If you're driving, look out for Turnpike officials

If you’re involved in a scavenger hunt that has you looking for people who are in trouble with the law in Pennsylvania, the first place to stop might be your county jail. The second place might be the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission. The AP reports that the chief operating officer of the Turnpike Commission was picked up April 5 for drunken driving after he allegedly crashed into a fence in Hershey and then drove off northbound in the southbound lane of the road. It's been over two weeks, and no disciplinary action has been taken against George Hatalowich, who was driving his own car at the time. Police say he blew a 0.137 on the Breathalyzer. This comes just two months after the vice chairman of the commission, Timothy Carson, resigned after admitting to a pair of drunken driving incidents involving Turnpike Commission vehicles, according to a report in The Patriot-News in Harrisburg. And just days after Hatalowich was allegedly running into stuff while drunk, the former head of the Turnpike Commission, Mitchell Rubin, pleaded guilty to felony obstruction of justice for trying to hamper an FBI investigation of former state Sen. Vince Fumo, who is now doing five years in prison for corruption. What a crew. It's no wonder that former Pennsylvania Gov. Dick Thornburg, in an op-ed piece that ran late last year in the Observer-Reporter, called for the Turnpike Commission to be dissolved and its duties taken over by PennDOT. I'll let Thornburg have the last word: “The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission is a haven for those who wish to gorge themselves upon commonwealth tax dollars and load the payroll for political purposes. This type of patronage abuse has no place in Pennsylvania politics. The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission should be abolished.”

What an idiot

Please pardon my indelicate language, but Steelers wide receiver Santonio Holmes is a dumbass. Holmes has about as many brushes with the law as seasons in the NFL, including an accusation that he assaulted the mother of one of his children and an arrest for having dope in his car. He managed to skate in those cases. But more recently, he got into a dispute in a nightclub, an incident that has yet to be adjudicated. And now, just weeks later, we get word that Holmes is facing a four-game suspension in the coming season for violation of the NFL drug policy. It's being reported that Holmes either missed a required drug test or failed a test. If this suspension is upheld, any further transgression could possibly see him getting kicked out of the league for a whole year. With his rookie contract entering its last year, there's no way in hell that the Steelers should ante up millions of dollars to re-sign this dipstick. I'm guessing the Steelers aren't that stupid. But there are enough dumb owners in the NFL that someone will write a big check to this ticking time bomb. If the Steelers can unload Holmes before this season, that would be even better. We also aren't sure who will be chucking the ball when the season starts. Although there are reports that quarterback Ben Roethlisberger will not be charged in the Georgia nightclub incident, it's possible that Commissioner Roger Goodell, tired of the bad publicity Roethlisberger has brought to the league, will suspend him anyway for a couple of games. Charlie Batch is a senior citizen in football terms, and I have my doubts whether Dennis Dixon will ever be a better-than-average NFL signal caller. So, it will be interesting to see if the Steelers spend an early draft pick on a quarterback. The Steelers have a great many solid citizens on their roster. It's just very disconcerting that two of the most prominent offensive players can't seem to avoid trouble.

Shooting the messenger

Is the pope beyond criticism? It's a question that bears asking after the virulent attacks by those associated with the Vatican against media and others who questioned the actions by the church and, particularly, Pope Benedict XVI in handling past incidents of child molestation by Catholic priests. Recent news reports might not provide the absolute "smoking gun" to show that Benedict was personally involved in a coverup of the sexual abuse cases, or at the very least of incompetence through inattention, but some of those guns seem very, very, very hot to the touch. The responses by those connected with the Vatican and Benedict paint a picture of some sort of anti-Catholic plot that really doesn't exist. And some of the statements defending them are ridiculous. On Tuesday, Italian Cardinal Giovanni Lajolo, an official of the Holy See, claimed Benedict and the church are targets of a hate campaign, and Spanish Cardinal Julian Herranz, leader of a Vatican discipline commission, says Benedict has become a target because of his opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage. The most unhinged remarks came from Benedict’s personal preacher, who likened criticism of the pope to the historic suffering of the Jewish people. All of these defenses seem to have the same goal: to launch a potentially chilling attack aimed at quieting those who would do no more than seek the truth in these cases while pointing out that the man holding the most powerful religious position in the world, during his years before assuming that post, might not have done all he could or, worse, deliberately looked the other way when rapes and other sex crimes were being committed against children. One would think that rank-and-file Catholics, as well as church leaders, would want answers. But very often, the response seems to be to blame those who raise the questions.

A time to kill

Take a look at these three brief stories that appeared today on the AP state wire:

PITTSBURGH (AP) — A second teenage suspect has been arrested in the fatal shooting of a Pittsburgh woman who police say was an innocent bystander.
Pittsburgh police charged 16-year-old Robert Brown on Thursday in the weekend shooting death of 60-year-old Cheryl Esseny in the city’s Homewood neighborhood.
Investigators say Brown and 15-year-old Anthony Thomas each fired at a passing vehicle from a railroad trestle on Saturday evening. One of the bullets struck Esseny, who had just left a nearby library.
Authorities say the teens told officers the identity of the intended target, but police say the man they thought they were shooting at was in jail at the time.
Thomas was arrested Sunday. Both teens face homicide charges.

PHILADELPHIA (AP) — Police in Philadelphia have made an arrest in the attempted rape and fatal beating of a woman behind a city deli.
Twenty-one-year-old Sharod Graham is facing murder and attempted rape charges in the vicious assault that killed Eraina Merritt.
Police said deli employees went behind the store to take out the trash and saw a man hitting a naked woman on the ground. They broke up the attack and the assailant fled.
The 47-year-old mother of four never regained consciousness after the March 24 assault in the city’s Olney neighborhood, and police could not interview her. She died Monday of her injuries.
Police said her attacker was caught on a security videotape at the deli earlier on the night of the assault.

PITTSBURGH (AP) — Police in Pittsburgh say a short video surveillance clip has led to the arrests of two teen suspects in the slaying of a retired firefighter.
Police say a security camera recorded 17-year-old Cordell Brown and 16-year-old Tyrone Thomas following 55-year-old Mark Barry just before he was fatally shot while walking his dog on March 14.
Authorities say the teens killed Barry because they wanted drug money but his dog prevented them from going through his pockets.
According to court documents, the teens each blame the other for the shooting. Police say they are seeking other suspects.
Thomas and Brown were charged Wednesday with homicide and are being held without bail. It was not immediately clear if they had attorneys.

Now, answer me this: Why should we allow people like this, if they are found guilty of these vicious crimes, to draw breath among us for any significant length of time? If these people are convicted, and there is no reasonable doubt that they committed these offenses against decency and humanity, they should get one appeal in which to make all of their arguments for a new trial. Once that appeal has worked its way to the top of the judicial food chain, if they are not successful, they should be executed the next day. I, for one, am tired of seeing even a penny of my taxes going toward feeding, clothing and providing medical care to scum on death row. From our own area, we have seen people convicted of murders decades ago and sentenced to death who are still alive. Why? Allowing these people to game the legal system, getting appeal after appeal after appeal, needs to stop. Some will argue that the death penalty is not a deterrent against crime. That's not my central concern, but I do think the deterrent will be greater if would-be murderous slime see that someone convicted of a killing – or perhaps even a crime against police officers or children – gets put to death sooner rather than later. And I also think that prosecutors seek death sentences way less often than they should. It might be a greater cost up front to prosecute a death-penalty case, but if these people are put to death in short order, we would save money in the long run. And one thing that no one can deny is that carrying out the death penalty is an absolute guarantee against recidivism.

It's long past time to grow up

Unless you've been living underground for the past few days, you're well aware that the beloved “Big Ben” Roethlisberger is in hot water again as a result of his alleged conduct with a member of the fairer sex. In this latest case, a 20-year-old college student is accusing the Steelers quarterback of sexually assaulting her inside a nightclub in Milledgeville, Ga. This comes just months after Roethlisberger was sued by a woman who claims the athlete raped her at a Lake Tahoe hotel in 2008. In the earlier case, I was inclined to believe Roethlisberger. The woman who sued him never made a criminal complaint, and the whole thing had a funny "smell" about it. We don't know yet, and may never know, what happened in the latest case, but Roethlisberger’s "people" are sure taking it seriously. Almost immediately, they suggested that the woman involved had an ulterior motive and said the fact that no charges were instantly filed indicated no crime was committed. For those of you counting, that's one piece of character assassination and one outright lie. Police in George continue to conduct their investigation, and once they have talked to everyone involved, including Roethlisberger and his "posse,” and have examined all the evidence, including surveillance video, they'll make a decision about whether a crime did, in fact, occur. That’s the correct way to proceed. The fact that Roethlisberger wasn't immediate cuffed and taken to jail means nothing. And the hiring Monday of high-profile defense lawyer Ed Garland, whose past clients have included rapper T.I. and Baltimore Ravens linebacker Ray Lewis, suggests to me that Roethlisberger and his handlers think, or fear, that criminal charges might be forthcoming. But even if no charges are filed, Roethlisberger’s image has taken another savage beating. Most people were willing to forgive the stupidity of his helmetless motorcycle crash and to overlook the Lake Tahoe incident, based on what became known about the case. But this stink isn't dissipating as quickly, and some fans are finally questioning the lifestyle choices being made by their football hero. I've always thought of Roethlisberger as an egotistical, insincere jerk. And apparently I'm not alone. The AP reported the other day that Roethlisberger has become known for “occasionally inelegant behavior in Pittsburgh.” The story said the quarterback has been the target of complaints from restaurant owners in the ’Burgh who say he has tried to skip out on bills on the grounds that he brought business to the establishments by gracing them with his presence. In Georgia, a college girl who was in the bar where the sexual assault allegedly took place said she was one of the young ladies allowed into the VIP area with Roethlisberger and his contingent. According to the AP, the young lady, Amber Hanley, said she asked Roethlisberger to take a photo with a friend whose boyfriend was a fan, but Hanley said Roethlisberger seemed disappointed that the girl wasn't interested in “something more.” Hanley told the AP that when she rolled her eyes at Roethlisberger, he cussed her and walked away, only to begin “aggressively hitting on another girl.” Based only on my perceptions of Roethlisberger and anecdotal evidence, I’m not inclined to doubt her. I’ve also heard very disturbing stories from young women I know about the nightclub behavior of other Steelers players, some of whom reportedly developed temporary amnesia about the wife and kids back home. There are plenty of people in other professions who behave badly, but professional athletes have to know they’re in the spotlight, and that their actions can reflect badly on fellow players and the franchise. And Roethlisberger clearly doesn't get it. At age 28, he’s no longer some deer-in-the-headlights-of-fame kid fresh out of college. In the Nevada case, I don’t recall him ever denying he had sex with the woman in question, just that he didn’t rape her. I think it’s fair to question his morality if he bedded down with a virtual stranger, even though that doesn't seem to bother a lot of people these days. Nevertheless, after the civil case was filed, you would think that any intelligent person would modify his behavior so as not to put himself in such a position again. Not Roethlisberger. His love of the nightlife apparently lives on unabated, and you have to believe that the Steelers’ brass are not very pleased about the attention he‘s getting. There’s an incredible level of irresponsibility about all this. Not that Roethlisberger is the worst offender. I saw a story over the weekend about cornerback Antonio Cromartie of the Jets, whose contract apparently had to be restructured to account for his child-support obligations. He’s 25 years old, and he already has seven children by six different women. Nice. Fortunately for the NFL, there are quality people like Peyton Manning, Drew Brees and Donovan McNabb playing in the league. Unfortunately for us Steelers fans, we have the quarterback with the moral, intellectual and emotional development of a 14-year-old.

Here's a “Guy” who should be fired

Here's the background: A couple of football players at Division II Texas A&M-Commerce were arrested on drug charges. The campus newspaper printed an edition with the story of the drug bust on the front page. A couple of fellow football players went around campus stealing all the newspapers from racks to keep people from reading about the drug arrests. Now, one would expect that the football coach would immediately denounce the thievery of 2,000 newspapers. But no. Coach Guy Morriss had this response: “I’m proud of my players for doing that. This was the best team-building exercise we have ever done.” We? Was Morriss or someone else connected with running the football program behind the thefts? One has to wonder, because when campus police notified athletic director Carlton Cooper of the crime, he said he “didn’t think (the players) were smart enough to do this on their own.” James Bright, editor of the campus paper, estimated the loss from the theft at $1,100. In a lot of places, that qualifies as a felony. Yet Morriss thinks it was a “team-building exercise.” This guy should be fired immediately, because he clearly doesn't have the morals necessary to be a leader of young people. Cooper did say that Morriss and the players involved in the thefts (they were identified from surveillance video) had been disciplined, but he wouldn’t elaborate. But Cooper also seemed to be downplaying the severity of the incident, calling it an “error in judgment.” Do adults, even young adults, have to ponder the question of whether stealing is wrong? It’s not a judgment call. If administrators at the school are able to exhibit good judgment, Morriss will have coached his last game there.

Stop the insanity

Anyone who watched the Pittsburgh TV news Friday night or Saturday no doubt saw the coverage of the incident at the Giant Eagle in Murrysville. According to police, an 86-year-old man behind the wheel of a 1993 Oldsmobile (what else) was backing his car out of a parking space when he bashed into a vehicle behind him. At that point, he surged forward, out of control, toward the store's entrance and went up on the sidewalk, hitting an unfortunate 48-year-old woman who was slammed so hard into the front glass door that her body shattered it. The octogenarian then backed up before lurching forward again and smashing into a pillar in front of the store. The woman who was struck had multiple open fractures and chest injuries that required her to be flown to a Pittsburgh hospital. The driver also was flown for treatment. The woman who was hit by the car in this case, believe it or not, is one of the lucky ones. Sometimes people die because family members, doctors and even our state legislators refuse to confront the problem of the dangers posed by elderly drivers who no longer have any business being behind the wheel of a multi-thousand-pound piece of machinery. Much in the way that we need to stop the hazardous practice of people driving while they gab away or text on their hand-held cell phones, somebody needs to address the issue of members of the "greatest generation" mowing down people with their Oldsmobiles and Buicks. Family members need to do whatever is necessary, even reporting their loves ones to the proper authorities, if necessary, to get their parents and grandparents off the roads when they start posing a threat to themselves and others. Doctors need to do their duty by reporting those who should have their licenses pulled. And our legislators should have the courage - yeah, right - to impose mandatory driver re-testing after a certain age. Those who object to these measures often argue that young people have more accidents. Maybe they do, but most of those young drivers, through experience and the maturation process, will eventually become good drivers. Unfortunately, there's really no substitute for experience when it comes to improving one's driving skills. But those young people aren't wrecking because they forget which pedal makes the car go and which one stops it, or which gear makes the car go forward and which one makes it go backward. And those elderly drivers aren't going to get better with advancing age. For most of them, it's a one-way trip toward being a threat to all of us.

Quite an embarrassment

Four people are facing charges and more could be in trouble after police review videotapes from a melee Friday night at a Wash High-Monessen boys basketball game in Monessen. Police say the incident, which Washington schools superintendent Roberta DiLorenzo described as a "riot," apparently began when a girl from Wash High and a female student from Monessen started "fighting over a male basketball player." The incident escalated, with some adults reportedly joining students in the fray. One person needed hospital treatment after the brawl, and police had to use Tasers on as many as four people to subdue them. The gym was cleared of fans before the game was allowed to continue. Two adults and a teen from Washington, along with a Monessen teen, were cited by police. It's bad enough that kids were acting like idiots, but it's shameful that so-called adults joined in. And now the superintendents of the two schools are displaying considerable gall by questioning how police handled the mess. For the record, four off-duty Monessen police officers had been hired to work the game. That right there tells me all I need to know about the atmosphere at Monessen games. If you need four cops at a high school baskeball game, you've got problems. And as it turns out, those four policemen weren't even enough to handle the mess that developed. They had to call for backup from neighboring police departments. But DiLorenzo and Monessen superintendent Cynthia Chelen are suggesting that police went overboard, questioning their use of Tasers to get the miscreants under control. Said Chelen, "Looking at the video (from TV), I'm not sure a Taser was necessary, but I was not there." So, the superintendent admittedly wasn't even at the game, yet she seems to think she knows what level of force was required to restore order. I guess Ms. Chelen would have no problem if the Monessen police chief comes to her and says, "You know, I just watched two minutes of classroom video, and I'm not sure you're doing a good job preparing your students for the PSSA tests." When it comes to how police handled this "riot," to use DiLorenzo's term, the superintendents need to put a sock in it. When severely outnumbered police officers are facing a situation where a brawl could conceivably escalate to involve dozens of people, they should do what they need to do to keep that from happening. I seem to recall that the City League in Pittsburgh used to play its football and basketball games in empty stadiums and gyms because of a legitimate, experience-based fear of violence by students and fans from the league schools. Perhaps the folks who run high school sports in Western Pennsylvania should take the same approach at places where students, parents and other fans have gained a reputation for not knowing how to act.

When is it too much?

It hasn't been a good past few days for actor Nicolas Cage. From all accounts, he's in very severe financial difficulties. He's suing his former business manager, while at the same time being sued by a former significant other, Christina Fulton, who is seeking $13 million. And the former business manager has countersued Cage, saying the star ignored advice to curb his excessive spending. Now, he's been hit with a $36.7 million lawsuit by a group called Red Curb Investments, which says Cage, who just this year is facing IRS tax liens approaching $7 million, failed to repay more than $5 million in loans and also failed to give notice of his tax woes. From the sound of all this, it's beginning to look as if Cage, despite earning millions and millions of dollars, is headed either toward bankruptcy or sharing a prison cell with Wesley Snipes. Which finally brings me to my point: While people who make huge sums of money are certainly entitled to spend it as they wish, isn't it a little bit sickening to watch them wallow in excess? This is not jealousy on my part. I'm not a wealthy person, but I enjoy my "regular life." I have no interest in mansions, yachts, private planes and classic sports cars. But everywhere we look, the various media are slobbering over the rich and famous, basically celebrating their lives of excess. I saw an ad last night for a TV show that glorifies lavish weddings. We're talking six-figure, maybe seven-figure, affairs. It would be disturbing to me to even watch something like that. It brings to mind the infamous case of Dennis Kozlowski, who looted Tyco International and was convicted and sent to prison. At his trial, Kozlowski's spending habits were laid out for the world to see. The pinnacle of this, or the low point, perhaps, was Kozlowski's spending of $2.1 million for his wife's 40th birthday party on a Mediterranean island. When people are fortunate enough to become wealthy beyond their wildest dreams, shouldn't it be enough for them to life a very, very comfortable life - even sock away a few million to ensure the financial security of their children and grandchildren - and then do something more altruistic with their riches? Don't get me wrong. There are many people who do just that, but it seems as if there are a growing number who have embraced a culture of unbridled spending. It's not just "me, me, me." It's "look at me." It also has struck me this Christmas season more than any other - perhaps because of the terrible times so many people have gone through this year - that we are throwing money away (much to the delight of corporate America) on gifts that people don't need. I receive gifts that, while very nice, are not necessary for my daily life. And I'm sure I give people gifts that they could very well have done without. Well, I'm finally stepping off the Christmas-Hanukkah-Kwanzaa-whatever merry-go-round. Next year, I'll be telling the people with whom I have typically exchanged gifts that I want nothing from them and that I will be taking money that I usually would have spent on gifts and giving it to worthy charities. Small children will be exempt from my new policy. Is anyone else having the same thoughts?

Hitting bottom

There was a time when Don Cannon was one of the most popular television personalities in Pittsburgh. The longtime news anchor, whose tenure here was marked by troubles with alcohol, is in hot water again. Cannon was a longtime newsman at WTAE before an embarrassing onscreen meltdown in the mid-90s ended his career there. He relocated to Philadelphia but returned to Pittsburgh a few years later to work as an anchor and reporter at KDKA before losing that job a couple of years ago following a pair of drunken-driving arrests in the South Hills. Cannon subsequently relocated to California, where he was supposed to serve his house arrest and probation sentences for convictions on the two Western Pennsylvania DUI charges. But Allegheny County authorities say he failed to do so, and Cannon was picked up Tuesday by police in the San Diego area. He also reportedly faces a new DUI charge in California. I understand that some people have problems with alcohol that they can’t control, but those people are well aware of their problems, and some of them still make a conscious decision to drink and get behind the wheel of a car. In Cannon’s case, he did it multiple times. I can sympathize with a person who makes a one-time mistake, gets pulled over and blows a .08. And I give young people a little bit of slack, because I remember (barely) being a young and irresponsible kid, myself. I don't mean that young people should not be held responsible if they violate the law, but I have some understanding of their actions. However, I don't understand it when a 69-year-old man doesn't have the good sense to drink at home.

Big Brother debate

A borough in suburban Philadelphia is debating whether to install surveillance cameras in public places in an effort to catch lawbreakers. It brings up an interesting debate. Opponents of the move claim it could be an infringement on civil liberties, but supporters see it as a way to cut down on crime. I tend to believe that if you're a law-abiding citizen, you really have no need to fear the cameras. We already have them in stores and at ATM machines, among other places. Private citizens position them on their homes to keep an eye out for those who might do them harm or take their property. Even the O-R has them for security purposes. It's not as if the cameras proposed by Newtown Borough would be peering into people's homes. Does anybody see a problem with this that I'm not recognizing?

Security before political correctness

Sen. Joe Lieberman and I don't end up on the same side of issues much these days, but the senator is absolutely correct in calling for an investigation into whether the government and/or the military missed indications that Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the alleged gunman in the Fort Hood shootings, held potentially dangerous extremist views. An Associated Press story today said that classmates of Hasan’s in a 2007-08 master’s degree program at a military college told members of the faculty about Hasan’s apparent anti-American beliefs, including a presentation he made that justified suicide bombing and remarks to classmates that Islamic law overrode the U.S. Constitution. At that point, the faculty members should have reported Hasan to his military higher-ups, and if the allegations against him were found to be true, he should have been removed from the military without delay. As Lieberman said, "If Hasan was showing signs ... that he had become a Muslim extremist, the U.S. Army has to have zero tolerance. He should have been gone.” The military, or the populace at large, should not be in the business of discriminating against Muslims solely because of their faith, but if a soldier shows any signs of favoring another country or his religion over the United States government and his fellow servicemen and women, appropriate action should be taken immediately. As the facts emerge, it's likely to become clear that people in positions of authority had multiple opportunities to, at the very least, kick Hasan out of the service. Their failure proved deadly.

We're not that interested

The other morning, ABC's “Good Morning America” heavily promoted and gave considerable attention and air time to a story about the start of the trial of a man accused in the beating death of a woman in Little Rock, Ark. Oh, the woman just happened to be an anchorwoman on a Little Rock television station, which also just happens to be an ABC affiliate. As murders go, there was nothing especially spectacular about this one. Somebody gained entry to Anne Pressly's home, sexually assaulted her and fatally beat her. It's a very sad case, but it doesn’t stand out from hundreds of other murders that occurred across the country last year. So why does ABC think the average American is especially interested in the trial? Could it be that Pressly was blonde, attractive and a member of the local celebrity class? It certainly wouldn't be the first time that the media virtually ignored the killing of a poor, black woman while lavishing attention on the similar death of an attractive, white woman. But I don't think that's it. I think Pressly's case is in the ABC spotlight simply because she was a fellow TV news person. If she had been a bank vice president in Little Rock, would we have seen the extensive coverage? Not likely.

Free speech comes first

The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has, in my opinion, correctly overturned a Pittsburgh ordinance that all but prevented anti-abortion protesters from providing leaflets or other information to people entering abortion clinics. Pittsburgh enacted a measure that banned protesters from coming within 15 feet of clinic entrances while also requiring them to stay at least eight feet away from clinic clients within a 100-foot zone around the entrances. Basically, it all but barred the protesters from exercising their free-speech rights. I'm pro-choice on abortion, but there’s absolutely nothing wrong with abortion opponents expressing their views to the contrary. If they go beyond leafletting, holding signs and trying to talk to clinic clients, then we have a problem. In other words, those protesters cannot block entrances, physically accost clinic clients or otherwise impede people from having legal abortions. But when they do those things, they're already breaking existing laws that can be enforced by authorities. They can, and should, be arrested and sentenced accordingly. But they should not be punished for, or prevented from, speaking their minds.

New name, same stuff

It was only a matter of time. And that time was Friday night, when a man police identified as Percy Lee Dudley Jr. allegedly fired shots inside and outside the former Cabaret West on Chestnut Street in Washington after an argument with other patrons. The bar was temporarily shut down in February after two men were shot to death there. District Attorney Steve Toprani wanted it closed permanently as a nuisance, but Washington County Judge Paul Pozonsky allowed it to reopen with certain restrictions, and owner Catherine Bayus said it would become an Italian restaurant known as Isabella’s. Well, you can change the name as often as you wish, but the place still seems to be attracting a certain criminal element, as evidenced by Friday’s events. Bayus laid the blame on Dudley’s probation officer and city police for “letting him walk around the city with guns in his pocket.” Does she really expect probation officers and policemen to provide 24-hour monitoring of everyone who's out on parole? That's ridiculous. My thinking is that Toprani was correct in the first place, and if someone else gets shot to death there in the future, it’s on Pozonsky’s head.

Kick him to the curb

It's becoming almost commonplace, but Steelers management is being given another chance to show fans whether the team has any serious standards for player behavior off the field. The person in the unwanted spotlight this time is kicker Jeff Reed, who appears to have transformed over the past few years from humble free-agent signee to out-of-control celebrity party animal. For those who missed it, Reed, who just recently pleaded guilty to charges stemming for his assault on a paper towel dispenser at a Westmoreland County Sheetz store, had a run-in with police on the North Side just hours after Sunday's victory over the Browns. Police tell it like this: Officers were responding to an unrelated call when they spotted Reed's teammate Matt Spaeth peeing in a parking lot. As police were taking information from Spaeth in order to cite him for watering the lot, Reed exited a vehicle and confronted the officers, putting up his fists and, according to a police affidavit, getting into a "fighter's stance." Perhaps Reed was still basking in the afterglow of his knockout victory over the paper towel dispenser, but he soon found out that police will fight back. He ended up being taken to the ground and handcuffed. His agent, of course, claims Reed was attacked by the cops. Don Henderson told the Post-Gazette that Reed got out of the car "to help." Right. Now the kicker faces charges of assault, resisting arrest, disorderly conduct and public drunkenness. Are the Steelers OK with that? The team has shown a willingness to cut players who become unwelcome distractions - Bam Morris and Najeh Davenport come to mind - but that applies only if the player can be easily replaced. By essentially ignoring the transgressions of star players such as Santonio Holmes and James Harrison, the team has made it clear that there is one standard for so-so players and another for stars. One can understand if classy Mr. Spaeth's incident is overlooked, even though most folks who are approaching their 26th birthday have gained the maturity to rely exclusively on indoor plumbing. But Reed's case is another matter entirely. If what police say is true, that makes him a repeat offender, and also stupid as a box of rocks. And when someone starts wrestling with cops, they need to go. Of course, there will be some, perhaps many, Steelers fans who will dismiss this as nothing more than boys being boys. Of course, some of those fans would stand by their "Stillers" in the face of any accusation short of rape and murder. And a few, no doubt, would say the rape victim must've been asking for it and the murder victim provoked the dear Steeler involved in the homicide. My guess is that the Steelers will fall back on the old "let the case take its course through the criminal justice system" position, rather than switch kickers in midseason. Reed's contract is up this year, so he's probably on his way out the door, but if the Steelers had any integrity and moral standards, he'd be booted today.

Will you watch?

Tomorrow night, Michael Vick will be taking his first snaps as a member of the Philadelphia Eagles. Are you interested in watching to see how he performs? Will you refuse to watch Eagles games because he's a member of the team? I'm in the latter camp. If on a particular Thursday or Saturday or Sunday or Monday this coming season, the Eagles game is the only one on the tube, I'll watch something else. The problem is, every time I see Vick, all I can think of are the horrifying images of the violence and death he perpetrated against innocent animals. Sure, there are plenty of other people playing in the NFL who carry baggage, some of it criminal, but no one else in my memory carried out such a long-term, sickening assault on fellow living beings. And it's not like Vick is some solid citizen who just had a fall from grace. He was a known scumbag before any of this dog-fighting mess came to light. I don't think he should be banned from playing, but I don't have to watch it. Unless, of course, they guarantee that I'll see something like what’s portrayed in the photo above.

Lewdy-ville

Consider this scenario: A married man with five children who works with young people, some as young as 17 or 18, has sex with a woman in a restaurant after a night of drinking and later antes up $3,000 so she can have an abortion. Do you think he'd be likely to lose his job? Not if he is ultra-successful Louisville basketball coach Rick Pitino. The coach has admitted that he had sex at a restaurant table after hours with Karen Sypher, a woman now accused of trying to extort money from Pitino after the sordid affair. A couple of weeks later, she came to him, said she was pregnant, expressed an interest in getting an abortion but said she didn't have health insurance to cover the procedure. Pitino coughed up $3,000. At a news conference Wednesday, he said he wasn't specifically paying for an abortion, just for health coverage for Sypher. Riiiight. It was just a coincidence that the health insurance was used to abort an allegedly Pitino-fertilized egg. While some allegations might be debatable, and others may be in dispute, the image Pitino is projecting now is that of an alcohol-fueled, scheming, abortion-buying adulterer. Is this the person you want leading the young men on a college basketball team? At Lousville, based on the statements of college leaders, that answer is a resounding "Yes!" This despite the fact that Pitino's contract has a morals clause that allows dismissal if the coach is guilty of moral depravity or puts the school in a bad public light. He's lucky there's not a clause regarding hypocrisy, because Pitino has always portrayed himself as a devout Catholic who even took a priest friend along on road trips as a spiritual adviser. But the "good folks" at Louisville are turning a blind eye to the coach's transgressions and figuratively wiping their behinds with the page of Pitino's contract that involves morality and common decency. After all, he wins lots of games and brings in big money to the school. And in college basketball, where elite players are gone almost as quickly as they arrive on campus, big-name coaches are the stars. If this were a second-year coach with a so-so win-loss record, he'd be gone quicker than you could say Jack Robinson. It would be ever-so-convenient for the powers to be at Louisville to send an underachieving coach packing without having to pay the rest of his contract while wringing their hands and lamenting his unconscionable moral failings. In America, we typically believe in giving our fellow man second chances. But some actions, by some people, are not forgivable, or shouldn't be. If an apprentice carpenter crafts a bad window frame, he deserves another chance. If you're a bank teller, and your cash drawer comes up short $50 one day, you deserve another chance. But if you're a newspaper reporter who deliberately submits a false story, you should be canned immediately. If you’re a county treasurer who pockets tax money, you should be fired and put on trial. And if you're a married father of five, and you engage in morally repugnant behavior with a stranger after a night of drinking, and then pay thousands of dollars to "clean up" your little mess, you should no longer be leading young people. We all fall short of leading the lives we should be leading, but certain jobs carry expectations of a higher standard of integrity and upstanding behavior. There are lines that cannot be crossed, behaviors that cannot be forgiven. Pitino has failed miserably in meeting those standards. But we are now a nation in which egregious crimes against morality that once brought harsh indignation are met with a shrug.

There's just no stopping it

As everyone has heard by now, a nut with a deep-seated hatred of women opened fire inside a Bridgeville fitness club Tuesday night, killing three women and wounding nine more before turning his gun on himself. This will no doubt spark a new round of hang-wringing by supporters of strict gun controls. Those calls to rid our streets of guns should be met with a strong dose of reality. Handguns will never be banned in this country. We can try to minimize the number of mass killings by putting limits on assault weapons or perhaps clip sizes, but as we saw Tuesday, a determined lunatic with a couple of handguns can wreak just as much deadly havoc. The bottom line is that when a sick individual hatches a hate-fueled plot of kill people, there's really not much that can be done to prevent it. No matter what type of controls you put on weapons, a determined psychopath will find a way to circumvent them. We are a nation of gun owners. We always will be. And one of the side effects of that is the occasional mass murder. It's horrible, but it's inevitable.

The wild, wacky world of Pittsburgh sports

There are a couple of big stories today in the world of Pittsburgh sports. For one, the Pirates have unloaded the albatross known as Adam LaRoche. I have included in this post, for your enjoyment and wonder, a photo of LaRoche actually making contact with a baseball. The guy looked like a sure bet to be a 35-homer, 100-RBI guy when the Pirates acquired him from the Braves, but he’s been a huge disappointment. After two seasons in which he fell well short of expectations and apparently didn’t realize that the season starts in April, not July, the Pirates, in the past offseason, gave the guy a $7 million contract. And LaRoche responded by hitting .247 with a paltry 12 homers and 81 strikeouts in 87 games. LaRoche is a slick fielder at first base, but the Bucs acquired him for his bat. Now Red Sox fans can watch him and pull their hair out. In exchange for LaRoche, the Sox sent the Pirates two low-level minor leaguers, including a shortstop who is hitting .253 with zero homers at Class AA. The Bucs also got a Single A pitcher. I frequently rip the Pirates for trading away talented players and getting next to nothing in return, but in this case, a can of Spam and a tampon applicator would have been sufficient. Now we can all wait and see what the Pirates’ “brain trust” decides to do with second baseman Freddy Sanchez and shortstop Jack Wilson, arguably the two biggest fan favorites on the team. Sanchez is a legitimate all-star, and Wilson is a great defensive shortstop who is adequate at the plate. The Nutting family recently made a show of their so-called efforts to sign Sanchez and Wilson to contract extensions, but the offers were laughable. They were clearly made so that when the Nuttings send Sanchez and Wilson packing in exchange for the figurative bucket of balls, they can say, “We wanted to keep them around, but they wouldn’t sign an extension.” And it’s not like the Bucs have anyone else to plug into those positions. No one on the roster or in their minor-league system is ready to be an everyday major league middle infielder. The Nuttings, at that point, will officially be putting a Triple-A quality product on the field and charging you major league money for it. We are well past the point when anyone in his right mind would put money into the pockets of the Nutting family. If Sanchez and Wilson go, it should be even more clear.

***

The other big sports story in Pittsburgh is really a non-story. Some hotel clerk in Las Vegas has filed a lawsuit claiming that a year ago, Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger raped her in his room at a Lake Tahoe hotel and casino. I won’t go into the details of her allegations, because the story has already been beaten to death in the local media. But here’s a question: Does anyone really believe this woman? She never called police to report an assault, and just before the statute of limitations on a civil action was about to run out, she files a suit seeking more than $400,000 in damages. Hmmmmm. Another angle of this story is the media coverage it has received. We all know that if a Steelers player, especially a star player, has so much as an irregular bowel movement, we get breathless “team coverage” of the important “breaking news.” The TV stations, of course, are going totally bat@#$% crazy over the Roethlisberger story. As one commenter pointed out elsewhere on the blog, they’re even sending reporters to Las Vegas to get to the bottom of this. The correct approach to this story would have been to report it once and then give it the coverage it deserves, which is to be totally ignored until the case comes to trial, is settled or is dismissed. Enough already.

For an FBI director, he sure has crummy English skills

Here's the opening paragraph of an e-mail I received recently, purportedly from FBI Director Robert Mueller:

This is to Officially inform you that it has come to our notice and we have thoroughly Investigated with the help of our Intelligence Monitoring Network System that you are having an illegal Transaction with Impostors claiming to be Prof Charles C. Soludo of the Central Bank of Nigeria, Mr. Patrick Aziza, Mr. Frank Nweke, none officials of Oceanic Bank, Zenith Banks, Kelvin Young of HSBC, Ben of Fedex, Ibrahim Sule, Larry Christopher, Puppy Scammers are impostors claiming to be the Federal Bureau of Investigation. During our investigation, we noticed the reason why you have not received your payment is because you have not fulfilled your Financial Obligation given to you in respect to your Contract/Inheritance Payment.

Well, if that hadn't piqued my interest, the e-mail went on to say that I was in line to get an "ATM CARD" that would give me access to $11 million, at a maximum withdrawal rate of $40,000 to $50,000 a day. My only obligation was to send these kind folks at the FBI the $110 payment necessary to secure my "Approval Slip." I know, I know. Some of you are thinking this is a scam. But the e-mail went on to tell me that "Since the Federal Bureau of Investigation is involved in this transaction, you have to be rest assured for this is 100 percent risk free it is our duty to protect the American Citizens." So there. Anybody else want in?

Can you believe this?

I commented recently about the case of a Pittsburgh police officer who escaped criminal punishment for allegedly pistol-whipping and wounding a man on the city's South Side. Little did I know that the handling of that case would look like brilliant jurisprudence compared with what went down Tuesday in Chicago. A Chicago police officer who was found guilty of beating the living daylights out of a female bartender half his size got no jail time for the brutal attack. Anthony Abbate, who was off duty in February 2007 when he had a violent confrontation with barmaid Karolina Obrycka, walked away with two years of probation and an order to take anger-management classes. Talk about closing the barn door after the horse escaped. Prosecutors wanted Abbate to do some prison time, but in one of the stupidest statements ever made from the bench, Circuit Judge John Fleming said he saw no aggravating factors that would warrant a prison sentence. Why don't you look at the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49kgG0s7lVk and decide whether you see any aggravating circumstances. As you'll probably note, the 250-pound police officer, in response to Obrycka trying to remove him from the bar area, throws the 125-pound woman to the ground and holds her by the hair while punching, kneeing and kicking her. We have to assume that seeing a bear of a man opening up a can of whoop-ass on a small woman doesn't offend the judge's sensibilities. Fleming added, "If I believed sentencing Anthony Abbate to prison would stop people from getting drunk and hitting people, I'd give him the maximum sentence." Under Fleming's twisted way of thinking, we should just set murderers free, because clearly sentencing murderers to life in prison or capital punishment hasn't stopped homicides. Abbate, who was admittedly drunk during the confrontation, used the defense that the lady pushed him first. Oh, I see. If a girl pushes you first, it's OK to beat the hell out of her. And defense attorney Peter Hickey had the gall to add, "He's not a bad man; he did something bad." Not a bad man? A good man doesn't beat a woman half his size. No, let me rephrase that. A good man doesn't beat a woman, PERIOD. The police department says it wants to fire Abbate, who has been on unpaid suspension. What do you want to bet that the police union tries to block it?

What's with these guys?

I'm going to offer a hypothesis about a subgroup of NFL players: Is it possible that people who are gifted with lightning speed and great hand-eye coordination are, as a result, left with fewer brain cells than the average person? I'm talking about wide receivers. The latest case in point is Cleveland Browns wideout Donte Stallworth, at left, who just cut a deal in a DUI manslaughter case that ended with his receiving a 30-day jail term. Let's not forget the details of this case. Stallworth was speeding and drunk when he ran over and killed 59-year-old construction worker Mario Reyes with his Bentley in Miami Beach. Stallworth does face two years of house arrest and eight more years of probation, along with a lifetime driver's license suspension and lots of community service. It still seems as if 30 days behind bars is a light sentence for killing someone. Maybe the fact that Stallworth reached a "confidential financial settlement" with the Reyes clan led to what the AP called "the fervent wish by the victim's family to put the matter behind them." Stallworth isn't the only NFL receiver in the news for the wrong reasons lately. The Steelers' own Santonio Holmes, who was dumb enough to be driving around with marijuana cigars in his car, had his charges dropped because the search of his vehicle presented problems for prosecutors. And then there's our old pal Plaxico Burress, who had his trial on charges stemming from his self-inflicted wounding delayed once again. Also on this roster of screw-ups are Denver problem child Brandon Marshall, the infamous Chris Henry and the petulant-but-productive Terrell Owens. I guess if you've spent your adult life getting out of scrapes because of your physical skills, this is the way you behave (or misbehave). That might explain why you don't see long-snappers acting like this.

Here's why people lose faith in the justice system

If Allegheny County Common Pleas Judge Jeffrey Manning has to run for retention to the bench anytime soon, one would expect that he'll have the full support of the Fraternal Order of Police. On Thursday, Manning tossed out criminal charges against a suspended Pittsburgh police officer accused of pistol-whipping and wounding a man on the city's South Side, saying the officer's actions were "inappropriate" but not criminal. Let's see what you think. The case against Officer Paul Abel stemmed from his attempt to arrest Kaleb Miller for aggravated assault last June 28 following an altercation. The officer, who was off duty, alleged that Miller punched him in the face as he sat in his car after leaving a bar at about 2 a.m. Abel said he drove around the block, spotted Miller and needed to use force to effect an arrest because Miller refused to follow his orders. He said his service revolver went off during the struggle. Others tell a much different story, according to a report in today's Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Miller denied that he punched the officer, and witnesses testified that Miller bore no resemblance to the man who had attacked the policeman. They also said Abel hit Miller in the neck with his Glock handgun, causing it to discharge, and Miller was grazed in the hand by a bullet. Despite that, Manning dismissed all charges related to the confrontation, saying the law gives police officers discretion when it comes to use of force and that "it is not the obligation of this court to police the police department." A group that is charged with policing the police department, the Citizens Police Review Board, is very familiar with Abel. In addition to the Miller case, the panel has three other pending complaints against Abel, the P-G reports. One incident involves a 2007 county courthouse brawl involving Abel and his brother-in-law. In the second, Abel is accused of trying to get his wife to make false sexual-abuse claims against her children's grandparents. And in the third, an Allentown man claims he was brutalized by the officer. In the Miller case, Abel also originally faced a DUI charge, but that was dismissed because a blood-alcohol test wasn't taken until three-and-a-half hours after the incident. The law requires a test within two hours. Abel admitted drinking four beers and two shots of liquor that night on the South Side, but Pittsburgh Officer Dan O'Hara, who responded to the scene, said he saw no signs that Abel was intoxicated. Oh, did I mention that the test that was conducted more than three hours later found Abel had a blood-alcohol level of .111? Wait, one other thing. O'Hara, the guy who didn't think Abel was drunk, just happens to be president of Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 1 and says he'll be fighting to get Abel reinstated to the force. Of course.

A terrorist of a different color

I wonder how many people across our great land, when hearing of Wednesday's attack on the U.S. Holocaust Memorial and Museum in Washington, D.C., harbored some small, secret hope that the perpetrator of this terrorist assault was of Middle Eastern descent, the better to bolster their prejudices against people from that part of the world, in general, and Muslims, in particular. But the gunman who killed a security guard before being wounded and captured was an old white guy. James von Brunn, 88, is a World War II veteran who, despite the experience of fighting Hitler's Germany, became a Holocaust denier and deranged hater of all things Jewish and non-white. Von Brunn's actions serve as a reminder that there's really no difference between a Middle Eastern terrorist and a white, homegrown terrorist like Von Brunn, or between the Muslim convert who killed a soldier earlier this month in Arkansas and the white, homegrown terrorist who killed Dr. Tiller in Wichita. The common denominator is hate. It comes in all colors and religions.

Looking the other way

Police are supposed to enforce the law and protect citizens from crime, and even the lowest scum among us has rights under the law. But it seems that's not the case in Philadelphia. The other day, a vigilante gang of residents in the city's West Kensington section beat a man sought for questioning in the rape of an 11-year-old girl. The residents recognized 26-year-old Jose Carrasquillo from a photo circulated by police, who referred to the man as a "person of interest" in the sexual assault. Carrasquillo was beaten for several minutes before police got on the scene, but Philly Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey says no charges will be brought against the attackers, even though Carrasquillo is still hospitalized for treatment of his injuries. Ramsey says he doesn't condone violence, but his decision contradicts that statement. The commissioner is making it clear that police will look the other way if someone who is a "person of interest" in a heinous crime is the victim of vigilante justice. Carrasquillo is innocent until proven guilty, and police are wrong when they allow lawless thugs to play judge, jury and punisher.

Justice served?

There's been some discussion on an unrelated blog post about the Britnee Moore case in Greene County, so I thought I'd give it its own space. For those who haven't been following the trial, Moore, shown above, was convicted Wednesday of vehicular homicide, manslaughter and other counts in connection with a March 2007 head-on crash that killed another Greene County girl, Hope Maley. According to testimony, Moore was driving 70 mph, on a winding road, in the dark, on the wrong side of the road and was reaching to answer a cell phone when the accident occurred. It seems to me that the jurors did the right thing in convicting her. It's one thing to cause an accident when you are distracted by something. It becomes an entirely different thing - criminal negligence and a total disregard for human life - when you do all the things Moore was doing. But there are some people - very vocal people - who don't think Moore should go to prison. They use phrases like "two wrongs don't make a right" and "that won't bring the other girl back." To me, those are bogus arguments. What's your take?

When words kill

When people get riled up about something to the point of obsession, common sense and responsibility are often two of the early casualties. And when the level of their rhetoric escalates, the effects can be deadly. We've seen evidence of that in several recent cases. For years, protesters labeled abortion provider George Tiller as a murderer, despite the fact that his actions were lawful. A clearly mentally ill man who heard that message over and over and over again took matters into his own hands last weekend and allegedly gunned down Tiller in the doctor's church. Just this week, a Muslim convert named Abdulhakim Muhammed opened fire in Little Rock, killing a military recruiter. Authorities say he targeted soldiers "because of what they had done to Muslims in the past." A few weeks back, Richard Poplawski, who apparently believed the lunatics who claim the government is coming to take Americans' guns, killed three Pittsburgh police officers. Who bears the blame for these actions? Responsible abortion opponents didn't want Tiller murdered. The average Muslim would not support the random killing of innocent American soldiers. Reasonable gun-rights advocates don't support militia movements or the slayings of police officers. And yet, they are all to blame, in some measure. Why do we not hear the responsible abortion foes loudly denouncing the psychos at the fringes of their movement? Don't peace-loving Muslims have a duty to point out the hypocrisy and hatred of their brethren who believe in death to America and call for the murders of anyone guilty of the slightest insult against Islam? And why doesn't the NRA say, strongly and clearly, to the gun nuts, "Listen, we're going to fight to preserve your gun-ownership rights, but nobody is coming to take your rifles, shotguns and handguns"? Abortion opponents might claim that harsh rhetoric is justified because they're trying to save babies from being murdered, and gun-rights proponents might truly believe that they are fighting for the very survival of the Second Amendment, but would these groups also accept that radical Muslims might have some legitimacy when they say their people are dying because of U.S. actions in the Middle East? Probably not. But what they must realize is that words are powerful. And everyone, no matter their beliefs, bears responsibility when their words cause the most unhinged among their flocks to see murder as an acceptable, or even mandatory, course of action.

Murtha has nothing to say ... really

U.S. Rep. Jack Murtha isn't a man who is known for keeping his opinions to himself, whether it's speaking out on the Haditha killings or describing his congressional district as a racist, redneck area. But he got very, very quiet on Friday, and it wasn't because he was hunting wabbits. Reporters tried to ask him questions about Kuchera Defense Systems Inc. of nearby Windber, which has been banned from doing business with the Navy, based on fraud allegations and claims of ethics violations. Why would Murtha be questioned about Kuchera? Maybe because the company has given $60,000 to the Johnstown lawmaker and his political action committee over the past seven years. Or maybe because, in the last two years alone, Murtha has "earmarked" $14.7 million in military contracts for the company. But Murtha wasn't interested in talking about his buddies. Said the lawmaker, "What's that got to do with me? What do you think, I'm supposed to oversee these companies? That's not my job. That's the Defense Department's job." He really and truly said, "What's that got to do with me?" He doesn't sound defensive at all, does he? And this isn't the only company with ties to Murtha that has been raided by the feds of late. A D.C.-area lobbying firm known as PMA also is the target of an investigation. In just the past two years, that company has received $78 million through Murtha's earmarks. Murtha was questioned Friday at a Johnstown event known as the "Showcase for Commerce." It's a trade show for defense contractors and is paid for by seven of the world's largest defense contractors, companies that have been very generous in tossing money into Murtha's campaign coffers over the years. Nobody is saying that Murtha did anything illegal, but it's been my experience, in general, that people who have nothing to hide don't get defensive and refuse to answer questions. Couldn't he have replied, "I'm aware of the investigation, and if the company is found to have committed misdeeds, it should be punished."? He could've. But these are his pals we're talking about. We pay Murtha's salary and foot the bill for his pension and health insurance. And we're all paying for these earmarked multimillion-dollar contracts that may or may not be dirty. We deserve to have these questions answered by OUR representative.

These people should be behind bars

Leilani Neumann, above, and Colleen Hauser might not look like criminals, but Neumann is already up on homicide charges, and Hauser is on her way to the same fate. The reason? Their refusal to get medical attention for terminally ill children. Neumann is on trial right now for allowing her 11-year-old daughter, Madeline, to die of untreated diabetes in March 2008. At this writing, Hauser is on the lam with her 13-year-old son, Daniel, in an attempt to avoid a court order that the boy receive chemotherapy to prevent his death from Hodgkin's lymphoma. In both cases, the mothers believe the only medical treatment that is acceptable is healing from above. And they're nuts. It's not wrong for parents, or anyone, to believe in the healing power of prayer. It's not wrong for them to make decisions about medical care for their children based on the best available medical advice and testing. It's not wrong for adults to make whatever decisions they see fit about their own medical care. But it is criminally wrong - first-degree murder, in fact - for them to refuse medical treatment that could save their children from death and instead wait for divine intervention. These people do not represent the vast majority of religious folks. They are the lunatic fringe, and any normal person, even the most devout among them, would be embarrassed to be associated with the likes of Neumann and Hauser. Really, does any sane person believe that it's OK to kill a child this way?

Shot today, suit tomorrow?

One has to wonder how many ambulance-chasing lawyers already are camped out outside the hospital room of the 15-year-old boy who was shot by a Los Angeles County sheriff's deputy when he pointed a toy gun at officers. A sheriff's spokesman says officers had received reports of someone who was riding a bicycle and brandishing a handgun yesterday in Palmdale. Officers reportedly spotted the boy and told him to drop the gun, which did not have an orange tip found on most toy weapons, but the boy instead pointed it at them and was shot. He's in stable condition at a hospital and is expected to recover. But you can be sure that plenty of people will blame the police officer, who in reality would have been cleaning up the gene pool if he had eliminated a teenager dumb enough to point a gun, toy or real, at a policeman.

Why are they anonymous?

Washington police have arrested three 15-year-old boys and sent them to an Ohio juvenile facility on charges that they torched the former Salisbury Auto Body on Donnan Avenue? Who are these kids? Damned if I know. The identities of juveniles who are accused of criminal activity are typically shielded from public view by police and the courts. That might be fine for a shoplifter or a kid who smacks another teen in a street fight. But when a teenager is accused of setting a blaze that destroyed one building, threatened other people's homes and put the lives of firefighters and police officers at risk, the community deserves to know their names. What if they are released into the custody of their parents until their proceedings in juvenile court? Wouldn't it be good for people who live near these three to know that they're accused of this serious crime?

How dumb do they think we are? Wait, don't answer that.

I got an e-mail today from someone purportedly representing the customer service department at Bank of America. It was advised that someone was using multiple computers and a variety of password combinations in a bid to secure entry to my Bank of America online banking account. It was urgent, said the e-mail, that I re-confirm my account information to them by tomorrow, or my account would be suspended indefinitely, "as it may have been used for fraudulent purposes." There was one really big problem with this e-mail. I don't have a Bank of America banking account. But you know what? I guarantee that someone, somewhere who also did not have a Bank of America banking account nevertheless sent personal and/or financial information to the site included in the e-mail. Why? Because they're dummies. And scam artists such as the ones behind the Bank of America ruse count on a certain percentage of their targets being stupid people. That's how they make money. There were other signs in the Bank of America e-mail that would lead any reasonably intelligent person to recognize they were a target of a scam. The bank logo was a grainy reproduction, and the entreaty concluded with thanks for my patience in this "mattern." We hear all the time through the media about dummies who give thousands of dollars of their life savings to people they've never seen or heard of, just because they're told that thousands more will be coming back to them if they do so. And yet people fall for this stuff again and again and again. There's an element of greed at work here, but the biggest factor is that some folks are just a few sandwiches short of a picnic. Anyone can fall victim to an identity-theft crime, but for some of these scams, you really have to be a dope to get shafted.

Oopsie!

It looks as if the standoff with the Somali pirates who hijacked a U.S.-flagged cargo ship Wednesday will be short-lived. The pirates, who no doubt had a collective puckering of a certain part of their anatomies when they figured out they had captured a U.S. ship and crew, took off in a lifeboat with the ship's captain, leaving the crewmen behind. Just one problem with their escape plan: The lifeboat is out of gas and bobbing helplessly on the high seas, and a U.S. warship is on the way. Piracy expert Roger Middleton told the AP that the pirates are not in the best of positions. Said Middleton, “They’ve got only one guy, they’ve got nowhere to hide, they’ve got no way to defend themselves effectively against the military who are on the way and they are hundreds of miles from Somalia.” Middleton said the pirates might try to connect with a mothership, a vessel that tows pirates’ speedboats to sea and resupplies them as they look for targets, but he said they’re unlikely to get away. The latest hijacking is the 66th of the year, a figure already more than halfway to the total number of such incidents off the Horn of Africa last year. What’s the answer? It’s not as simple as we might think, according to experts, who say the pirates have a fairly easy time sneaking up on and boarding massive commercial vessels. Also, fighting back can be tricky, especially if the ships’ cargo happens to be oil or munitions that could blow sky high. And killing one small group of pirates probably isn’t going to scare off the next crew. If you’re a Somali who can look forward to a steady diet of rat-tail soup in a Mogadishu slum every day for the rest of your life, getting a cut of a multimillion-dollar ransom might make the risks involved seem acceptable, especially when virtually no pirates are losing their lives. I’m no authority on maritime safety, but it seems that the best bet might be to get more nations to send warships to that area, and to have them blow out of the water anything that even resembles a pirate mothership. It might not end the problem, but it might make some would-be pirates think twice about their career choice.

True stories on April Fools' Day

One advantage the NFL has over the other major sports leagues is that its teams and players make news year-round. However, it's not always good news. Here are some updates on the major stories of the supposed offseason:

It appears that Jay Cutler will soon be known as the former quarterback of the Denver Broncos. For those of you who haven't been following along, Cutler has been in a funk since he found out that his employer had shopped him in trade talks in an effort to get Matt Cassel, late of the New England Patriots. Cutler's approach since then has been to act like a whiny little b ... uh, bad boy ... and demand that the Broncos trade him to a team that will appreciate him and kiss his keister in the manner to which he's become accustomed since Pee Wee ball. It appears he's getting his wish. There are reports out of Denver that the team is actively trying to trade Cutler. Just more evidence that the inmates are running the asylum.

Our old "friend" Michael Vick is slipping back into the public eye. The convicted dog murderer, whose prison term will soon be coming to an end, is now trying to get his finances in order in bankruptcy court. Earlier this week, there were reports that Vick has agree to pay his old employer, the Atlanta Falcons, about $6.5 million for leaving the team in the lurch via his criminal behavior. The settlement is expected to be one of the topics when Vick appears in bankruptcy court Thursday. If all goes according to plan, and the deal is approved, the Falcons would be in a position to cut Vick. Then it gets interesting. Will any team, lured by Vick's unquestioned athletic ability, be willing to take a chance on a "man" who viciously killed dogs? My guess is that someone will step forward, trot out the old chestnut that "everyone deserves a second chance" and sign this reprobate to a contract. Of course, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell would have to sign off first, and he's gained a reputation as a "hanging judge" in dealing with players who break the law. But if Vick is cleared to play and signs with a team, how could any fan of that team, in good conscience, ever watch another one of their games? The good news is that the Steelers would never touch this kind of vermin.

And let's not forget our buddy Plaxico Burress. Plaxico's criminal case for stupidly shooting himself in the leg in a bar last November was continued this week until June. I don't really have a strong opinion on whether Plaxico deserves to go to jail on the charge of carrying an unlicensed .40-caliber handgun, but why was it necessary to delay the case? Supposedly, prosecutors and Burress' lawyers are discussing a plea deal, but Burress' people reportedly are balking at his doing any significant jail time. Burress attorney Benjamin Brafman said the two sides are "continuing to work our respective investigations." Investigations? It seems pretty cut and dried. The boob was carrying a handgun he shouldn't have been carrying. It went off and wounded him in the thigh. Either cut a deal or proceed to trial. Plaxico's current employers, the New York Giants, are said to be willing to take him back. Of course, these are the idiots who, despite Burress' repeated refusals to comport himself as a professional and/or an adult, signed him to a $35 million contract extension last September. Prosecutors are said to be seeking a one-year prison term for the wayward wide receiver. At the age of 31, Burress really can't afford to miss an entire season. And without football, Burress' future is a bit cloudy. I hope he has invested his earnings wisely over the years, because based on his public utterances during his years in Pittsburgh, and later in New York, it seems unlikely that he would be called upon to reprise Rex Harrison’s role in Shaw’s "Pygmalion.” Careers as a brain surgeon or a rocket scientist also appear to be out of the question.

The punishment should fit the crime

Read these first few paragraphs from a recent AP story:

TOMS RIVER, N.J. – A contractor changing the locks on an abandoned New Jersey house knew something was wrong as soon as he got near it.
Even from outside, the stench was overpowering. The contractor called police, who found a grotesque scene inside.
Beneath a veil of hundreds of flies, there was row after row of cages with the mummified remains of animals, some of which were so badly decomposed that officers had to use wire cutters to peel them from the cages. Animal feces was everywhere; a prosecutor walked through the Barnegat Township house wearing a haz-mat suit.
Piles of bones and fur that might have been a ferret or two were on the floor. And in the freezer, individually wrapped in towels, then tucked away in zip-lock plastic bags, were the bodies of 28 kittens.
By the end of the day, the remains of 68 animals, including dogs, cats and turtles, were found in the home where Matthew and Amanda Teymant once lived.

Now, can you guess how much jail time the Teymants got? That answer would be zero. Not a single day behind bars for these sad excuses for human beings. Prosecutors wanted Matthew Teymant to get a year behind bars. Instead, he and his wife were sentenced to probation and community service. The couple's lawyer explained that his clients become overwhelmed when they had two children and could no longer devote enough time to the animals. Gee, I guess they didn't have the five minutes that would have been required for a call to an animal rescue organization or the Humane Society. Instead, when they started having problems with their house, including a sewage backup, they just walked away, leaving dead and dying animals behind. Since the court system has failed miserably in this case, might I suggest that as their community service, the Teymants be required to live in small cages for a week, with no food or water. Cruel and unusual, you say? Maybe so, but wouldn't that punishment fit their crimes?

Don't authorities have anything better to do?

A New Jersey 14-year-old could end up in the slammer and be labeled a dangerous sex offender for posting nude photos of herself on MySpace. No, I'm not kidding. Targeting kids who transmit explicit photos of themselves appears to be the latest rage among prosecutors from coast to coast, including Pennsylvania, where the Wyoming County district attorney is threatening to bring criminal charges against three teenage girls who sent racy photos of themselves with their cell phones. I wrote about the Pennsylvania case previously, but now the girls are fighting back. They've filed a lawsuit against DA George Skumanick Jr., who is holding criminal prosecution over the teens’ heads in an effort to force them to take part in an after-school program. One of the girls in the photos was topless, but the other two were pictured in their bras. I'm guessing they show more skin when they're in their bathing suits, but Skumanick appears to be trying to make a name for himself. Maybe he's up for re-election soon. In the New Jersey case, the 14-year-old girl was arrested and charged with possession of child pornography and distribution of child pornography for posting her photos on MySpace so her boyfriend could see them. If she's found guilty of the distribution count, she might be forced to register under Megan's Law. The kid's clearly a nincompoop, but charging her as some sort of child porn purveyor is like killing a fly with a surface-to-air missile. And my opinion is shared by Maureen Kanka, whose raped and murdered daughter gave Megan's Law its name. Kanka said the Jersey teen definitely needs help, but not jail time. "This shouldn't fall under Megan's Law in any way, shape or form," Kanka told the AP. "She should have an intervention and counseling, because the only person she exploited was herself." Clearly, kids should not be littering the Internet with naked pictures of themselves, but the job of policing this kind of activity belongs to parents, not prosecutors. Our pornography and child-predator laws should not be bastardized in order to imprison kids who are guilty of little more than stupidity.

A changed man?

I was flipping around the dial on the car radio today when something on a Christian station caught my ear. It was an interview with none other than David Berkowitz, the infamous Son of Sam serial killer from the 1970s. Berkowitz was pretty much Public Enemy No. 1 at the time of the killings, and he was sentenced to 365 years in prison for his heinous crimes. But a funny thing happened while Berkowitz was behind bars. The man who was an admitted member of a Satanic cult, and most likely also insane, found Jesus. Berkowitz became a born-again Christian in 1987. According to an Internet biography, Berkowitz has been very active in prison ministries and counsels troubled inmates. We can't see inside Berkowitz's brain – or his soul, if you prefer – but in the radio interview he sounded like a very intelligent, remorseful and sincere person - a totally different person from the one who pumped bullets into innocent people 30-some years ago. Which brings me to this question: If Berkowitz is, indeed, rehabilitated, if he is no longer a threat to society, should he be released from prison? According to the mainline Christian denominations with which I'm familiar, I believe Berkowitz became a new person in Christ when he was born again. The old David Berkowitz is no longer with us. And that points to a certain disconnect between the Biblical take on forgiveness and the human one. Can we forgive David Berkowitz for what he did? Should we?

An indictment of our society, on multiple levels

There’s news out of California today about a “routine traffic stop” Saturday that escalated to the point that three police officers were dead and a fourth was clinging to life. The confrontation began when the driver of a 1995 Buick stopped by Oakland police opened fire on officers, killing one and severely wounding another before fleeing on foot. The AP reported that people lingered at the shooting scene, with nearly two dozen bystanders taunting police. With the help of an anonymous tip, police tracked the suspected gunman to a nearby apartment building. When a SWAT team entered the building, the suspect opened fire on them with an assault rifle, killing two officers. Police returned fire, killing 26-year-old Lovelle Mixon of Oakland, a parolee who was described as having an “extensive criminal history.” A few questions: Isn’t it about time that we quit listening to the wailing and screeching of the NRA and ban assault rifles that often end up in the hands of criminals? There is no legitimate purpose for a civilian to have an assault weapon. Next question: Why was Mixon even on the streets? Police say he was on parole for a conviction on a charge of assault with a deadly weapon. This guy should have been behind bars for life. We need to build more prisons. And, finally, what kind of scum taunt police officers at a scene where one policeman has been killed and a second gravely wounded? Where’s an out-of-control gasoline tanker when you need one?

A public service scrutinized

Much will be made about the fact that a state trooper who fired on a man shot to death during a drunken-driving patrol in Pittsburgh over the weekend was the same man who shot and killed a 12-year-old boy in Uniontown in December 2002. One can only imagine how breathless the Pittsburgh TV reporters will be when making their reports. Fact is, Trooper Samuel Nassan III, in both cases, was doing his job under highly difficult circumstances. In the most recent incident, Hassan was part of an operation aimed at catching drunken drivers early Sunday morning on Pittsburgh's South Side. Anyone who has been to the South Side knows that it's typically full of drunks, so police probably chose the location wisely. According to police reports cited by the Associated Press, Nassan and a city police officer were in an unmarked cruiser when they saw an SUV operated by Nicholas Haniotakis, 32, of Pittsburgh, driving the wrong way down a South Side street with its lights off. Officers said Haniotakis' car nearly hit the police vehicle, then sped away in reverse before hitting a parked car. The officers approached, and Haniotakis reportedly refused to show them his hands, then backed up, hit the police cruiser and nearly struck one of the officers. He then began to turn the vehicle around and head toward the officers again. That's when he was fatally shot, either by Nassan or the city policeman. In brief, he got exactly what he deserved. And it may sound harsh, but the same statement could be applied to 12-year-old Michael Ellerbe, above, who was shot to death on Christmas Eve 2002 after fleeing in the dark from a stolen SUV that police where chasing in Uniontown. The troopers said Nassan fired at Ellerbe only after his partner's gun snagged on a fence and discharged, leading Nassan to believe his partner had been shot by the youth. The troopers were never criminally charged, but Ellerbe's father, sadly, got $12.5 million from the state in a wrongful death suit. My opinion is that Michael Ellerbe or anyone else who runs from police puts themselves in a position to have bad things happen to them. And am I the only one who thinks that had Michael Ellerbe not died that night, maybe, just maybe, he might have come in contact with authorities again? And again? And again? I sided with Nassan in that case. I'll do the same this time. Oh, I almost forgot. Our "victim" in the latest case, Nicholas Haniotakis, was sentenced to prison for trying to run over a cop during a suburban Pittsburgh traffic stop in 2005. Court records also show he had a decade-long record of arrests that included crimes such as ethnic intimidation and aggravated assault. What a great loss to society, huh?