D.C. a little safer (I hope).
 

My buds in D.C. have told me that crime has really been bad in our Nation's Capital. And shocking to some is how a lot of this violent crime was occuring right on the Mall, in the shadow of the Washington Monument. After reading about these crimes I'm surprised how it still utterly shocks me. The depravity of it all.:worried:


Five Arrested For Robberies, Sexual Assaults On Mall

By Channing Phillips, Public Affairs, Department of Justice
August 16, 2006

Five men ranging in age from 16 to 22 years old have been arrested and charged in connection with a series of armed robberies and sexual assaults that occurred on the National Mall last May and July. The five were taken into custody by USPP officers following an intensive investigation conducted by the Park Police and the U.S. Attorney’s Office, with assistance provided by the U.S. Marshals Service, the Secret Service, the FBI, Prince George’s County PD, Metro Transit PD and Metropolitan PD. Another three individuals have also been arrested in connection with the use of credit cards stolen during the robberies. The following five incidents occurred on the Mall:

May 25, 10 p.m. to 11 p.m. – A couple walking on the Mall were approached by three young men, one armed with a gun. They were ordered to the ground at gunpoint and searched for money and valuables. Items taken from them included cash, a cell phone, and a wallet containing credit and ATM cards. One of the men committed a forceful sexual touching of the woman.

May 25, immediately after the above – The men approached another couple on the Mall and were also ordered to the ground and robbed of similar items. As in the first incident, one of them committed a forceful sexual touching of the woman. She was also kicked in the head by one of the men when she resisted.

May 27, 11 p.m. to midnight – A man and woman walking together on the Mall were approached by three young men, one armed with a gun. A jacket, wallet, cash and credit cards were taken from the man and his pants pockets were searched. Items and cash were also taken from the woman, who was then taken by the armed man to a grassy are of the Mall, where he raped her at gunpoint, then forced her to commit oral sodomy on him and a second man. The latter punched and kicked the man before joining the sexual assault.

July 11, about 10 p.m. – Two women were approached by two young men and robbed of their cell phones and cash on the grounds of the Washington Monument. During the robbery, one of the men committed a forceful sexual touching of one of the women.

July 11, 10 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. – A family of four – two adults with their two children, ages 9 and 15 – were walking on the Mall near the Washington Monument when they were approached by two men, one armed with a gun. They were forced to the ground at gunpoint, then robbed of cash and a camera.

Working methodically and following leads arising from an analysis of records from the stolen credit cards and a cell phone, interviews with witnesses, and the execution of more than a dozen search warrants, investigators identified and arrested the five men. A variety of assault and robbery charges have been filed against them. Three other men, ranging in age from 19 to 24, have been arrested and charged with conspiracy to commit theft in the first degree in connection with the use of some of the stolen credit cards. In announcing the arrests and charges against these defendants, U.S. attorney Kenneth Wainstein and USPP chief Dwight Pettiford commended the outstanding work of all members of law enforcement who worked tirelessly to close this investigation, particularly, lead detective Todd Reid of the U.S. Park Police and the outstanding team of detectives, along with David Knoedler of the U.S. Secret Service, Marty Flynn of the U.S. Marshals Service, and the Criminal Investigative Unit of the U.S. Attorney’s Office, particularly, John Marsh and Larry Grasso. They also commended assistant U.S. attorneys Elana Tyrangiel and Dan Zachem.

Well, the citizens in D.C. have been disarmed... for their own protection, of course. See how well it works?

You've got to be pretty stupid to use credit cards that were stolen in a high profile crime like these.

I doubt the "three other men" knew exactly how hot the cards were. Probably they got nailed through the cards and then flipped on the original perps.

But not the citizens of the fine state of Virginia who work in DC. At least not this one.

The original perps are the stupid ones. They should have taken the cash and tossed the wallets and credit cards. Not used them or given them away to others who could finger them. But I guess if they were smart, they wouldn't be doing this at all.

I don't know.
 

I don't know. If I didn't want to get a job and I wanted to get some money and have some "fun" at the same time, I probably would assault people on the Mall, take their cash, then rape one of the victims and/or kick one of them in the head. It's all good.:neutral:

I don't think your VA carry permit will avail you of much in DC. And I say this as a holder of a FL permit that's good in VA, among other places.

OTOH, if you're operating under the "rather be judged by twelve than carred by six/easier to ask forgiveness than get permission" school of thought, good on you.

Even if these victims had been armed, it probably wouldn't have done much good, unfortunately--the perps would have just stolen the victims' guns as they searched them. Everyone I know who's been mugged has been taken completely by surprise, and usually from behind.

How many of them were armed?

I know that becoming an armed citizen has done wonders for my situational awareness. Just because your friends wander around in Condition White doesn't mean everybody has to.

Only one had a gun, that I had any knowledge of. He was robbed at gunpoint, knocked down--then shot the thief in the back as he was running off. If I recall the story correctly, he didn't stick around to find out how much damage was inflicted.

I really do think it's great that you have increased situational awareness. One of my friends does indeed exist in "Condition White," despite being robbed twice (I want to shake her sometimes). But as for the others...well, one guy, who I know is very streetwise, was walking down a main street in the middle of the afternoon, when suddenly he was grabbed from behind and had a gun shoved against his temple. He got out of it alive by calmly asking the attacker not to shoot him, and handing him his watch off his wrist. He couldn't move otherwise, and that was all he could do. I really don't know if he carried a gun or not (somehow it wouldn't surprise me if he did), but in that situation, it was a non-issue.

I think this is the part the gun grabbers don't get. You, an armed citizen, are aware and responsible. They think only of the Maurice Clarett scenario.

Good thing for him that he did; depending on the jurisdiction a court would probably have convicted him of ADW. Sounds like a real knucklehead...I bet his weapon wasn't legally carried.

Then the fact that he was blindsided doesn't speak to the issue, no matter how "street-wise" you think he is. The assertion was that being armed doesn't matter.

Legalizing firearms ownership and issuing Concealed Carry permits would start turning things around, based on the experience of quite a few states that have enacted such laws.

That's a nice way to put it. I was thinking more along the lines of Removing the unconstitutional prohibition on an explicitly granted Constitutional right.

And the whole "crackdown" on crime going on in DC right now has less to do with protecting the defenseless citizens of DC and more (if not everything) to do with restoring the flow of tourist dollars into the city coffers. For DC, its all about the Benjamins. Except when it comes to citizen's rights which have nothing in common with anyone named Benjamin.

To pick a further nit, the Constitution doesn't *grant* that right, it recognizes that it is inherent and then prohibits infringement of it.

No, it wasn't legal, he was in DC. And in this case, carrying a gun did not keep the guy from being robbed in the first place. Similar to a neighbor of mine in a recent incident in Philly--he carried a (legal, this time) firearm, yet was still robbed of his jewelry. This man apparently was not up on the various "Conditions," being out and about at two in the morning in the first place.

It does speak to the issue--whether or not he was armed didn't matter, because he didn't have the opportunity to access anything, not even to reach in his pocket to give up his wallet.

Safety
 

I carry a shod foot everywhere I go.:neutral:

You're not paying attention. I'm saying that being a legally armed citizen changes your behavior. So anecdotes about unarmed folks aren't germane.

Anybody wearing jewelry worth stealing on the street in Philly at 2am without even being at full alert goes in the "knucklehead" file along with your felon friend in DC. You're sure he held a permit, and was packing when this happened? He actually knew how to shoot? Practiced at a range, and so forth? (Training isn't actually required for a PA permit.) I'm suspecting a face-saving tale.

What neighborhood did *that* go down in? Please don't say "West Philly" or "South Street".

The past tense of "shoot" is "shot", not "shod".

Was that a joke?

It's hard to tell at this hour, but yeah.

Yes. :-)

Okay. Just checking. For one horrible minute, I considered the possibility that maggie didn't understand the word 'shod', which would have been totally at odds with her usual high level of intelligence.

Shot. Foot. Get it? :-)

http://www.reed.edu/~tuckers/jokes/foot.html

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0411061foot1.html

http://burks.bton.ac.uk/burks/language/shoot.htm

I do, I do. It's almost 3:30 here:P My mind is not working as fast as it usually does.

OK, so to go with that one...

Oh, I know what you're saying, and I am taking you at your word that carrying a firearm has changed *your* behavior for the better (as in being more aware of your surroundings). You are obviously missing my point, which is: someone intent on mugging you doesn't know, and may not even care, if you're packing.

So, you want a face-saving tale...hate to disappoint you, but all I can give you are the facts as they were reported. The Philly guy had a CC permit. He was carrying his gun at the time of the theft. We know this because he shot the thief several times (he's dead) after he chased and hit him with his car. It happened in Center City. I'm sure you must have heard about this in the news recently.

I imagine that it was merely intended as a cheap jab, but the person you referred to as "your felon friend" was not a personal friend of mine.

So, then he *did* get a chance to use his gun...although his tactics suck. :-) If he had to hit the guy with his car before he could hit him with handgun fire I assume he didn't train much...unless it's because he kept the gun in his car--always a bad move. Clearly another one for the knucklehead file.

I recall a similar case in the news, but it was more like four years ago, and started on South Street in the daytime. Sorry, I thought when you cited "everyone I know who's been mugged" you were referring to people you actually do know.

Huh?
 

Shod foot.

That whole exchange was fucked. I don't get the "joke" about "shot" vs. "shod."

I guess what I was saying is that many times a gun is less effective than just kicking the fucker in the nads with your DMs.:neutral:

Who wants to get that close? And I know one or two nasty counters to a crotch kick.

But if you're not reliably much more effective with your sidearm than with your shoes, definately you shouldn't carry.

Or your car.

I heard a statistic that suggests that the person most likely to end up shot is the one who brought the gun to the fight .

Anti-gun people love statistics. Most of them are either wrong or badly put together.

For example such a number would be easy to phony up if you counted police officers in weapons retention incidents...who obviously did "bring the gun to the fight". (It's sad, but police officers can be the absolute worst at firearms skill and safety. Many of them practice concientiously and observe all the safety rules...and some do not, perhaps because they consider themselves above laws and rules--witness the DEA undercover in the link I posted earlier.)

The famous "more likely to shoot someone in your own household" was created by counting suicides as "someone in your own household".

Gun Facts is a fantastic source of information. For example, appropos of what you "heard somewhere", on page 46 we read:
These numbers are from the UK Home Office, of all places...perhaps they were pushing an anti-knife law at the time. :-)

Anti knife laws? NO! No we wont let you take our knives!

Already happened, no? After some of the thugs switched to knives because they were cheaper and they could be sure the law-abiding wouldn't be better armed?

http://www.cellar.org/showpost.php?p...9&postcount=33 was the poster in Swansea.

Followed by proposals to make kitchen knives with sharp points illegal, because they have "no legitimate use". And let's not have any of you out there get caught with battlleaxes, broadswords, maces or morningstars, since there's apparently such a rising tide of assaults with medivial weaponry.

Once the Nanny State gets started, it's hard to get them to stop...all for such a good cause, don't cha know...

Being 1/4 Scot, Lil' Pete is pretty dissappointed in her "cousins". She just started saber lessons btw (she was strictly foil her first couple years), I can't believe how unconcerned she is with the bruises etc...

*grins* yes I know they've clamped down. I was just being facetious:P Forgive me, it's a flaw.

Two points:
1) Yes we are a bunch of tights-wearing, sherrif-whooping, arrow-firing, monarch-crowning medieavalists at heart :P Are you surprised?

2) Damn that nanny state, and it's unreasonable ban on broadswords and axe-wielding. 'Cause y'know maces don't kill people, people kill people......with maces.

We have had a couple of memorable samurai sword/decorative battle-axe/broad sword type killins around these parts in recent years.

You've also jailed homeowners for defending themselves against violent repeat offenders ... and give the offenders a walk on the crimes they were committing at the time for giving evidence against the homeowner. There is something majorly fucked in your system of justice.

Yes, i think i know the case you are referring to. A farmer was jailed for shooting a teenaged burglar in the back as he ran away. I do not believe that anyone has the right to kill a child ( he was 15) in order to defend their stuff. To defend their life? yes. To defend their cd player? nope.

Fred Barras was 16, but his accomplice was Brendon Fearon, a 29-yo violent career criminal, who was apparently *not* running away, and then sued for damages. I don't think it reasonable that a farmer, in a remote farmhouse, burgled many times in the past, confronting two criminals late at night in the dark in his own home should be required to get proof of age of all present before acting to defend himself.

Fearson died in the comission of a felony...and the UK held the victim of the felony responsible, rather than the "adult" man who led him into that peril.

That may have been what he 'claimed' happened. But during the trial it became apparent that the shooting occured as the burglars were leaving his property. He fired as they were running down the stairs. Shooting someone in the back as they run away is not defence.

I was just being facetious, it's the law.

(tagline?)

Well, it's truly noble that England is being kept safe for burglars.

Strikes me it grows out of that "wealth of the nation" philosophy..."You have no right to be safe in your home with your property, it's part the 'wealth of the nation' and your claim on it is so weak that these poor unfortunate criminals have a right to walk off with anything they can make it out the door with, and your only recourse being to call the constables who tried to disarm you and have been ignoring your complaints."

Our laws are different, and I prefer it that way.

Ahhh, I'm on the fence re: shooting felons in the back. I suppose he did not do his due diligence, i.e. walk up to them and ask their ages before properly shooting them in the front. He's a frigging farmer. he doesn't have a backhoe on his tractor? Doesn't he keep pigs?

He should go to jail for being sloppy and unimaginative. He wanted to get caught.

Very surprised. I get a quite different impression. When my daughter got married in Oystermouth Castle the groom had to bring his own sword. From the US.

Either that or "Mike! They're both in the mud! They have to wrestle, it's a law or something." --MST3K

How did he get away with that? Even in checked baggage I should think they would have freaked. :confused:

Actually the case I was thinking of, and can't find a reference to was the guy whose home was broken into for the second or third time by the same robbers, and he menaced and hit them with a cricket bat and was charged with assault.

There's a difference between defending and killing. It's to do with 'reasonable force'. There's also a difference between defending your life or the safety of your family....and defending your stuff. We consider that a human life, even a criminal human life is worth more than a stereo.

They shipped it ahead of time.

I do bed your pardon Wolf. I assumed you meant the farmer who shot a burglar in the back.

I do recall now the case you are talking about. There are occasions when the law is an ass:P Although, actually I don't think either of those cases held up in court. More a case of daft policing. Imitation guns had probably been a big thing for a while, used in robberies and so on.

And what's "reasonable" is where we disagree. Deadly force is occasionally deadly, and both these felons took that risk when entering this man's home in the middle of the night with evil, criminal intent.

I think it's "unreasonable" to have the outcomes this case did...it sends the message "if you convince the judge you're only stealing the law will be on your side". I think your values are misplaced, and you feel the same about me. As I say, our laws are different.

Would you still feel that way if the cricket bat had killed? It certainly can. It would be a "deadly weapon" here.

If the man wielding the cricket bat had chased a young man who was already running away from his home and then battered him to death with it, I'd see that as murder. If he had taken a swing at a burglar in his bedroom and accidentaly caused his death then I wouldn't.

I feel that once you are in breach of contract, you cannot expect the same contract to be enforceable by you.

If you decide to operate outside the law, then why should you be able, at the same time, to enjoy the benefits of operating within the law?

I'm sure there is some legal explanation for this.

If I swing a bludgeon at a nighttime intruder in my bedroom and he dies, nobody will call it "an accident".

Least of all me.

I would prefer not to have to rely on by luck being bigger and stronger than my attacker though. I won't resort to a club until my firearms have been exhausted.

I agree with foot[3] though...I don't see why a convicted felon comitting yet another felony should be better protected by the law than the victim he has just denied the protection of the very same law.

Well, here, the surviving perp would have been prosecutable for the homicide. As it was, he got out early and picked up a nice paycheck from BBC, after being jailed for the burglary conspirancy, and then dealing heroin, and then car theft. Later he went up again, this time for using stolen credit cards, which kind of brings us full-circle in the thread.

Ya think?


And in other news...

Yes, that's why I asked. :confused: