The PCP Blog

A 24-year-old immigrant and suburban Denver resident is dead after calling 911 for assistance.  Jimma Reat was traveling in a car with three companions through Denver.  Reat and his friends stopped at a traffic light next to a Jeep.  The men in the Jeep hurled bottles and racial epithets at the Dodge Charger in which Reat was an occupant.  The occupants of the Charger sped off and found themselves in the nearby suburb of Wheat Ridge, CO.  The men then called 911 to report the incident.

According to the Denver Post, Reat was told he had to return to Denver city limits in order to receive police assistance.  Despite expressing fear to the 911 dispatcher, the men returned to an area near the original incident.  While waiting for police, the occupants of the Charger encountered the Jeep again.  There was a rain of gunfire and ultimately Reat died.

Jim Simpson, Executive Director of Denver 911, stated in an interview that the dispatcher followed incorrect procedure.  According the Simpson, the dispatcher gave instructions similar to those given for a minor traffic accident.  Simpson said the dispatcher should have contacted law enforcement officials in Wheat Ridge to assist the men.

I really want to give the dispatcher the benefit of the doubt.  Most people are not extremely coherent at 4 a.m.  However, if you job requires you to be alert at that hour, it is expected that you would be rested enough to follow proper protocol.  This is not the first troublesome incident involving Denver 911.  On March 28, a raging wildfire claimed the lives of an elderly couple.

As Public Enemy told us through music, 911 is a joke (at least in Denver).

Today, the PCP Blog salutes retired and active duty service men and women.  Because of your efforts to protect and preserve freedom, we are able to exercise our constitutional rights.  Thank you for all you have done and continue to do.

Whoa there cowboy!

Herman Cain and his staff might want to circle the wagons before going on the offensive.

On Sunday, Politico reported that Cain was accused of sexual harassment by two former employees at the National Restaurant Association.  According to the report, the alleged victims were given financial settlements not to report Mr. Cain’s behavior.  Cain immediately attacked the veracity but did not deny it.

As the week wore on, the Cain campaign attempted to point out who was responsible for sharing the story with the press.  The initial claim was that the story was a part of a smear campaign by the Democrats.  Apparently, Cain is doing so well in the polls that the left needed to attack him immediately.  Forget the media making fun of his 9-9-9 tax plan.  Or his breaking into Negro Spirituals at speaking engagements.  Of course no one has made fun of his life as a former pizza man.

From the Dems, the Cain campaign turned its attention toward fellow Republicans.  They were sure that someone inside the Grand Old Party was behind soiling Cain’s name.  Since he’s been leading the pack in straw polls, that story is a little more believable.  Curt Anderson, a current staffer for Rick Perry once worked for Herman Cain.  Clearly he is the culprit.  Or maybe not.  Mr. Anderson took to the airwaves to defend himself.  He said he never discussed the harassment allegations with Mr. Cain.

Today Cain’s Chief of Staff, Mark Block, walked back the story regarding Anderson.   Instead of the Cain camp getting their stories straight, they all went before the media with an inconsistent message.  Now we have a real whodunit on our hands.  Someone call Nancy Drew, Sherlock Holmes, Columbo…heck Scooby Doo and get them on the case.  We must find out who’s responsible for flinging around these untruths about Herman Cain!  Because of course we really care.

I’m sure when Mark Zuckerberg created Facebook, he didn’t imagine the violence that would ensue.

A 36-year-old Texas man was arrested on battery charges.  Benito Apolinar is accused of punching and pulling the hair of his estranged wife.  Recently Mr. Apolinar posted a status on his Facebook page about the anniversary of this mother’s death.  He took issue with his wife, Delores, because she did not “like” his status.  Really?

Color me crazy but maybe she Mrs. Apolinar didn’t see her husband’s status.  Considering the two of them currently reside in different states, it could be that she doesn’t like him and thus should not be expected to “like” his Facebook status.  Maybe Mrs. Apolinar unsubscribed from her husband’s status updates (I do so routinely for several Facebook contacts).

My sincere hope is that this alleged attack leads the Apolinars to change their respective profiles from “It’s Complicated” to “Single”.

A Toledo, Ohio man declared during his sentencing that he will return.  47-year-old Terrance Taylor received a sentence of 18 years to life for his role in the murder of another man at a party.

49-year-old Mark Ward was at a party with Taylor, Taylor’s sister Deidre Taylor, and Taylor’s half-brother John Winfield.  An argument ensued while the four participated in a friendly game of cards.  The reason for the disagreement?  A bottle of liquor.  There was a dispute over who paid for the bottle being consumed.  Taylor provided Winfield with the gun used to shoot Ward.  Ms. Taylor, according to her testimony, was instructed by her elder brother (and complied) to search Ward’s pockets after he was shot.  Winfield is still awaiting trial.

Upon learning of his life sentence, Taylor said “I want the court and especially my wife to know that this ain’t the end.  I will be back on appeal.”  He also expressed condolences to Mr. Ward’s family and shared that he had no hard feelings toward the presiding judge or prosecutor.  I’m sure both will rest easy knowing a man who will likely spend life in prison holds no aught against them.

This story leads me to wonder about several things.

1. Was the liquor so tasty that someone deserved to be shot for not contributing?  I’ve had a cocktail or two in my lifetime that I considered delicious.  However, I was not compelled toward homicide over the luscious libations.
2. If your sister is willing to testify against you, are we to believe that you’re an innocent who has an actual basis for appeal?
3. Why didn’t Taylor’s attorney caution him against grand proclamations in open court?  Did the attorney think it unnecessary to discuss his client’s statement before the sentencing?  Surely no attorney would think it a good idea for a client to expose their next “strategic” defensive move.

My hope is that one day, maybe around year 40 of his life sentence, Taylor will realize the error of his ways on all counts.

This blogger’s fascination with foolishness has brought her out of hibernation.   This was worth it.

Former Detroit mayor, Kwame Kilpatrick, is set the release a book one week from today.  The book will detail the infamous politician’s path to power and his ultimate downfall.  He recounts the numerous scandals that occurred while he was in office.  Kilpatrick also shares his feelings on incarceration.

I am ashamed to admit that immediately after submitting this post, I am going to reserve a copy of this book at my local library.   I promise a full book review will follow for those who share my interest for insanity.  In the meantime, you can view the 7 Action News feature about the upcoming literary treasure.

http://www.wxyz.com/dpp/news/region/detroit/inside-kilpatrick%27s-tell-all-book

I will preface this post by mentioning the video is not as shocking as the headline.

CNN reported that a woman was sexually assaulted in her west Oakland (California) home.  Prior to the alleged rape, the woman heard a loud noise in her home.  She went to investigate and found a man carrying a box out of her home.  She asks the intruder what he is doing there and how he gained access to her home.  This is noted on the video the victim took with her cell phone (click here to view).

After viewing the video, I was left confused.  I do not know proper break-in protocol but the exchange between the alleged burglar and victim was calm.  Extremely calm.  If I came out to find a stranger in my home, I would be looking for the first thing to use as a weapon.  I would have addressed the burglar with a different tone.  I would have called 911.  I might have even run out another door.  I don’t know that I would calmly ask why the burglar was there and tape him – unless I had a firearm in my non-camera hand.

I was also confused by the alleged thief.  He mumbled a response to the woman’s question and continued to carry the box out of her home.  He did not yell or approach her to attack.  He did not even run through the door he was standing near.

Perhaps I’m a bit cynical but this story doesn’t add up.  It looks more like the end of a bitter break up.  The guy in the video acted more like an angry mate (husband, boyfriend, roommate) than a rapist and thief.  I will follow this story to see what happens next.

What do you think?

In a unanimous decision, the Ohio Supreme Court held that a subsection of Ohio’s rape statute which provides that “no person shall engage in sexual conduct with another … ” when “the other person is less than 13 years of age”  is unconstitutionally vague and violates the right to equal protection of the laws when it is applied to charge one but not the other of two children under the age of 13 who engage in sexual conduct with one another [R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(b)].
The decision stems from a case involving two Licking county boys, 11 (M.G.) and 12 (D.B.) years old, who engaged in anal intercourse.  The D.B. provided M.G. with video games after their sexual encounters.  The boys and a mutual friend/witness said the sex was consensual.  The Licking County prosecutor charged D.B. with statutory rape.  Part of the rationale is that because he was taller and heavier, he was the initiator and forcing the 11-year-old into sexual conduct.
The D.B.’s attorney filed a pre-trial motion for dismissal on the grounds that the statutory rape charges violated the equal protection and due process provisions of the state and federal constitutions.  The law was not applied equally or fairly.  The case was appealed on the same grounds.
Justice Judith Lanzinger, who authored the opinion said the statute is vague and was improperly applied in this situation.  To charge one person and not the other is a violation of the alleged perpetrator’s constitutional rights.
I found the criminal charges of D.B. interesting.  Why was he singled out?  These are not the first children under 13 to engage in sexual intercourse willingly.  They will likely not be the last.  There are pre-teen and teen girls who are impregnated frequently by other children.  I recently heard about an 8th grade girl who is expecting a child.  The father is her boyfriend and a 9th grader.  If the girl in this situation was 12 when the relationship started, the boyfriend could be charged with statutory rape in some prosecutor’s opinions.  What if the other child involved had been a girl?  Would the prosecutor be so quick to bring charges?  I might be wrong but my gut says homophobia was involved in the decision to solely charge D.B.  It could have also been an over reaction based on the epidemic of bullying.
This case also brings to mind another interesting topic – sex education.  What did these boys really know about sex?  Where did they learn about it?  Had one of the boys previously engaged on similar sexual conduct?  Was either of them sexually abused in another situation?  Were the two boys merely exploring sexuality?  Instead of charging children with crimes, parents and others responsible for their growth should make sure they are educated and protected.

So happy I won't have to see THAT hair exiting Air Force One!

Imagine my surprise (read delight and relief) when I learned Donald Trump has decided not to run for President of the United States.  Since 2000, we have been assaulted by the possibilities of “The Donald” running for elected office.  He has alleged in previous years that he would run for governor of New York or President. The parties have changed over the years, this year he settled on the Republican party.

Donald clearly has the money and popularity.  Millions of people regularly watch his various versions of “The Apprentice” on NBC. He has been associated with business and entertainment for decades.  What’s not to love about Trump?  Perhaps its his constant media whoring or his hair (my favorite dislike).  Below is the press release in which Donald announced that he will not seek the Presidential bid.  The text is as it appears on CNN.com with additional comments from this blog’s author.

Full release:“After considerable deliberation and reflection, I have decided not to pursue the office of the Presidency. This decision does not come easily or without regret; especially when my potential candidacy continues to be validated by ranking at the top of the Republican contenders in polls across the country (and the masses who love a good train wreck). I maintain the strong conviction (read delusion) that if I were to run, I would be able to win the primary and ultimately, the general election. I have spent the past several months unofficially campaigning (stirring up mess and creating mayhem) and recognize that running for public office cannot be done half halfheartedly. Ultimately, however, business is my greatest passion and I am not ready to leave the private sector (I want to continue lining my pockets with other peoples’ money).

I want to personally thank the millions of Americans who have joined the various Trump grassroots movements and written me letters and e-mails encouraging me to run (in the midst of writing their hate letters to the current administration). My gratitude for your faith and trust in me could never be expressed properly in words. So, I make you this promise: that I will continue to voice my opinions loudly and help to shape our politician’s thoughts (stirring up more mess and confusion). My ability to bring important economic and foreign policy issues to the forefront of the national dialogue is perhaps my greatest asset and one of the most valuable services I can provide to this country. I will continue to push our President (demand that he show his freedom papers) and the country’s policy makers to address the dire challenges arising from our unsustainable debt structure and increasing lack of global competitiveness. Issues, including getting tough on China and other countries that are methodically and systematically taking advantage of the United States, were seldom mentioned before I brought them to the forefront of the country’s conversation. They are now being debated vigorously. I will also continue to push for job creation, an initiative that should be this country’s top priority and something that I know a lot about. I will not shy away from expressing the opinions that so many of you share yet don’t have a medium through which to articulate.

I look forward to supporting the candidate who is the most qualified to help us tackle our country’s most important issues and am hopeful that, when this person emerges, he or she will have the courage to take on the challenges of the Office and be the agent of change that this country so desperately needs.”

Thank you and God Bless America!
Donald J. Trump

The crazy thing is that if Donald wanted to, he could create a few hundred jobs on his own.  Perhaps he can build another hotel (with investors’ money) or create another “reality” television show.  Now that Trump will not be in the running for President, I will be able to follow the campaigns without laughing every few minutes (at least I hope that will be the case).

In the hustle and bustle of my daily activities, I forgot today is Primary Election Day.  Thank goodness I heard a news report on my local radio station reminding me.  Please visit the web page of your county’s board of elections ASAP!  There you will find information regarding your poll location as well as the items on the ballot for your area.  Get out the vote!!!