Sunday, September 9, 2012

Fast And Furry-ous: Did Wylie Buy His Gun Thief's Kit From Acme

File:Fast and FurryousTitle.jpgYou would think so considering all of the plots to get the Roadrunner that went afowl because Wile E. Coyote always bought his gadgets, for his bound to fail plots, from Acme but then I am not writing about Wile E. Coyote. As it tuns out, some guy by the name of Wylie Gene Newton, 65, reportedly was arrested after he took a gun, that he allegedly had stolen, and tried to have it appraised on the reality TV show American Guns. Much as one would expect something really stupid to happen when Wile E. Coyote would try to get the drop on Roadrunner, this guy reportedly did something stupid by bringing a stolen gun to be appraised on a television show.

How stupid? Well, guess what - the reported real owner of the gun was watching television the night the show aired and he immediately called police to report this Wylie, of a different nature, with his gun on the show. If this is all held up as true fact, then all I can say is that it simply goes far beyond over and above (or would it be it falls far lower than merely below and under) the definition of stupidity on the part of this would be gun thief. The alleged thief supposedly was at some time confronted by the gun's owner and Wylie reportedly asked the owner: "Do you think I am stupid enough that I would take a gun I stole on TV?" Well, to answer that, based on the report I just read, I sure think you got your Thief's Kit and Thieving Lesson(s) from none other than Acme, the one and the same as used by Wile E. Coyote!

If he actually stole the gun, then at least he showed good taste for a less than Wile-E gun thief. (As I suppose Wile E. Coyote also showed good taste because, as I recall, his visions of roasted Roadrunner looked deliciously tempting.) The alleged stolen gun was reportedly a Colt Dragoon, in .44 caliber, valued at $40,000.


All the best,
Glenn B

The Scum Suckers That Are Lawyers

I worked in Law Enforcement for 32 years. I dealt with lawyers a lot. I could not stand most of them. Some were overzealous prosecutors who would have prosecuted their own mothers for farting in public (although most prosecutors seemed motivated by a true desire to do good) and others were overzealous defenders who would literally do anything to get their clients off the hook regardless of guilt or innocence. One of the worst ever was a professor, whose class I took at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, who was also a psychologist. Imagine that combination. She, in fact, told the class, in no uncertain terms, it was her absolute duty to do her best to see her clients freed no matter what. She made it clear as crystal that included even from charges of the most heinous crimes, even when her clients had made a full confession to her of their absolute guilt to her to the charges against them. I asked her a simple question that almost got me thrown out of her class, she went into a tirade in front of everyone in the class in an attempt to answer me but when she realized she was unable to do so with a logical answer and was making herself look the absolute leftist loony fool, she told me to shit down, shut up and not ask any more questions. That question was, in essence, simply: Isn't your job, as a lawyer, to see that justice is done, no matter what side you are on and while at the same time serving your client to the best of your ability while assuring justice runs its course. She would, or could, have none of it. I must admit, she later apologized to me in front of the whole class and commended me for my attitude, inquisitiveness and intelligent arguments but it took her weeks after my above question to reach that point.

Still though, you should get my point, I think most lawyers are scum sucking dwellers of the deep. They may be attracted to blood in the water like sharks and they may enjoy a feeding frenzy when they can but I think it is not the blood that attracts them. I think it is all the bullshit that has been excreted into the murky mess on which they thrive.

I brought all of that up because I am about to devote the rest of this blog post to something said by two lawyers recently. You will be able to see why I can tolerate prosecutors, in general, better than defenders. Mostly though, you will see why I detest lawyers, or at least the mentality they use all too often, because it is like that of my professor lawyer/psychologist to whom winning was just about everything and if even if her client lost the verdict then she would strive to win something for him, like a lighter sentence at any cost. All that no matter how terrible was the crime.

In this case, both the proesector(s) and the defender(s) seem to give justification for their actions based on other than doing justice. One admittedly bases the actions taken in part on how it protects the family of the victim and the other on how it protects - well read on.

According to my source, it was reported that a "mixed-martial artist" (I see nothing artistic about hand to hand combat) beat and killed his sparring partner, then ripped the tongue and heart of that man out of his body. He actually pled guilty saving the state a lot of money and grief in the prosecution of the case. I think that is great, what I do not find great is the attitude of the defense attorney. Here is what the prosecutor and defense attorneys reportedly had to say about the plea deal that was made that reportedly resulted in the defendant getting 50 years to life in prison for murder with mayhem involved:

"The earliest he'll be able to see a parole board is 2062," District Attorney Jon Alexander said. "We saved Taylor's family the agony from reliving the incident at the trial."

Seems all well and good but you can bet that the driving force behind the prosecution accepting a plea deal was not the feelings of the victim's family but that the defendant was going to plead guilty and save the possibility of a loss for the prosecution at trial. That would be my bet anyway.

Now as for what the defender supposedly said and for the supposed attitude of the defendant himself:

"Wyatt's attorney, James Fallman, said his 29-year-old client didn't want to testify at trial and he didn't want his family to testify.

"We looked for an agreement that would at least give him the opportunity to be paroled someday," Fallman said. "As bad as 50 years to life sounds, it's better than life without the possibility of parole."


Bear in mind, the guilty plea only came after the defense was going to have their client plead not guilty by reason of insanity but a judge deemed him competent to stand trial.

All the best,
Glenn B