspiracy movements” given as options are those attributed to conservatives. There is no option to choose Antifa or #BlackLivesMatter as an extremist group with which one has had experience, even though Philadelphia experienced plenty of damage and violence in the protests over the killing of George Floyd and Walter Wallace.[2]Walter Wallace Jr was a mentally disturbed man who charged police with a knife, when officers responded to the fourth call from his family over his erratic behavior; the officers, who did not have … Continue reading

The Proud Boys, huh? A site search of the Inquirer’s website turned up this:

Far-right Proud Boys march through Center City

The alt-right Proud Boys marched through Center City Saturday with nearly 60 participants, many wearing body armor and helmets.

by Staff Reports | September 26, 2020

The alt-right Proud Boys conducted a march through Center City Saturday with nearly 60 participants, many wearing body armor and helmets, some waving American flags, and occasionally engaging in sharp verbal exchanges with onlookers.

They stopped in front of Independence Hall to sing The Star-Spangled Banner and then proceeded to City Hall, where they posed for a group photo, some displaying a white power sign with their fingers.

On the way there, they crossed paths without incident with the March to End Rape Culture, a protest to raise awareness about rape and express solidarity with the Black Lives Matter movement. Later, the Proud Boys chanted “Back the blue” as they made their way to a parking garage at Penn’s Landing, where police closed off access until members of the group drove off.

The action came a week after the Proud Boys were expected to rally in Clark Park, when instead about 500 counterprotesters showed up to the popular West Philadelphia site in a progressive, racially diverse neighborhood.

Social media posts claimed Proud Boys were present, but were disguised as journalists to gather information about leftist activists.

If you open that article, you will see several photographs of the Proud Boys march in Philly, none of them showing any violence, none of them showing the buildings they burned or the stores they looted, because none of that happened! Not one story concerning the Proud Boys indicates any violence, any violence at all, by them in Philadelphia.

There was plenty, though, concerning the arrest of Zach Rehl, a Philadelphia man whom federal prosecutors say was a Proud Boys leader and participant in the January 6th Capitol Kerfuffle. The Feds want to keep Mr Rehl locked up before his trial begins, even though they have conceded that Mr Rehl did not participate in any violence himself:

Assistant U.S. Attorney Luke Jones conceded in court Friday that the government had no evidence that Rehl had directly participated in any property destruction or violence against police once he was inside Capitol grounds. But he balked at the suggestion from Rehl’s lawyer that the man was being jailed pretrial solely for expressing controversial political views.

“He is not before the court because of his opinions,” he said. “He’s before the court because of his actions and the people he led.”

Yet it was the Proud Boys, not Antifa and not Black Lives Matter, who organized and committed actual violence and vandalism, whom Mr Gambacorta listed as an extremist group!

Even though I am no longer a Pennsylvania resident, I do pay attention to foul, fetid, fuming, foggy, filthy Philadelphia, enough so that I broke down and subscribed to the Inquirer — after my wife told me to do so, seeing the conniptions through which I was going to get their stories without paying for them — but it doesn’t take much to see the leftward bias of that newspaper.

The editors, writers and reporters of The Philadelphia Enquirer Inquirer have, of course, their absolute First Amendment rights to think and say and print whatever they want, but I have the same rights to point out their utter stupidity.

References

References
↑1 RedState writer Mike Miller called it the Enquirer, probably by mistake, so I didn’t originate it, but I thought it very apt.
↑2 Walter Wallace Jr was a mentally disturbed man who charged police with a knife, when officers responded to the fourth call from his family over his erratic behavior; the officers, who did not have tasers available to them, defended themselves.