Oct 8, 2013 Military
A 20 year old soldier named Tevin Geike was stabbed to death near Joint Base Lewis-McCord in Washington early Saturday morning. Geike, a white man, was walking with two other white soldiers when a car with five black men drove by and yelled something racist at the three.
One of the three yelled something about this being how combat veterans were treated. The car turned around and the occupants got out and surrounded the three. A verbal confrontation started but when the driver of the vehicle realized that the three were veterans he called his friends off. One of them appeared to have bumped into Geike and then they all got in the car and sped away.
Geike was on the ground bleeding badly from stab wounds. He died at the scene waiting for an ambulance.
The man who stabbed him is a coward and should get the death penalty for what he did.
We need justice for Tevin.
Fortunately, it looks like we might get justice. The UK Daily Mail reports that three men have been arrested for the murder and two more are being sought. The three arrested are soldiers from the same base as Geike. The Daily Mail reports they served in the same unit as Geike. That could just mean they served in the same Division and likely did not know each other.
In any event, 23 year old Jeremiah Hill, the alleged murderer, is in custody along with Cedarium Johnson and Ajoni Runnion-Bareford.
These fellows are in a world of trouble because the military still has the death penalty.
I do not know if they will seek that penalty but even the possibility of life in a federal prison is not a good prospect for such young people.
The interesting thing is that this is not being called a hate crime. Five black men used a racial slur toward three white men and then one of those black men stabbed a white man to death. How is that not a hate crime?
Don’t get me wrong, I think the whole concept of hate crimes is ridiculous for many reasons among them the concept of punishing what a person might have been thinking or that his motivation is believed to be hate. All violent crimes are rooted in one form of hatred or another.
But since this society has determined that hate crime is a valid crime to punish people for and since this society goes out of its way to ensure whites are punished for racially motivated hate crimes when blacks are victims it is only fair we apply the same standards.
I know that Eric Holder and his Just Us Department is not in line with equal prosecution and that he racially discriminates against white people but I also know the military will be handling this case.
And the military does not really care what Holder thinks.
Still, the Army is not likely to go after it as a hate crime since it already has the mechanisms in place to put these animals to death or place them in cages for the rest of their lives.
It is bad enough that they murdered someone but it is worse that they knowingly murdered a brother in arms.
If Obama had another son (besides Trayvon) he would look like the murderer.
If Mitt Romney had another son he would look like Geike.
Rest in peace young soldier. If justice is served your attackers will be in hell before too long.
Whether that hell is in a prison or in the afterlife is yet to be determined…
Never surrender, never submit.
May 17, 2009 Political
I listened to the speech Obama gave at Notre Dame today and it was a good commencement speech. Sure, it was full of the ideas of wealth redistribution and making life fair and all the stuff he believes but it was a good speech. It is not surprising because when he has a functioning teleprompter he is pretty good. I was not one who believed that he should not have been invited but I was against him receiving the honorary degree. Having written that, I am happy that those who objected demonstrated peacefully and that they did what they thought was right with regard to their own conscience.
I listened to him because I wanted to see how he addressed the controversy of his invitation and he did it well. In fact, I was inspired by him when he discussed the subject of abortion.
He told the audience that people could disagree on issues but that they needed to come together to reach a common ground. He said that he did not believe that the right to an abortion should be taken away from women but that abortions should be rare and other options should be available.
I have a different view on abortion as I believe the Roe v Wade decision was wrong. The Constitution does not give a right to an abortion so that means the issue should be decided by the states. I have always believed that it was a state’s right issue and should have been left at that level.
However, Obama’s idea of having abortions but making them rare inspired me with regard to another issue that liberals take a strong stand on. That is the issue of the death penalty. Liberals want to abolish the death penalty.
Using the Obama logic with abortion we should change the debate on the death penalty from abolishing it to leaving it as an option for each state (or a state’s choice, if you will) and make them rare. Since we already have other alternatives such as life or life without parole the same criteria Obama has for abortion already exists for the death penalty.
This should end the debate on this issue and the liberals should stop trying to abolish the death penalty because Obama has told us to find common ground and this is common ground that meets the exact same requirements he set forth for abortion.
I know that some folks will not agree. My liberal friend Adam, who comments here, is always worried about an innocent person being put to death. Yes, DNA has exonerated people but it is rare that an innocent person is put to death though I am sure it has happened. However, in order to follow the Obama logic with regard to abortion, we have to be willing to accept that an innocent might accidentally be put to death.
You see, each time an abortion is performed an innocent person IS put to death. There was no trial, there was no jury, and they did nothing wrong and yet they are murdered. Obama is willing to accept a low number of innocent people being put to death in order to keep abortion as a woman’s choice.
Therefore, we should accept a low rate (much lower than that of abortion) of innocent people being put to death after a trial in order to keep that penalty in place.
Adam commented that even if it cost more money to keep people alive he considered it a good expenditure of his tax dollars if it prevented an innocent person from being killed.
That is perfect for abortion. Even if it cost the mother and father more money it is worth it to prevent an innocent person from being murdered.
And every abortion is the murder of an innocent life.
I am glad Obama inspired me with his speech. I am sure the liberals are now happy that the death penalty issue has been cleared up.
May 15, 2009 Political
I’ll probably hear differences with some of my more conservative colleagues about this, but I feel that it’s time to revamp our drug laws, especially with regard to marijuana and the laws relating to its possession.
First, as a disclaimer, I grew up in the sixties, and I inhaled- repeatedly. Many people did in that time, and I don’t judge one way or another, but for purposes of this discussion, we will keep this in the present day.
There is a problem here, in that many of the laws regarding the drug marijuana are rooted in yesterday’s culture, where marijuana was lumped in with heroin and cocaine as to it’s relative toxicity and addictive qualities, and the truth is that it is nowhere near these other two in terms of addiction. I can’t speak to the mindset for putting marijuana in with the other drugs, but it is time to reclassify this drug, and eliminate many of the offenses that put people in jail for simple possession. Possession is a victimless crime, and simple possession should be either legalized or made a fine- able offense.
The problem as I see it, is that we have several groups who want to make money off of this drug if it is legalized- the “Medical Marijuana” group, the Federal government, with taxes, the various state governments, with taxes, the Big Tobacco growers, since tobacco is such a reviled crop, not to mention the cartels, who have no interest in legalization, because that loses them a chunk of their profits, unless they partnered with Big Tobacco.
Everybody wants a taste of all the money, and thus nothing gets done, because everyone’s interests are counter to everyone else’s interest, and status quo rules. Meanwhile, people get thrown in jail who have no place or real reason to be there. That said, they DID break the law, and as is said, ignorance of the law is no excuse.
So the law needs to be changed, and this needs to be changed at the most basic level, because the profit motive needs to be lessened, if not eliminated from the equation. The only way this could possibly work is to eliminate the profit motive from the illegal networks that have profited over the years to the tune of millions of dollars, and thousands of people killed.
There is only one way to do this, I believe. The Government must legalize marijuana for private individual consumption, and allow the growth of up to ten plants per year for this personal consumption. Driving while smoking marijuana should have a penalty the same as that of alcohol, with a legal threshhold of allowable blood cannabis level.
I know the government dearly wants to have a part of taxable income from this, but I believe that they should refrain, for the simple reason that to do so will encourage smuggling of marijuana, and keep the cartels in business, and that would not be a good thing- the idea is to eliminate the profit motive.
Now as to the cartels and the dealers- while I would press for legalizing the personal consumption of marijuana, I would also have the Death Penalty for anyone caught dealing any drug- period. This would, through attrition, if nothing else, lessen demand for all other drugs. Heroin, cocaine, oxycontin, any drug, including the sale of marijuana, would be punished by death. I say that this is justified because heroin, cocaine, and other drugs destroy not just individuals, but whole families, and the dealers who sell these drugs, have no morals in doing so, and can and will try to sell to someone trying to kick the habit.
Now, as to the people hooked on these drugs, heroin, cocaine, etc., I would give them three strikes,so to speak- sending them to re-hab clinics three times before criminal charges kick in, providing they did not do additional criminal acts that would warrant imprisonment. The idea, after all, is to get these people off the addictive drugs, and back into society, and I feel this could do this.
I know some people will object to my idea for the Death Penalty for the dealers- heck, we have had spirited debate over murder, so I expect that some will object to this as well, but I feel that if the penalty is onerous, perhaps some, if not all of these people might choose a different line of work post haste. The rest of them would not bother the addicts anymore, and the addicts, without a source, would begin to heal.
Only if we take the profit motive out of the marijuana trade will we begin to be able to form a rational policy around the legalization of this contentious weed. The Chinese have chewed the seeds of marijuana for headaches for oh, about three thousand years, and we know that smoking marijuana decreases nausea in chemo patients, and eases the discomfort and pressure of Glaucoma. What else could it do?
We just do not know, because of the “narcotic” stigma that has been unfairly slapped on this plant, and it is time for the laws to come into the twenty- first century regarding this plant and the other drugs. A legal overhaul is badly needed, and I believe only the most calcified in their thinking could believe that the current laws work.
We need this discussion, and we need this ASAP.
There is too much at stake for society as a whole, to stand pat.
May 13, 2009 Political
As long as we, as a civilization have been executing people for crimes that, in some cases, astound civilized people in their sheer brutality, we have also had the argument both for and against the Death Penalty. Many people argue that the process demeans people, bringing the people down to the level of the murderers and rapists that commit these crimes. They also argue that this punishment does not deter people from committing these types of crimes.
These people arguing on the basis of either line of reasoning are wrong in their assessment of this punishment.
Lets take the ” it makes us no better than the criminals” line of reasoning first. The Death penalty is a last option for those criminals who have been deemed to be unable to be rehabilitated, or who have committed crimes that are so heinous that death could be easily considered to be a just punishment. When someone takes a life in the commission of a crime, the very act demonstrates a casually dismissive attitude towards another’s life and liberty, and this dismissive attitude is counter to a civilized society, which depends on a certain level of respect towards another’s life and property.
When there is no respect, indeed when the disregard escalates into murder, society has an obligation to look to the victim first in terms of justice, for the victim cannot speak for himself. The death penalty is appropriate in these cases, because there cannot be a true ” leveling” of punishments, in other words, the punishment should rise to the level of the crime, in order to be called “justice”. This becomes society’s last attempt to level the playing field in terms of this justice.
This is something that juries have, over the many years, given considerable thought to, rarely coming back with what could be construed as a kneejerk reaction in their sentencing of defendants to the Death penalty. The bar is quite high, and various courts have raised the bar higher in past years, some would say too high, but that is up to the courts to decide. As what can easily be seen as the last option in a judgement, people are cautious in how they apply this penalty, and this caution is good, for it says that as a society, we are civilized enough to know that it IS the last option.
Now, as to the canard that this death penalty does not deter people from committing murder and other heinous crimes, well, this is true, because there will always be stupid and criminal people- that is just human nature, and that is not something that any penalty will cure. As Ron White, the comedian said, “You can’t fix stupid.” There will always be greedy people who will rob- there will always be evil people who will kill. This is an unfortunate fact of life, and all the good intentions in the world will not change this.
But one thing is for sure- the people you send to the death penalty will not re- offend. That much is 100% certain. Not a one of these people will bother another victim, and I for one can live with this easily. I can surely live with this option, rather than life in prison, because the death penalty is more compassionate.
What would you consider to be worse- to put someone to death, or keep them in a cage for the rest of their lives? If you said the latter, you are a cruel, cruel person. To live with no hope of ever getting out of the cage- well, I know I would rather die. Taking joy, or even satisfaction out of anyone’s imprisonment is a hard thing to feel, but when you know that there will never be an end to that suffering- well, you wouldn’t do that to a dog or cat, would you? Keep them in a cage with no room for the rest of their entire lives? And then there’s the cost of keeping these people incarcerated, all at taxpayer expense, which I find to be inexcusable.
I have no problem with rehabilitating prisoners, as long as there is a REASONABLE chance that these people will come out and have a productive life, but there truly are crimes that deserve the full weight of society’s judgement, and to try and save these people who are evil, is a misguided attempt at feel- good legislation, and does no one any good.
We can have a discussion on rehabilitating those who might be rehabilitated, but let’s be realistic about what we do and why we do this, and it is not because we enjoy it.
It is because it must be done.
Jun 25, 2008 General
Ronald Reagan’s second mistake, Justice Anthony Kennedy (the first was Sandra Day O’Connor), put the screws to children who are victims of rape. Kennedy, who is the swing vote in many close decisions, decided that the crime of raping a child is not worthy of the death penalty thereby ensuring that those who rape children will live their lives cared for in jails at taxpayer expense (and possibly be released) while the victims will live their lives with emotional and psychological damage.
To Kennedy and the other liberals on the court (he might as well be one, he acts like it) there are no crimes that warrant the death penalty except murder and many of them oppose it in that case as well. To them, raping a child is something that should be punished with jail time which means anything short of life without parole would allow the offender to gain freedom and rape again. Justice Alito wrote the dissenting opinion. Here is part of it and it makes the most sense:
“The Court today holds that the Eighth Amendment categorically prohibits the imposition of the death penalty for the crime of raping a child. This is so, according to the Court, no matter how young the child, no matter how many times the child is raped, no matter how many children the perpetrator rapes, no matter how sadistic the crime, no matter how much physical or psychological trauma is inflicted, and no matter how heinous the perpetrator’s prior criminal record may be. The Court provides two reasons for this sweeping conclusion: First, the Court claims to have identified “a national consensus” that the death penalty is never acceptable for the rape of a child;second, the Court concludes, based on its “independent judgment,” that imposing the death penalty for child rape is inconsistent with “‘the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.’” Ante, at 8, 15, 16 (citation omitted). Because neither of these justifications is sound, I respectfully dissent.”
If a person who rapes a child is released and rapes again I assume that the flawed opinion of Kennedy and the others will be little consolation to the victim and his parents. I think if a person who rapes a child (in a state that had the death penalty for the offense) is released and rapes another child, the members of the court who allowed it should be hanged in front of the Supreme Court building. The idea is for laws to protect the public and this ruling does nothing to accomplish that. If it were my child they might not make it to the hanging.
While I am disgusted with the ruling in this case I actually have no feeling one way or the other about putting a criminal to death for raping a child because that can be accomplished anywhere regardless of what the court says. When the animal is sent to jail put him in the general population and let them know what he is in for. He will be killed in jail and the problem will be solved and with no appeals.
I cannot imagine what children must go through after they are raped and it is just as hard on the families. It makes it even harder when the courts rule that the criminal somehow has more rights than the victim. The criminal must be afforded a stretch of the VIIIth Amendment to stay alive while a child, who was subjected to cruel and unusual punishment at the hands of the attacker, must go through life bearing the scars. If some person who raped a child were released I would not blame any victim’s father who decided to remove the trash from this Earth. If I were on that jury he would walk away a free man.
Kennedy and the others are worried about cruel and unusual punishment. The death penalty is too good for these scumbags. They should be hanged, drawn and quartered (the criminals, not the justices, though that might not be a bad idea).
America, these justices are no where as liberal as those Barack Obama will appoint if he becomes president. There will likely be a few openings in the next president’s term. It is important that those positions are filled with justices who will not use public sentiment and personal feelings when interpreting the Constitution. We need more like those who were in the minority on this vote.
Be careful how you vote. Your vote has many more consequences than just putting someone in office.