This ain't Hell, but you can see it from here

Category: Crime

  • Ohio Police: SEAL lied about attack

    Ohio Police: SEAL lied about attack

    Christopher Mark Heben

    Reader Ohio sends us a link to the Daily Mail in regards to SEAL Christopher Mark Heben who we wrote about when he was shot in Ohio back in April and then again when his brother, Thomas, was outed as a phony SF dude. Well, according to the Daily Mail, the police have determined that Christopher Mark Heben lied about the shooting. That he had indeed been shot, but not in the manner that he had reported to police;

    Christopher Mark Heben, 44, has been summoned to appear at Bath Police Department in Ohio today after being charged with obstructing justice and falsification.

    Police Chief Michael McNeely told MailOnline today despite vast evidence against Heben’s claim that he was shot in the stomach following a fight with three men, the veteran maintains he is telling the truth.

    […]

    Chief McNeely told MailOnline today that a detective had worked on the case for 30 to 40 hours a week and uncovered inconsistencies between what Heben told the police over several interviews and the media reports he gave.

    Cell phone records also showed he was not at the mall at the time he claimed the shooting took place.

    The police followed up on numerous tips that had been called in regarding the assailant’s ‘gray sports car’ – but they led nowhere.

    Chief McNeely confirmed that Heben did have surgery for a gunshot wound but could not say when it took place – only that it did not happen in the parking lot of the Mustard Seed Market.

    *shrug* I dunno.

  • Vincent Nicholas Demarco; phony US Marshal

    Vincent Nicholas Demarco; phony US Marshal

    Vincent Nicholas Demarco

    Joseph sends us a link to the Kingman Daily Miner about Vincent Nicholas Demarco who mounted his motorcycle and used his innate phony US Marshall detective skills to track down the women he thought stole his dog. When they attempted to flee the scene, he did what every US Marshall would do in a stolen dog investigation – he opened fire on them;

    According to Mohave County Sheriff’s Office spokeswoman Trish Carter, Demarco told deputies someone stole his dog over the weekend and he thought people living in a home in the 1700 block of Devlin Avenue took the animal.

    He saw four women with a puppy in front of the home and asked one of the women about the animal. She reportedly assured him the dog was hers.

    The women began to walk away when Demarco yelled at them to “halt,” and identified himself as a marshal before pulling one of his guns, according to Carter.

    The women got into a vehicle and left in a hurry. Demarco, said Carter, fired two rounds at the vehicle as the women drove away. A neighbor and her 2-year-old son were in her front yard at the time.

    Nobody was injured.

    Demarco is already facing charges for pointing a handgun at two pedestrians while he was riding his motorcycle, so I’m pretty sure he’s gone through background checks and faithfully abides by all of the gun laws of Arizona. Or maybe not.

  • More “Government Transparency”? Sure Looks Like It.

    Remember a month ago or so, when the TSA flatly denied news reports that illegal immigrants were being allowed to board US commercial flights without proper ID? You know, after Border Patrol union officials had disclosed the practice, flatly stated it was occurring, and questioned it?  When TSA said, in a press release to multiple media outlets,

    “These reports are false. A Notice to Appear, issued by the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), is not an acceptable form of ID at the TSA checkpoint.”

    Do I really have to tell you what they’re saying today? After all, haven’t we seen this Administration backpedal enough since January 2009 to know what’s coming next?

    Hell, I’m gonna tell you anyway. Here’s a quote from a 7 August 2014 letter from TSA to Rep. Kenny Marchant, R-TX:

    …” If a passenger does not have an acceptable form of identification, then the passenger is allowed to present two other forms of identification. One of the two forms of identification must bear the individual’s name and other identifying information such as photo, address, phone number, social security number, or date of birth. TSA may assess a variety of government issued documents to establish passenger identity. The I-862 form may be used along with another form of identification in this instance. As part of the issuance process for Form I-862, the person undergoes a biographic systems check, and a biometric systems check against both the Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System and the Automated Biometric Identification System prior to the issuance of Form I-862. TSA needs to be able to assess a wide range of information proffered by a passenger in order to investigate the passenger’s identity and make sure that watchlist matching has occurred.”

    “If a passenger can only present a Form I-862, TSA will attempt to establish the passenger’s identity through DHS partner Components, such as U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) or U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). If other DHS Components are able to provide corroborating information (such as that the I-862 was issued to an individual with the name provided) to permit TSA to verify an individual’s identity when taken together with all other information available, the passenger is permitted into the screening checkpoint to undergo screening.

    Yep.  If the claimed name matches and the individual can present no other info, the guy or gal flies.  Gee, you don’t suppose someone could POSSIBLY use someone else’s name or fake such a form, do you?  Especially since the form is allegedly available on the Internet?

    Sheesh.  Ya know, I really wish the current Administration would quit p!ssing on my leg and telling me it’s raining.

    It’s getting old.  And I can tell p!ss from rain.

  • Meanwhile, In the “Government Transparency” Department . . .

    . . . we have the following two “inconvenient truths”:

    We all remember just how “wonderfully” the rollout of the Federal ObamaCare website went. Because of this debacle – and fears concerning system security because of the poor initial implementation of that website – the AP made a FOIA request for documentation regarding the website’s system security plan.

    The Administration is flatly refusing to release any information about the subject. They are allegedly doing so for two reasons. First, because the release of system security plan might help attackers circumvent it. And second, because “releasing this information would potentially cause an unwarranted risk to consumers’ private information.”

    Sheesh – what a load of crap. First, any competent IT professional will tell you that this is merely an example of what’s called “security through obscurity.” They will also tell you that “security through obscurity” is merely the illusion of security; a competent attacker can figure out what you’ve done in a reasonable amount of time.

    Second: the allegation that releasing the system security plan “would potentially cause an unwarranted risk to consumers’ private information” is absurd. The plan doesn’t contain a damn bit of PII.   So releasing the plan doesn’t risk disclosing squat concerning “consumers’ private information.”

    What a release of the plan would do is allow 3rd-party review and validation of the plan. It would also show if the job was done “just as competently” as the initial website implementation – and thus would risk further embarrassing the Administration.   My money’s on that being the real reason behind the refusal.

    And then, we have this. It seems that on 15 April 2009, the Administration decided to get a handle on FOIA requests throughout the Federal government. On that date, Gregory Craig – Counsel to the President – wrote a memo reminding all Federal agencies of the need to consult with the White House if any document was requested that had “White House equities”. The requirement to consult with the White House involved all types of requests – including FOIA, Congressional, subpoena, and GAO.

    You can see an extract of the memo here.

    Gee. What a wonderful way to prevent the public from finding out what you’re really doing. The late LBJ and Richard Nixon must be smiling in their graves. They’d have heartily approved this!

    Transparent? Yeah, right. Just about as transparent as a freaking stone wall.

    But this should be no surprise. I mean, when the person in charge of making nonprofit group determinations tells a subordinate in e-mail they think conservatives are ”crazies” and “assholes” you can be fairly sure that they aren’t really interested in either operating openly or fairly. And when the Attorney General won’t investigate such incidents, you know that a distain for open government goes pretty far “up the chain”.

    Like maybe to the very top.

  • Just What Is an Unarmed Man?

    Much of black America and the liberal media are making a huge issue of the Ferguson shooting of an unarmed black man by a white police officer. We are being treated to endless live reports of rioting and looting, some of them detailing inflows of black and leftist agitators from around the country to keep the Ferguson opportunity hot and in full media focus. All of this comes out of a neighborhood shooting where, if the parties involved had their races reversed, the incident would have been merely local.

    But what amazes me is the justification for all this upheaval: that a white police officer shot an unarmed black youth. I’m a white man who many decades ago was a military policeman – one who had frequent encounters with unarmed young black soldiers who all too frequently vigorously resisted arrest. Except that they weren’t unarmed for the simple reason that they were young and strong and possessed quick fighting reflexes honed on the hard streets where they were raised. Quite often they were larger than me or my partner, who also quite often was black – not that this racial relationship often meant anything at all to the perps we were trying to detain. And once detained, their usual fate was that we took them back to Fort Campbell and released them in the parking lots of their barracks without filing charges. It was not our mission to bring young soldiers more grief; the lives of enlisted soldiers were already hard enough back in the late ’50s. What we did try to do was to save them from their own bad actions.

    But occasionally we did come upon a subject whose size and aggressive militancy required stronger measures, such as the judicious application of a nightstick. In those situations, did I ever fear for my life? Damned straight I did. Facing a much larger man, both in height and weight, who is determined not to be detained, you are praying that he’ll come to his senses and submit to arrest. Your gun is there at your side, but that is the last thing you want to introduce into such an encounter. But – and that is a very large but – that call is his.

    And that is where I have tried to place myself in that officer’s situation in Ferguson.

    The officer has a seriously damaged eye from a very hard, crushing shot from a very large fist. That indicates that the perp in this situation had the opportunity to throw at least one clearly damaging punch at the officer and effectively connect before the officer even could exit his vehicle. The severity of the damage to the officer’s eye and cheekbone indicates what could be expected from a sucker-punch from a 6’4” almost 300-pound assailant. And because I’ve been there and done that as a young man, there lies my problem with this media meme of the assailant being unarmed. The shoulders and arms of a 6’4” 300-pound man driving a large clinched fist render that fist a lethal weapon. Ask anyone who’s ever been on the receiving end of one. People are regularly beaten to death all around the world by such fists. Add to that the widespread availability of martial arts training in today’s society, and you can never be sure that any human you go up against doesn’t possess the ability to kill you with his bare hands, regardless of size.

    And that, folks, constitutes a deadly threat against one’s person, which in most states nowadays justifies a deadly, defensive counter-response, whether you be a civilian or a law enforcement officer. Confronted by such a threat from any person – black white, brown, whatever – I’m going to defend myself with whatever means I have. If that means is a handgun, then I will discharge that handgun into that large oncoming mass, and I will continue to discharge that handgun until that large threatening mass is no longer oncoming and is very decidedly unthreatening. If that means dead, so be it, no matter how many times his family assures me he was a “good boy.”

    Now, I ask you, what is not commonsense about that?

    So, those of you so quick to condemn this Ferguson police officer for shooting an unarmed man might want to put yourselves in that scenario and wonder just what you might do with an exceptionally large, very angry, violently threatening man charging toward you with unknown intentions – plus the certain ability, by virtue of his size, to do you grave injury, even to beat you to death with nothing more than his large, hard fists.

    Again I ask: just what is an unarmed man?

    Crossposted at American Thinker

  • No, Not an Attempt to “Railroad” Someone. No Siree. Not At All.

    One thing that military commanders are sensitive to is the concept of “command influence” in criminal matters. Best I can tell (I’m not a lawyer), it’s one of the easiest ways to get a slam-dunk court-martial case thrown out or set aside.

    But apparently the rules in Missouri must bere very different. The “esteemed, wise” governor of that state, Jay Nixon, has publicly said that “a vigorous prosecution must now be pursued” in the Ferguson shooting case.

    Now, as I said above – I’m no lawyer. But it seems to me that that statement fits the dictionary definition of one that is “prejudicial” to the investigation.  That is, it’s a statement that shows someone in authority has already determined the desired outcome of the investigation, and is blatantly attempting to influence the outcome.

    I wasn’t at the site of the shooting, so I don’t know what happened. That’s for an investigation to determine – a fair and impartial investigation.

    But last time I checked, the same is true of Governor Nixon. So, tell me: why is he publicly calling for a “vigorous prosecution” of a case that hasn’t even been freaking completely investigated yet, or brought before a damned grand jury?

    Frankly, this smacks of the old Soviet-era “show trial” mentality.  As in, “We don’t give a flying f**k if the guy is actually guilty or not; we’re going to convict him for political purposes anyway – justice be damned”.

    If the cop involved is found to have committed a crime, he should indeed be tried and – if found guilty – do time.  But at this point, the best I can tell nothing has yet determined regarding whether a crime was committed.  In fact, accounts emerging appear to points to the conclusion that the cop just might be telling the truth about what happened. Or perhaps not.

    Bottom line:  right now we just don’t freaking know the score.  And neither does Governor Nixon.

    We don’t need Governors decreeing the results of legal investigations a priori, or trying to pressure prosecutors or investigators into conducting prosecutions for political purposes.  Ditto the US Attorney General’s office.  Allegedly, this country operates under the rule of law – not according to the  whims of those in power.

    Rule by fiat and politicized justice was the kind of sh!t went on in the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, and in Mao’s China – as well as numerous other communist and non-communist dictatorships throughout history.  It was wrong there and then; it would be even worse here and now, since we (the US) purport to obey the rule of law – and claim that justice should be blind.

     

    (PS – if you’re wondering what might possibly be Governor Nixon’s political motive here, check out the first linked article.  It identifies Govern Nixon’s political affiliation.)

  • Obese and ‘oppressed’ in Ferguson

    One comfort America and the world can take away from the Ferguson, Missouri protests is that contrary to the alarms raised by the Left that the black underclasses are malnourished and downtrodden, the visual images of the protest marchers from Ferguson most assuredly put this liberal assertion to the lie. Watch those people pass by the news network cameras and one observation that leaps out at you is the unrelenting human tonnage lending its literal weight to that procession. America overall is overweight, no question, but what is on parade here appears to signal that obesity, ranging from exceptional to deadly, is an accepted cultural norm in the black community.

    To hear the media and the advocacy organizations, this is a segment of society suffering from the depredations of poverty imposed upon them by a racist white America. Viewing these protest processions, what we see is a segment of American society that clearly eats plenteously if not healthily. The only examples of malnutrition visible would appear to be the shirtless, juvenile males eager to parade their six-pack abs before the network cameras. The older males demonstrate the inevitable and ultimate loss of that vanity, a reality that overtakes us all, regardless of race.

    Survey any group of young white liberals and I’ll wager they would heartily agree that blacks in America are malnourished as an automatic extension of their overall poverty rate. It is a liberal trope that the black community in America is deprived of the basics of existence by a cold, conservative, uncaring white majority; we heartless conservatives are starving those poor black folks for no other reason than the pigment in their skins.

    And then you see the protest parade where obesity appears to be the near norm among the female marchers of all ages and the older males. Malnourishment, missed meals due to racism? The visual evidence before us says quite clearly that we are being fed a line of bull by the lefty activists. While we cannot conclude that these folks are eating particularly well, we can most assuredly conclude that they are indeed eating more than enough to sustain them, and for many of them, far more than that.

    Sufficient nutrition is the cornerstone of freedom; nothing comes before that human right because if you can’t eat, you have no reason to be concerned about the follow-on freedoms of speech, free expression, assembly and so forth. If you’re starving, no other concern of human existence matters.

    But when you, as a political movement, put your marchers on the road of protest and with an unusual number of them wobbling and jiggling their expanded waistlines, bosoms and buttocks as they pass the media cameras, you must accept the reality that a large number of your fellow citizens viewing those video accounts are going to naturally respond with a sense of disbelief that we, as a nation, are depriving them of basic nourishment, which then leads all of us to question all the other liberal tropes fed to them by America’s media.

    Crossposted at American Thinker

  • MO National Guard to Ferguson

    MO National Guard to Ferguson

    ferguson-missouri-riots

    Missouri Governor Nixon has called out the National Guard to establish some sort of order in the city again after a medical examiner confirmed that Michael Brown had been shot six times…all in his front, and not in his back as some witnesses have stated according to the Associated Press;

    In a statement, Nixon said the National Guard would help “in restoring peace and order” to the St. Louis suburb that has been filled almost nightly with angry, defiant crowds since 18-year-old Michael Brown was killed Aug. 9.

    “These violent acts are a disservice to the family of Michael Brown and his memory and to the people of this community who yearn for justice to be served and to feel safe in their own homes,” Nixon said.

    The latest confrontations came the same day Attorney General Eric Holder ordered a federal medical examiner to perform a third autopsy on Brown.

    I guess they’re going to keep subject Brown’s remains to autopsies until they find an examiner to say what they want him to say.

    What began as a peaceful protest last night devolve into riots again forcing the police to fire tear gas into the crowd in response to gunfire and Molotov cocktails, according to Captain Ron Johnson of the Missouri Highway Patrol who is in control of the police response in Ferguson.

    For some stupid reason, the morons at Democrat Underground are worried about the racial makeup of the National Guard troops being sent to Ferguson. And they’re digging up zombies from Kent State, you know, because the same guys will have been at both events. Oh, by the way, Captain Ron Johnson of Missouri Highway Patrol is also black, so I don’t see what the race of the responders to rioting has to do with anything. The black rioters are shooting and tossing Molotov cocktails at black officers, FFS.