Instead of Getting Raped, Shoot the Rapist

There have been some highly publicized incidents where certain police spokesmen advised women not to "dress like sluts" in order to avoid sexual assaults, in effect blaming the victims for enticing criminals. But after an attempted rape in South Carolina park, a local sheriff had some much better advice.

[He] is urging women to get concealed weapons permits and carry guns to protect themselves. ... He suggested that women carry a .45-caliber weapon, and showed reporters at a news conference a fanny pack women could use to carry a handgun while jogging.

The sheriff also noted that a gun is far more effective than mace, and had this to say.

"There won't be any doubt if you need to use your firearm to defend your life," he said. "I don't want this to happen, but I am telling you, I am tired of looking at victims and saying, 'I'm sorry, we've done the best we can to get them in jail.'"

I applaud the sheriff for speaking out on this issue and actually giving advice that could save women from rape or death. I've been saying for years that the best way to prevent rape is to give yourself the ability to respond with lethal force, an action that not only can prevent rape, but might remove rapists from the population permanently.

Church or Jail

Bay Minette, Alabama is letting non-violent misdemeanor offenders decide between jail & fines or going to church for a year. That's right, you can avoid jail time and fines by agreeing to attend church for a year.

If offenders select church, they'll be allowed to pick the place of worship but must check in weekly with the pastor and police. ... If the one-year church attendance program is completed, the offender's case will be dismissed.

I had two main thoughts when I read this story. First, I found it pretty funny that this city judge is giving the impression that going to church every week is roughly equivalent to jail time. But after my initial amusement, came the reality that this is a ridiculous punishment that lets criminals off easy. I'm all for alternative sentencing for non-violent offenders. But how is attending church once a week for a few hours in any way equivalent to serving jail time and paying fines? I'm an atheist and I'd take that deal in a second. You can just sit in the back and take nap during the service, daydream, or whatever. It's not a punishment. Amazing as it may seem, many people actually like going to church. Depending on the church you pick, it might have good music, food and other benefits. You can steal things, get DUIs, and commit various other misdemeanors and get off with just going to church weekly?

The Troy Davis Execution

I was going to write something about this execution, but John Hawkins of Right Wing News did it for me in his post at Huffington Post called, "Why Do Liberals Have Such a Soft Spot for Cop Killers Like Troy Davis?" Here are some of the key points.

We have a justice system that is already ridiculously slanted against the death penalty. It usually takes decades of appeals and retrials to put anyone to death, no matter how ironclad the evidence is against him. Despite farfetched claims that large numbers of innocent men have been put to death, there's actually no solid evidence that an innocent man has been executed in this country in the last fifty years. ... Liberals don't like the death penalty; so they are desperate to find proof that innocent men have been executed and there are people who are willing to make money providing that evidence, no matter how far they have to stretch to deliver it.

And the weight of evidence for Troy Davis' guilt is so great that despite all those years of appeals and efforts to overturn the verdict, or lessen the penalty, not a single court was willing to do so.

despite the incredibly slanted accounts you may have read, Troy Davis is not one of these mistakes. More than a dozen courts looked at the trial and came to that conclusion -- and no wonder. Davis shot a cop to death in public. There were 34 witnesses at the trial. Some of them were strangers. Some of them were friends of Davis. To this day, there are several people, some strangers and some former friends, who said they saw Davis shoot Officer Mark MacPhail and haven't recanted. How many eyewitnesses to a murder should you need to convict someone?

There's one other thing that Hawkins doesn't mention regarding the Supreme Court's refusal to stay the execution. There are outspoken liberals on that court, who have not been shy in expressing opposition to other executions.

In late June, for example, the court cleared the way for a Mexican national to be executed in Texas over the objections of the State Department, but the decision came on a 5-4 vote. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan disagreed.

No dissents were recorded in the Davis case. About 10:20 p.m., the court released a one-line order saying that the “application for stay of execution of sentence of death presented to Justice Thomas and by him referred to the court is denied.”

Despite all the pro-Davis propaganda, it apparently didn't even convince the liberal members of the Supreme Court. The overwhelming weight of the evidence is that Troy Davis was a murderer and was justly executed.

UPDATE

For those who might think I'm a reflexive, ideological defender of the death penalty in every case, I should point out that back in 2009 I wrote a post arguing that the Troy Davis case was a bad use of the death penalty. But, that's because I was uninformed about many details. As is sometimes the case in blogging, I was offering a quick take based on my reading of one op-ed which presented a skewed picture. A commenter pointed that out, which eventually led to me reversing my opinion.

Justice Served

There has been a lot of recent whining about the death penalty, based on a couple cases. But today we saw the death penalty serve its primary purpose: justice. The state of Texas executed Lawrence Russell Brewer for the incredibly vicious torture and murder of James Byrd back in 1998. In case you've forgotten, here's an account of the crime.

On June 7, 1998, Byrd, age 49, accepted a ride from Shawn Berry (age 24), Lawrence Brewer (age 31), and John King (age 23). Berry, who was driving, was acquainted with Byrd from around town. Instead of taking Byrd home, the three men took Byrd to a remote county road out of town, beat him with anything they could find, urinated on his unconscious body, chained him by his ankles to their pickup truck dragging him for three miles. Brewer later claimed that Byrd's throat had been slashed by Berry before he was dragged. However, forensic evidence suggests that Byrd had been attempting to keep his head up while being dragged, and an autopsy suggested that Byrd was alive during much of the dragging. Byrd died after his right arm and head were severed after his body hit a culvert. His body had caught the culvert on the side of the road, resulting in Byrd's decapitation.

Berry, Brewer, and King dumped their victim's mutilated remains in front of an African-American cemetery on Huff Creek Road; the three men then went to a barbecue.

Death penalty opponents often call execution "barbaric." In my opinion it is barbaric to allow those who would commit such a crime to go on living. It took a ridiculously long 13 years to execute just one of the murderers, but better late than never.

More on Shooting the Rioters

In the previous post I called for the police to shoot rioters who use firebombs against the police, or who set fire to occupied buildings. John Hawkins at Right Wing News agrees, although he goes much further.

Many people think of defense of a nation as the very first job of government, but there’s actually an even more basic task that the government has to fulfill: Maintaining order.

In extraordinary situations, when you have widespread breakdowns of public order and shops are being looted, cars are being burned, rocks and bottles are being thrown at police, and civilians are being murdered in the street, if the government can’t quickly re-establish order using normal means, it’s completely justified in using lethal violence to do it

I think lethal police response should be more selective, but I agree with his view of the responsibility of government. And he makes a key point.

you may say this is unfair to thugs in the street, but we should be much more worried about the lives of innocent people who are being assaulted and property owners whose livelihoods are being unfairly destroyed.

Exactly. This attitude tends to separate the right and the left, and is one of the many reasons I will always be on the right. When I look at a riot, my sympathy is with the people being assaulted, the owners of the cars being destroyed, the families left homeless when their buildings burn, the shopkeepers who are robbed, and all the other victims. The last thing I worry about are the feelings and rights of the scum doing the rioting.

Rioting Scum Continue to Rampage Thru London

In an extremely belated and underwhelming response, police in London are warning that they are going to use plastic bullets against rioters. They should have been using real bullets on the first night to kill the firebomb throwers. People who attempt to set others on fire, or who set fire to occupied buildings are attempted murderers. Those observed in the act of such attempted murders should be shot on sight by police, or anyone else. Since the UK has largely disarmed its people, and stripped away the effective right of self-defense, it falls to the police to maintain order and protect the public from these rampaging gangs of human scum. From what I've seen in British news reports, so far they've done a miserable job.

While driving to work yesterday I heard an NPR report on the riots. Their reporter interviewed a woman whose apartment complex was set on fire. She told how while she and her family were fleeing for their lives, their home destroyed, looters were laughing and stealing rugs from a shop on the ground floor of the building. As I've written before about mob violence, these sorts of situations are one of the few times that excessive police force, which would normally be police brutality, is actually called for to restore order. People who act as part of a violent mob or gang, who commit acts of arson, and who think the chaos they've caused is an excuse to appropriate other peoples' property are predatory vermin that needed to be suppressed as quickly as possible with overwhelming force. When a government fails to do so in these situations, its lack of action encourages more vermin to crawl out of their holes and take part in the feeding frenzy.

Perspective on Casey Anthony Case

My wife has been following this case closely and was outraged by the verdict. I was looking for reactions online and noticed Bernie's at Planck's Constant. He makes a number of interesting points that are worth considering. The bottom line is that Casey Anthony is clearly a scumbag and a lousy mother. But the evidence that she murdered her child is a whole lot less clear.

Injustice in Oklahoma

Pharmacist Jerome Ersland was given a life sentence for killing an armed robber inside his pharmacy. Details and surveillance video are at the link above, but here's the concise version.

Dramatic surveillance video of the attempted burglary shows Parker and an accomplice running into the pharmacy in the crime-ridden neighborhood and pointing a gun directly at Ersland.

The video then shows Ersland, a former Air Force lieutenant colonel, firing a pistol at the two men, hitting Parker with one shot that knocked him to the ground.

After chasing Parker's accomplice out of the store, Ersland retrieved a second gun and returned to shoot Parker five more times, 46 seconds after firing the first shot.

Ersland's lawyer told ABC News that the pharmacist saw Parker moving and thought he was still alive, and still a threat."

For that action Ersland was charge with murder and received a life sentence.

In my opinion both the charge and the sentence are complete travesties. According to the article, the entire incident took place in less than a minute. Ersland's reasoning for returning to shoot the wounded criminal is perfectly plausible when you consider the amount of time that had passed. How was he to know that the wounded man wasn't going for his weapon? Was he supposed to just stand there, watch him, and wait to see what he might do?

It would be nice if prosecutors gave the benefit of the doubt to people defending their lives and businesses. Did Ersland overreact in the heat of the moment by finishing off Parker? Maybe. But charging him with murder was uncalled for. At worst he should have been charged with manslaughter, as there were clear mitigating circumstances. A life sentence based on his actions is completely insane. Apparently that sentence was recommended by the jury, but the judge still has to rule.

The judge could suspend part or all of the life term. If he chooses to uphold the jury's full suggestion, Ersland will not be eligible for parole for another 38 years and three months.

Hopefully the judge will be less pro-criminal than the jury and right this injustice.

Execute Christian Longo Already

Eight years ago Christian Longo murdered his wife and three children. He's been sitting on death row for the past eight years, in a prime example of just how ridiculous the death penalty process is in the U.S. Longo admits his guilt and wants to end his appeals.

I have asked to end my remaining appeals, and then donate my organs after my execution to those who need them. But my request has been rejected by the prison authorities.

There are tens of thousands of people waiting for organ donations. Longo's article says 19 die every day. So why on earth would his request to die and donate be rejected?

There is no law barring inmates condemned to death in the United States from donating their organs, but I haven’t found any prisons that allow it. The main explanation is that Oregon and most other states use a sequence of three drugs for lethal injections that damages the organs.

Here's an idea, how about making an exception and using a method that preserves organs? I know, that's just too difficult for government bureaucrats to figure out. They'd rather just stick with their idiotic rules. Longo is a piece of human garbage who should have been executed years ago. But even he wants to do the one decent thing he has left to offer. Oregon should immediately grant his request.

Our Snail's Pace Criminal Justice System

According to ABC News, the case against the Jared Loughner will take years to process.

The man accused of carrying out the mass shooting in Tucson faces a court hearing Monday — an early step in a case against Jared Loughner that could take years to wend its way through the criminal justice system.

In my opinion this case could be wrapped up in a few months, let alone years. There's no question about Loughner's guilt. The procedural maneuvering detailed by ABC is a gigantic waste of time and money. The key question is whether or not Loughner is insane to the point where he isn't responsible for his own actions. I'm skeptical of this argument, since he was apparently able to function normally in society. But maybe he really is that crazy. If he is, then the death penalty shouldn't even be an option. He should be confined for life in a facility for the criminally insane.

If Loughner is not truly insane, then the case should be open and shut. There's no risk of sentencing an innocent man to death. Obviously he should be charged with the death penalty, convicted and executed. There's no good reason it should take years. But it probably will.

Questions for the Palin Haters

Since you are so eager to smear Sarah Palin with a share of responsibility for the Arizona shootings, is it too much to ask that you produce one single scrap of evidence that there is even the most tenuous connection between Jared Loughner and Palin? Does he have a Sarah Palin poster in his room, a copy of her book, or maybe an autographed picture? Is there a print-out of her oh-so-scary crosshairs political chart on his wall? Did he attend any of her rallies? Anything? Any connection at all? And no, I don't mean a connection that exists only in your imagination.

Wouldn't it be reasonable to at least have even one minor connection before even speculating, let alone accusing, someone of any sort of responsibility for murder? Liberals are always whining about "fairness." Where's the fairness in accusing someone of complicity in murder without evidence?

Even if such a connection could be established -- which it hasn't been -- have you ever heard that correlation does not imply causation? Roosters crow when the sun rises in the morning. Do you believe that roosters have some responsibility for the sunrise?

For those upset with Sarah Palin's response -- as if she should just sit still while being smeared, or apologize for something she had nothing to do with -- how would you feel if some political opponents claimed, without offering any evidence, that the murderous actions of some unrelated lunatic were somehow influenced by your words and political literature? What if they then attacked you for defending yourself, claimed you were a bigot because of your choice of words, and redoubled their baseless accusations?

Would you think that the people leveling such attacks were worthy of any respect? Or would you consider them some combination of ignorant, intellectually-dishonest, and blinded by hatred?

An Excellent Example of Leftist Irrationality

I believe that most on the left pushing their current meme about the Arizona shooting -- that it was somehow inspired by violent right wing rhetoric and the political climate -- are intellectually dishonest and deliberate engaging in a big lie tactic. But it appears that some are actually dumb enough to believe their own propaganda -- either that or the echo chamber they inhabit makes them oblivious to to their own biased assumptions. I came across this post at the White Coat Underground, which is written by a doctor. From the links it appears that the blogger is a skeptic and possibly an atheist. So I wasn't expecting such a high level of irrationality. Let's consider it point by point.

Sarah Palin jumped the bigotry shark today, and bloggers are trying to explain just how offensive her comments really are.

Others have already explained why Palin's use of "blood libel" was legitimate. It isn't exclusively tied to anti-semitism. But of course this blogger is too clueless and lazy to check his preconceived notions. Smearing political opponents as bigots without evidence is common leftist tactic.

the shooting of Rep. Gabby Giffords and 19 others happened in a particular time and place, and history will look back at this context in trying to understand the event. What Sarah Palin and others in the New Right are arguing is that context is meaningless

I'm not sure what the "New Right" is supposed to be, but no one is arguing that context is meaningless. What people are arguing is that the leftist spin on events is a smear, given that there isn't the slightest shred of evidence connecting anyone on the right to that shooting.

that their inflammatory, violent rhetoric is irrelevant

The things that have been cited as violent and inflammatory are neither violent nor inflammatory, but simple, commonly-used metaphors and symbols. And they are irrelevant because they have no connection whatsoever to this particular case.

and that the left is just as bad, which is patently absurd—we hate guns, remember?

The left isn't just as bad, it is worse. As many have already pointed out, there is at least as much violent rhetoric and use of symbols on the left.

Right wing reactionaries use gun rhetoric and Christian imagery and language to speak to their base, including such statements as “don’t retreat, reload”, and posting pictures of “targeted” districts like Rep. Giffords’ with gun sights on them.

Everyone uses those types of metaphors and symbols in political campaigns. This clown has apparently never heard of "targeting" someone for defeat. The idea that saying "reload" is somehow violent when you understand the context is laughable.

Giffords is gunned down by a presumed nut-job who easily purchased a firearm and ammunition, a “right” favored by the New Right.

Owning a firearm is a right favored by the constitution, something not exactly held in much regard on the left. It's also supported by a strong majority of America, something you might not know if you live only on the left-wing fringe.

He drew and fired on her point blank range, rendering idiotic any claims that being personally armed could have helped her.

This guy is on a roll for clueless assertions. There have been numerous times when someone faced an attacker already pointing a gun at them who successfully drew and used his own weapon in self-defense.

He then continues with his false assertions about the term blood libel, which is not just used with regard to the Jews.

Palin, who favors eliminationist rhetoric directed at, in this case, a liberal Jewish Congresswoma

No, actually she doesn't. This is a flat-out lie. She called for her defeat, not her "elimination." It sounds like this guy has been reading too much of Paul Krugman's crazed ranting.

absolves herself of any responsibility for the violence

Maybe because she has absolutely no responsibility for the actions of some lunatic who had nothing to do with her.

for the violence just happens to bear close resemblance to her rhetoric.

Maybe in left wing world where Sarah Palin-hatred dominates over rational thought. In the real world, the violence bears no relationship to anything Palin said. And even if it did, there's no evidence Loughner ever read a single thing by Sarah Palin. But let's just ignore that and smear her anyway.

Part of her reasoning is that it’s just rhetoric, and the guy was a nut.

Because the guy was a nut.

She then claims harm from the rhetoric leveled against her.

Really? I wonder why? Why would someone claim harm from being smeared in connection with violence she had nothing to do with? That's just too difficult for this logically-challenged blogger to understand.

I’m not one to see an anti-Semite behind every door, but this is blatantly anti-Semetic rhetoric, giving a whole new appearance to the attack.

He's not one to see an anti-Semite under ever door but he'll accuse someone of being an anti-Semite based on a supposed misuse of the term blood libel.

The majority of atheists are on the political left, and for many of them, their normal reliance on logic and evidence disappears when it comes to political issues, where they swallow leftist propaganda as if it were revealed truth. One of the main reasons I started this blog was to make it clear that not all atheists willing to speak out on political issues are on the left. When you see the kind of garbage that passes for political analysis at the White Coat Underground, you can understand that while I identify as an atheist and a skeptic, why I don't want to be associated with the left.

Knee-Jerk Feel-Good Legislation

According to the Huffington Post, Representative Peter King (R - NY), will sponsor new legislation involving guns. The proposed law would

make it illegal to bring a gun within 1,000 feet of a government official ... It is already illegal in the U.S. to carry a gun within 1,000 feet of a school. King's legislation to make it illegal to knowingly carry a gun within 1,000 feet of the president, vice president, members of Congress or judges of the Federal Judiciary, would offer government officials the same protection.

It's disappointing that such a typical knee-jerk reaction comes from a member of the GOP. No doubt Peter King and others who support such a law are well-aware that it does nothing to prevent the type of incident that occurred in Arizona. Lunatics who stalk and gun down their targets, along with various bystanders, are not exactly noted for obeying laws of any kind. I'm sure if this law had been in place the Arizona killer would have stopped and thought, hey, wait a minute. I can't go shoot Congresswoman Giffords. I'm not allowed to bring a gun within a thousand feet of her. Oh well, I guess I'll have to leave her alone.

This is yet another standard example of a politician responding to the idea that we have to do something, anything, no matter how pointless it might be. If he gets a new law passed he can pretend to have addressed the problem, claim credit for being tough on crime against government officials, and add another talking point to his campaign advertising.

Amazing Stupidity and Intellectual Dishonesty

I know I shouldn't be surprised that a shooting incident has brought forth such an outpouring of stupidity and intellectual dishonesty, but it is surprising in its intensity. Here's what we know so far, from what I've read. The shooter was an unstable individual with a penchant for conspiracy theories, and a specific grudge against Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. That's really all we know for sure. But that hasn't stopped an amazing eruption of complete nonsense, mostly from the left and its enablers in the media. The ridiculous speculation that violent political imagery -- which is nothing new and no more intense than it has been in the past -- is somehow responsible for this incident, is actually being seriously discussed, instead of receiving the derisive laughter it deserves. People seething with intense hatred for Sarah Palin, who know full-well she had no connection whatsoever to this incident, have shamelessly tried to smear her with responsibility. Then there are the usual idiots who pretend that if we just passed another gun law, somehow these incidents could be avoided.

Unless some sort of multi-person conspiracy is unearthed, or a clear motivating ideology, as in the case of radical Islamists, this incident can be best explained by the same explanation that applies to most such one-person shooting sprees: nuts do crazy things. When you have someone whose outlook on life and reality is so out of whack that he's willing to kill a bunch of random people just to get someone he's formed a grudge against, there's no telling what might set him off. The idea, in the absence of any evidence, that he was somehow motivated by a politician or media figure you don't particularly like, even though those figures aren't actually calling for any violence, is utterly ludicrous. I believe most of the people pushing such theories know that, and are just behaving like the intellectually-dishonest hacks they are.

How About We Stop Paroling Violent Career Criminals?

You'd might think basic common sense would prevent the release of a dangerous serial offender. Consider Dominic Cinelli.

Cinelli’s parole records show a checkered past: a rehabilitated junkie who started shooting heroin at 14, he was a career criminal who at one point was serving three concurrent life sentences for several armed robberies, armed assault with intent to commit murder, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, and unlawful possession of a firearm.

A lifetime of crime, three life sentences, yet he was paroled in 2009. On this past Sunday night Cinelli and some accomplices robbed a jewelry store. A police officer intervened as they were attempting to leave, leading to a shoot-out which left both Cinelli and the officer dead.

It was the first and last time in 34 years of public service that Woburn police officer John “Jack” Maguire, 60, a married father, had fired his gun on the job. He planned to retire in October.

Maguire should be alive today. A major reason he's dead is because fools decided to release someone who committed crimes serious enough to receive three life sentences. Our jails are full of non-violent drug offenders, and other criminals without a history of violence. If we need to let people out to alleviate overcrowding, how about we focus on them and leave the violent felons safely behind bars?

Knife-Wielding Criminals Meet Gun Owner

Right on the heels of my recent post about self-defense shootings in Kansas I happened upon another incident report, this time in Georgia. Two men attempted to rob a man at knifepoint in a parking lot. Unfortunately for them -- particularly for one of them -- their intended victim had a handgun.

a shopper was getting out of his car when he was attacked and held at knifepoint by two male suspects. ... Investigators say he struggled with the two men and was able to fire a weapon, killing Williams. According to the report, the robbery victim told a deputy "This guy tried to rob me and I shot him."

The man was injured during the struggle, but apparently not seriously. He's alive and un-robbed, thanks to the fact that he had a gun handy. Guns get quite a bit of bad publicity any time some nut goes on a shooting spree. But the fact is that guns are also routinely used in self-defense throughout the country. Many of the incidents garner little attention except for a mention in local news sources. And any day some violent criminal picks the wrong victim and ends up in the morgue is a good day in my book.

And here's a note for any pro-criminal apologists who have foolish sympathy for the poor attacker who supposedly didn't deserve to die for just a mere theft attempt... People like the shooter in this incident, and the apartment residents in the other, don't have the luxury of examining their options and trying to assess the motives of criminals. If someone breaks into your house, or grabs you and tries to put a knife to your throat you have to make an immediate decision under tremendous pressure. You don't know whether the criminal is simply going to take your money and go, or whether he's the type that doesn't want to leave any witnesses to his crime. If he's in your house it's even worse, because if you have a family, they are also at risk. In these situations a gun is a tremendous benefit to self-defense. It gives the weaker, the elderly and the outnumbered at least a fighting chance against a potentially lethal criminal, who may himself be armed with a firearm or other weapon. As I mentioned in the previous post, the fact that criminals in America have to fear being shot by their potential victims is a good thing.

Don't Break Into Apartments in Topeka

For the second time this month, a home invader was shot dead by a resident while breaking into a Topeka, Kansas apartment. Each incident was ruled self-defense, and no charges were filed. That's two less criminals roaming the streets and looking for places to rob. There's no telling what might have happened had those apartment residents been unarmed. Unlike in some countries where self-defense is penalized and the populace disarmed, would-be home invaders in the U.S. have to fear being shot. That's a good thing.

Torture Works Again

Yet another criminal has demonstrated that torture can be an effective tool for extracting accurate information. This time the criminal in question used starvation and dehydration to break his victim over a period of six days, leaving the poor man, Neil Varley in this condition:

malnourished, dehydrated and suffering from kidney failure after he was deprived of food and water during his ordeal

So what did this torture accomplish? In addition to forcing the victim to write out checks, the torture also extracted some accurate information.

Police later recovered CCTV of Kizajev using Mr Varley's bank card to top up his mobile phone and withdraw cash.

As in previous cases, torture was used to obtain a PIN number, a type of specific, verifiable information. Unlike some people who claim to be experts on interrogation, criminals are well-aware that torture can be a viable tool for getting accurate information from a reluctant prisoner. Like all interrogation methods, success or failure depends on the who is asking the questions, the subject, the information in question, and various other factors that may differ in each case.

Religious Nuts Hide Their Children

There is a bizarre story out of York, Pennsylvania. A man and a woman kept their five children hidden away from the "outside world" in appalling conditions for years.

The youngsters, who range in age from two to 13, lived inside an abandoned home at 734 South Duke Street. The home had no electricity, heat, water or functioning toilet. The children were never taken to any medical, dental or vision appointments, and did not receive any type of education. ... there are also no existing birth certificates or records for any of the children. ... The lack of information is one reason the York County Office of Children, Youth & Families couldn't pursue any action when tips came in about the family in 2003 and 2007. Sinhue Johnson refused to cooperate & the children simply couldn't be found.

Why would the parents do such a thing? What's a major reason many people do crazy things? That's right, religion.

[The] York couple told police detectives religion was the reason they hid their five children from the outside world for years.

For some reason the report doesn't identify the religion, or provide any information regarding what practices would cause such behavior. It would be interesting to find out more details.

Prime Candidates for Execution

In a town in Georgia four men beat another man to death for absolutely no reason.

It began with a brawl outside a house party. A woman hit a man, and the man refused to strike back, saying he wouldn't hit a girl. Instead, he vowed to attack the next male who walked by, even if that person was a random stranger.

That's when 18-year-old Bobby Tillman happened to approach a group of four partygoers , who swiftly stomped, kicked and punched him to death while dozens of bystanders watched. "He had nothing to do with anything," said Tommy Wheeler of Douglas county sheriff 's department . "They just decided he's the one. And they killed him."

If this story is accurate, the four individuals who did this are human garbage that should be swiftly executed. There is no good reason to permit them to live any longer than the time needed for a trial. If clearly guilty, there is no good reason for lengthy appeals, or any of the other nonsense that makes the death penalty so difficult to carry out. Those who commit such senseless acts of murder should be quickly executed. They won't be of course, but they should be.