In the meantime, Gregory Kane reflects on the difficulty of catching Harris' Killers in Baltimore, saying:
Unfortunately, we’re dealing with a subculture in Baltimore whose adherents think the moral thing to do is to NOT give up Harris’ killers. Does anyone really believe that no one knows who killed Harris other then the ones who committed the slaying?
The suspects have friends, relatives and perhaps girlfriends who know exactly what they did. So far, not one of them has come forward to finger the killers. Such is the grip that the “Stop Snitching” mind-set has on some people in this town.
In all this, we should remember that Annette Harris lost her husband, and her children's father, and she wants justice served as well.
A defendant in a Howard County rape/assault trial alleges the sex was consensual. Great job, hotshot - now, explain the choking.
Another no longer alleged scumbag has received life in prison as well for a 2006 murder. How soon until we hear about how racist and unconstitutional life in prison is has yet to be determined.
Another one of our city's little dears will be spending (at most)30 years in jail for shooting another teenager.
Score one for the alleged bad guys, thanks to the Court of Special Appeals.
More random thefts, robberies and assualts in Harm City. But at least we don't have to deal with Turkish Cockroaches... yet...
10 comments:
From Greg Kane's piece:
"Catching the killers of the former Baltimore City councilman may be the last chance Baltimoreans have to do right by Harris. Voters here failed him at the ballot box, in essence kicking him in the teeth by rejecting his bid for City Council president. It wasn’t the first time city voters did that to an elected official with an exemplary record of public service. We did the same thing to former City Council President Lawrence Bell in his mayoral bid nine years ago."
I thought that Lawrence Bell was widely regarded as a total asshat who would've probably been an even worse mayor than O'Malley?
I know there was an issue with him stemming from issues with his suits, I think? Still, in light of what we know now I can't imagine that he could've been substantially worse than the boy wonder we ended up with.
Interesting that Baltimore cynic puts Dixon in a bad light for requesting community help, but in the same blurb mentions Kane's idea that "someone somehwere knows something". Why does Kane get a halo and Dixon, horns?
Anyways, a few more cops on staff would not have saved Harris and prevented this crime. The way it works is....
1) something happens
2) someone calls 911
3) the cops arrive after assessing the urgency of the call
4) the cops take action, if they can.
#4 can't happen before #3 and #3 can't happen before #2. Its called "Causality". Live with it. Unless the BCPD stations an officer at the shopping plaza 24-7, you're not going to be able "stop crime" there.
The real solution, for christ's sake, is NOT more police. They are DOING THEIR JOB FINE. The solution is in DEALING with preps PROPERLY in the criminal justice system.
Does anyone doubt that the murderous animals who shot Harris have been arrested... multiple times... for serious violent felonies... since they were, what, preteens.
And its not outrageous to have 24-7 security paid for by the building managers. I have it work. Many buildings downtown have it. Many shopping centers have it. Its a good idea, even in areas that don't see a lot of crime.
Helix:
While you're correct that it's silly to say that a few more cops would've prevented Ken Harris's murder, there is a lot of evidence that more cops on the beat reduce crime. New York City is the most obvious example. Improved policing is often credited with the remarkable crime turnaround there, however a big part of the reason that crime dropped so much in the 90s is probably that the NYPD hired a lot more cops.
You are also correct of course that more needs to be done to lock up the criminals who are caught. An excellent first step would be abolishing parole for violent felonies and instituting a California-style three strikes law.
"Score one for the bad guys"? So let me get this straight, Ms. Blogger: you think it's okay for a judge to do what Judge Prevas did?
You think that's okay? You think it's okay for a judge to ask 125 questions when he's just supposed to sit there and rule on things that happen during trial?
Do you believe in fair trials?
Hundreds of thousands of our young men have given their lives in wars around the world for our right to have a fair trial, and your apparent disgust with the right to a fair trial disgusts me.
You should be criticizing the State's Attorney for being a POS attorney (making the judge do her job for her), instead of attacking a fundamental Constitutional right.
The Cynic is a dude, FYI.
His opinions are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of management.
"instead of attacking a fundamental Constitutional right."
Many of the so-called "rights" that criminals have aren't in the constitution, but were invented by judges and criminal advocates during the 1960s and 70s.
pptain, you are a dangerous person.
Are you saying the RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL isn't a fundamental constitutional right?
I was kinda kidding about you heading back to Saudi Arabia, but now I think you may actually prefer such a criminal justice system.
Instead of attacking a system that (theoretically) is the fairest, most just in the world, you should instead attack the lazy, incompetent judges, prosecutors, and police who are the cause of the sad state of affairs in which we now find ourselves.
The laws are good; their application is poor.
@NCDCO
If this appeal had been related to Constitutional law, wouldn't it have gone to Federal appeals court rather than the Maryland Court of Special Appeals?
While obviously the appellate court didn't approve of Prevas' behavior (and I agree with the appellate court in this case, as much as it pains me to do so), they wouldn't have the power to overturn the judgment based on issues of Constitutionality.
Or that's my understanding. Any judges out there who can clarify?
"If this appeal had been related to Constitutional law, wouldn't it have gone to Federal appeals court rather than the Maryland Court of Special Appeals?"
All appeals of state convictions first go through the state appellate system. An inmate can only file a federal habeas petition if he's exhausted all available remedies in the state system.
Post a Comment