Showing posts with label crime. Show all posts
Showing posts with label crime. Show all posts

Thursday, September 3, 2020

Swing State Voters Favor Biden On Crime And Coronavirus

 Fox News polling in Arizona, North Carolina, and Wisconsin found that President Trump trails Democratic challenger Joe Biden in all three of these states, which were won by Trump in 2016. A surprising finding of the report was that many voters prefer Biden over Trump when it comes to handling both crime and the Coronavirus pandemic.

In a head-to-head matchup, likely voters in all three states picked Biden over Trump:

Arizona: Biden-49 Trump-40

North Carolina: Biden-50 Trump-46

Wisconsin: Biden-50 Trump-42

The poll also asked about four issues facing the country: the economy, the pandemic, policing and criminal justice, and dealing with China. Here is who voters trusted “to do a better job” in the three states polled:

Arizona:
Economy: Biden-44 Trump-45
Coronavirus: Biden-53 Trump-36
Policing and Criminal Justice: Biden-47 Trump-42
China: Biden-44 Trump-43

 

North Carolina:
Economy: Biden-43 Trump-51
Coronavirus: Biden-50 Trump-41
Policing and Criminal Justice: Biden-46 Trump-47
China: Biden-43 Trump-48

Wisconsin:
Economy: Biden-45 Trump-45
Coronavirus: Biden-52 Trump-35
Policing and Criminal Justice: Biden-47 Trump-42
China: Biden-44 Trump-45

The polling showed lopsided support for Joe Biden on the pandemic, but also indicated a surprising weakness for the president on his signature issues. Across the three states, the best Trump could manage was a statistical tie on criminal justice. Joe Biden trailed the president on the economy and China in North Carolina but ranked statistically even with the president in Arizona and Wisconsin on those issues.

It is especially striking that Wisconsin voters preferred Joe Biden to handle policing and criminal justice since Kenosha has been the scene of violent protests and riots since Jacob Blake was shot by police on August 23. The subsequent unrest led to two killings by Kyle Rittenhouse, who is being charged with murder.

The polling also covered senatorial races in Arizona and North Carolina. In Arizona, Republican incumbent Martha McSally is trailing Democrat Mark Kelly by an astonishing 17 points (56-39 percent) in a race that is trending towards a landslide. In North Carolina, Thom Tillis, another Republican incumbent is doing a bit better but still trailing Democrat Cal Cunningham 48-42 percent.

These two races may provide Democrats with two of the three seats that they need to win control of the Senate. A probable loss by Alabama’s Doug Jones would require an additional two Democratic pickups.

The Fox polling only covered three swing states while several others are in play. If only these three states flipped from the 2016 results, Trump would still win the Electoral College by 270-268. Florida, Michigan, and Pennsylvania provide additional opportunities to put Biden over the top. As I discussed earlier this week, Biden leads in those states as well.

Polling data shows that Trump’s approaches to the plethora of crises facing voters are falling flat with voters. Today marks 60 days until Election Day. If Donald Trump intends to pivot to a more unifying (and competent) strategy that would better appeal to undecided and moderate voters, he is running out of time to do so.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Or

Monday, August 27, 2018

Mollie TIbbetts' Family Rejects "Racist" Exploitation of Her Murder

Since the arrest of an illegal alien for the murder of Iowa student Mollie Tibbetts, the immigration status of her killer has become a hot political topic. Immigration hardliners have used the murder to call for strict enforcement of immigration laws and the deportation of all illegal immigrants. You might expect Mollie’s family to join in the calls for retribution against other illegal aliens. You’d be wrong.

The Tibbetts family has largely remained publicly silent about the immigration debate surrounding their daughter’s death. On Wednesday, the family released a statement through the Iowa Department of Public Safety that thanked the public for their prayers and support and asked that the family be allowed to grieve in private.

The family members who have spoken out on the politics surrounding her murder have been quick to distance themselves from the anti-immigration rhetoric and say that Mollie would not have agreed with what they call “racist fear-mongering,” reports KCCI in Des Moines. Members of the family call it unethical to “use this tragedy to demonize an entire population for the acts of one man.” As The Resurgent discussed last week, statistics show that illegal immigrants commit crimes at a lower rate than native-born Americans.

Among the family members who have made public statements are Mollie’s aunt, Billie Jo Calderwood, who wrote on Facebook that “evil comes in EVERY color,” and cousin, Sandi Tibbetts Murphy, who blamed the murder on “the toxic masculinity that exists in our society.’

As with Seth Rich, the politicization of the murder of Mollie Tibbetts only serves to add to the tragedy by hurting her family as they deal with their grief and loss. If the activists truly care about Mollie and her family, they will leave the Tibbetts family out of the political arena.

For those who sincerely care about the family and want to honor Mollie’s life and legacy, the family has requested that donations to the University of Iowa Stead Family Children's Hospital in lieu of flowers. Donations can be sent in care of the Smith Funeral Home, P.O. Box 368, Grinnell, Iowa 50112.


Originally published on The Resurgent

Thursday, August 23, 2018

The Illegal Immigrant Crime Wave Is A Myth

The murder of Mollie Tibbetts was a tragedy. That her killer was an illegal immigrant makes the crime seem even worse and more senseless. Yet, as conservative news outlets focus attention on 24-year-old Christhian Rivera, a Mexican national living and working illegally in the US, it is important to distinguish between fact and fiction in the discussion about the so-called illegal immigrant crime wave.

Despite claims from immigration hawks, the data does not support claims of a crisis level of violent crimes committed by illegal immigrants. In any large group, there will be both good and bad people. The question is not whether illegal immigrants commit violent crimes, it is whether they do so at a rate that is higher than native-born Americans.

Due to the nature of the group being studied, reliable data is hard to come by. Official government statistics about “criminal aliens” from the GAO do not distinguish between legal and illegal aliens. Therefore, some studies, such as John Lott’s 2018 study of Arizona inmates, are flawed because they make assumptions about who is a legal immigrant and who is not. It’s tough to determine how many crimes are committed by illegals if you can’t determine who is an illegal alien.

There are other ways to skin the cat though. A 2018 article in Criminology cited several studies that looked at community-wide crime rates. One compared “gateway” cities with high immigrant populations to “traditional” American cities. Another looked at different neighborhoods in Austin, Texas. Both found no evidence that neighborhoods with high numbers of immigrants had higher crime rates A third study examined federal Uniform Crime Report data from 2000 through 2010. The study found that even though immigration increased during the period, the crime rate decreased.

When the researchers looked at violent crime, the pattern was the same. Far from being the most dangerous places in the country, cities with many recent immigrants had the lowest homicide rates. Murder rates were more closely associated with age and socially disorganized neighborhoods than immigration status. Immigrants, possibly due to their strong family structures, often helped to lower the homicide and crime rates in their neighborhoods.

Earlier this year, Alex Nowrasteh of the Cato Institute also published a study of illegal immigrant crime rates in Texas where crime data distinguishes between illegal and legal immigrants. The Texas data showed that the overall crime rate and the violent crime rate for both legal and illegal immigrants were far below that of native-born Americans.

Cities on the southern border do not rank among the most dangerous cities in the US even though they are in close proximity to the source of much illegal immigration. The most dangerous city in America is Detroit, located near the Canadian border. We might do more to lower the crime by deploying the national guard to Michigan than the Mexican border.

The killing of Kate Steinle by an illegal immigrant, another high profile case, seems fresh because her killer was acquitted less than a year ago. In reality, Steinle died in 2015. If three years pass between such highly publicized murder cases involving illegal immigrants, it is de facto evidence that such cases are hard to find. If the immigration hardliners could find more cases to sensationalize for their cause, there is little doubt that they would do so.

Despite the headlines about crimes committed by immigrants, it makes logical sense that immigrants commit fewer crimes. The vast majority of immigrants, both legal and illegal, come to the US to work. They have a powerful incentive to stay out of trouble and steer clear of law enforcement. If they get into legal trouble, they not only lose their income, they can be deported. Their entire way of life is at risk if they commit even a small crime and attract the attention of police.

There are violent immigrants, such as members of MS-13, the infamous criminal gang, but even this is exaggerated. There are an estimated 10,000 members of MS-13 in the US, but most are American citizens and not immigrants. Even if the gang was made up entirely of illegal immigrants, it would represent a tiny fraction of the estimated 12 million illegals living in the US.

If the family of Mollie Tibbetts does not take comfort from data that shows that immigrants are more law-abiding that US citizens, that is understandable. However, good policy decisions are not made in the heat of the moment based on an emotional reaction to a tragedy. That is as true with crimes committed by illegals as it is after mass shootings when victims and their relatives often clamor for a quick solution. As H.L. Mencken said, “For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.” As citizens of a republic, we pay our elected officials to dispassionately consider the facts and enact policies based on the right solution rather than impractical, feel-good policies.

In fact, the anti-immigrant chorus in the wake of Mollie Tibbetts’s murder sounds a lot like the anti-gun crowd after a mass shooting. In a great many cases, the phrase “illegal immigrant” in Republican rhetoric can be interchanged with the word “gun” in Democratic rhetoric after a mass shooting. Granted, Mollie Tibbetts would still be alive if there were no illegal immigrants, but there would also be no mass shootings if there were no guns. Neither argument contains a practical solution. Deporting all illegals is no more workable than banning all guns.

For conservatives, a practical solution to the problem of illegal immigrant crime should fit the problem. The conservative solution should keep government growth to a minimum, it should keep costs to a minimum (including both direct expenditures and costs to the economy from removing people from the workforce) and it should minimize disruptions to families. Conservatives should keep in mind that many illegal immigrants have family members, often dependents, who are American citizens with the same constitutional rights as any other American.

Considering the fact that most illegal immigrants are peaceful contributors to the US economy and their local communities, the best solution seems to be to focus on illegals with a propensity for violence rather than wasting limited law enforcement resources on people who are here to earn a living. Border security is needed to control who enters the country, but so is reform for the legal immigration system. Fewer migrant workers will cross the border illegally if the wall has a big door with a welcome sign.

The murder of Mollie Tibbetts was a horrible crime, but it should not be used to unfairly demonize all illegal immigrants. Illegal immigration is a crime, but there is a huge difference between crossing the border to work without authorization and committing a brutal murder. Any conservative solution must recognize the difference.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Wednesday, December 6, 2017

Federal Charges For Illegal Immigrant In Steinle Killing


Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, the illegal immigrant who was acquitted in California of killing Kate Steinle on a San Francisco pier, has been indicted by a federal grand jury. Zarate will now face federal charges for possessing a gun as convicted felon and an illegal alien.

Zarate was acquitted of murder by a California jury last week in a case that provoked widespread outrage. Zarate admitted to accidentally killing Steinle with a single shot from a stolen pistol. The shot ricocheted off the ground before striking Steinle in the back. The same jury convicted Zarate of being a felon in possession of firearm, which carries a maximum sentence of three years in California.

The federal charges include possession of a firearm by a felon and possession of a firearm by an illegally present alien. Each charge carries a maximum sentence of 10 years.

The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution prohibits double jeopardy, trying a person for the same offense twice, but there are exceptions to the rule. The Supreme Court ruled in Blockburger v. United States (1932) that offenders could be tried separately for offenses stemming from the same act if each offense required a different element of proof.

In the past, the federal government has prosecuted cases in which defendants were acquitted in state courts. The most famous such cases stem from the Civil Rights Era in which racists who were acquitted of crimes against blacks by local juries were then tried on federal civil rights charges.

After the Zarate’s acquittal, President Trump called the verdict “disgraceful” in a series of tweets.


Originally published on The Resurgent

Monday, November 20, 2017

Border Patrol Agent Killed In Texas Attack

A US Border Patrol agent was killed and another injured Saturday morning in Texas. A press release from US Customs and Border Protection said that Agent Rogelio Martinez and his partner were “responding to activity” along Interstate 10 near Van Horn, Texas when the second agent reported that both men were injured and in need of assistance. Other Border Patrol agents responded and transported both wounded men to the hospital, where Agent Martinez died of his injuries. The second agent was reported to be in serious condition.

No details were initially given about the incident or who might have been responsible for Agent Martinez’s death. The press release reported that “the Border Patrol’s Special Operations Group and agents from CBP’s Air and Marine Operations are searching the area for potential suspects or witnesses.” CBP also noted that Culberson County, Texas Sheriff’s Department, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Office of Inspector General, and CBP’s Office of Professional Responsibility were all investigating the incident.

A local CBS affiliate reported that President of the National Border Patrol Council Brandon Judd characterized the incident as an attack. Judd, who is also a Border Patrol agent, said that the two agents were tracking a group of illegal aliens when they were attacked with rocks. CBS notes that the report has not been independently verified.

Jeanette Harper, a spokeswoman for the FBI’s El Paso office, did confirm to Fox News that the agents were not shot, saying, “They were not fired upon.”

Van Horn is located in Culberson County in West Texas. It is in the Border Patrol’s Big Bend Sector. The mountainous terrain there makes border crossings by illegal aliens difficult.

Rogelio Martinez, 36, was four-year veteran of the Border Patrol. He was a native of El Paso and is survived by his fiancé and son.


President Trump responded to the attack with a tweet, “Border Patrol Officer killed at Southern Border, another badly hurt. We will seek out and bring to justice those responsible. We will, and must, build the Wall!”

Originally published on The Resurgent

Wednesday, March 22, 2017

More guns, fewer crimes



About 20 years ago, criminologist John Lott wrote a book that documented how violent crime decreased in states that passed “shall issue” gun carry permits. Lott’s book, “More Guns, Less Crime,” was a pivotal moment in understanding the harmful effects of gun control laws. The assumption of a positive link between gun control and civic safety was broken. Now, another gun control assumption is being called into question as new data shows that more guns don’t necessarily result in more firearms accidents.

Gun sales have set records several times in recent years. Gun sales as measured by NICS background checks increased after the election of Barack Obama in 2008 and again after his reelection and attempt to impose new gun controls in the aftermath of the Newtown school massacre.

The prospect of a Hillary Clinton presidency caused sales to spike even further. Gun sales in 2016 smashed all previous records. At more than 27 million background checks, more than twice as many guns were purchased in 2016 as in 2008.

Liberal dogma would lead one to believe that the vast numbers of new guns in the hands of private citizens would lead to a dramatic increase in rates of violent crime and firearms accidents. Neither assumption is true.

The Washington Examiner reports that a new report by the National Safety Council puts the number of gun-related accidental deaths for 2015, the latest year that statistics are available, at 489. This is the lowest since recordkeeping began and represents a 17 percent drop from 2014.

Gun accidents make up less than one percent of the accidental deaths studied in the report by the nonprofit organization. Guns caused far fewer accidental deaths than automobiles and drug overdoses, which were leading causes of accidental death in various age groups. The odds of accidental gun deaths fell between “pedacyclist incidents” and “air and space transport incidents.”

Likewise, crime rates across the country remain near record lows despite claims by Democrats and President Trump that crime is at critical levels. FBI data from 2014, the most recent year available, shows the US murder rate at its lowest point since 1957.

Some cities did report an uptick in violent crime in 2015, but Politifact notes that the overall trend has been downward. “Snapshots are not trends. And two or three years of data are far too few to establish a trend,” said Richard A. Berk, professor of criminology and statistics at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School.

CNN notes that the uptick in violent crime was due to increases in specific cities, such as Chicago, which doesn’t even make USA Today’s list of the most violent cities in the country when crime rates are adjusted for population, although its suburb of Rockford, Ill. does. None of the cities on the list are known for large illegal immigrant populations, making the president’s claims that illegals are driving the uptick in the crime rate problematic.

Chris Eger at Guns.com credits the increase in safety programs with the decline in gun accidents. “The basic gun safety rules as advocated by the National Rifle Association are mentioned at least as far back as Jeff Cooper’s ‘The Complete Book of Modern Handgunning’ in 1961,” he writes. “The gun rights group has also backed their Eddie Eagle GunSafe, which they contend has reached more than 28 million children since 1988.” Eger also gives a nod to the 2005 law that required including gun locks with new gun sales and the distribution of gun locks by the National Shooting Sports Foundation as part of Project Childsafe.

“This latest release from the National Safety Council shows that the vast majority of the 100 million American firearms owners meet the serious responsibilities which come with firearms ownership,” said NSSF President and CEO Steve Sanetti. “They store their firearms safely and securely when not in use, and follow the basic rules of firearms safety when handling them.”


Perhaps we should question more liberal dogmas.

Originally published on the Resurgent

Monday, January 9, 2017

How Mentally Ill Esteban Santiago Flew His Gun Across the Country… Legally


After Esteban Santiago murdered five people in the Fort Lauderdale airport last week, the obvious question to emerge is how Santiago managed to get a gun through airport security. The question of Santiago’s weapon is two-fold since there are reports that he had shown signs of mental illness as well as the fact that the shooting occurred in an airport, normally considered to be a gun-free zone.

Santiago, an Iraq War veteran who served with the Puerto Rico National Guard, reportedly visited the FBI office in Anchorage, Alaska and complained, according to an FBI spokesman, “that his mind was being controlled by US intelligence agencies. During the interview, Mr. Santiago appeared agitated, incoherent and made disjointed statements. Although, he stated he did not wish to harm anyone, as a result of his erratic behavior, our [FBI] agents contacted local authorities who took custody of Mr. Santiago and transported him a local medical facility for evaluation.”

The spokesman said that Mr. Santiago, who had lived in Alaska for several years and worked there as a security guard and a member of the Alaska National Guard, was not placed on a no-fly list. “During our initial investigation, we found no ties to terrorism. There is currently no indication that Mr. Santiago was working with other individuals when he planned and carried out yesterday’s attack.”

With respect to Santiago’s mental health, a spokesman noted, “There is a federal law with regard to having a gun by somebody who is mentally ill, but the law requires that the person be ‘adjudicated mentally ill,’ which is a difficult standard. This is not someone who would have been prohibited [from owning or possessing a gun] based on the laws that they had. I think that law enforcement acted within the laws that they had. We’re a country of laws and they operated within them.”

There are laws that prevent the mentally ill from possessing guns, but the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right and due process must be followed to restrict that right. Federal and Alaska law state that firearms ownership and possession are prohibited if a person has been “adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to a mental institution.” Neither seems to have applied to Santiago, whose gun was returned after a mental health screening in connection with his statements at the FBI office according to the Anchorage Daily News.

“Unless there was some sort of a court order requiring involuntary commitment for mental health treatment, under existing gun control legislation, he could not be deprived of his constitutional right to possess a weapon,” Paul Callan, former New York homicide prosecutor told CNN. “People who submit to voluntary mental health treatment don't lose their right to possess firearms under current US law.”

Health care workers are required to notify authorities if they believe a patient may pose a danger to themselves or others. Privacy laws may conflict with this duty to warn, however. With many mass shootings in recent years, the perpetrators have exhibited signs of mental illness before their shooting sprees. Until a law is broken, such as making a threat, people who are mentally ill and potentially dangerous must voluntarily seek treatment.

Since Santiago was not committed or judged to be mentally ill, he had broken no laws and was free to travel. Esteban placed his weapon in a checked bag for his flight to Florida. NBC News reports that the Glock 9mm pistol was in a gun case that was carried in the baggage compartment of the airliners that flew Esteban from Anchorage to Minneapolis and Fort Lauderdale.

According to TSA rules, guns and ammunition are allowed on airliners if they are placed in a checked bag that is hard-sided and kept locked. Passengers cannot carry guns, ammunition or parts of guns such as magazines or clips in the cabin of the airliner. Ammunition can be placed in the same locked container as the gun.

Esteban would have checked his gun case and declared his firearm when he checked in at the airport. He would then have gone through the TSA security screening and traveled unarmed. Baggage claim areas are outside of the secure area of the airport.

Esteban reported left the secure area of the airport and retrieved his gun case at baggage claim upon arrival in Fort Lauderdale. At that point, he took the gun and ammunition out of the case and killed five people.

At this point, it seems that gun laws were followed in the case of Esteban Santiago. The gun was legal, Santiago owned and possessed it legally and he legally transported it across the country.

The failure in Fort Lauderdale seems to the same failure that contributed to so many shootings in the past few years. Law enforcement and the mental health system failed to identify a troubled individual who was in need of treatment. Perhaps instead of calling for more gun control, we should revisit privacy laws that prevent doctors, employers and law enforcement agencies from sharing information about potential killers. Consideration should also be given to reforming commitment laws so that potentially dangerous people can be given treatment without their consent.

Keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill is not a gun control issue. It is a public safety issue. If mass shootings continue unabated, the left’s outcry for more gun control may lead to sweeping laws like those of New York that restrict all gun ownership, rather than sensible laws that target the real problem.


Originally published on The Resurgent

Monday, October 17, 2016

Could Trump be prosecuted for sexual assault?



Most of the focus on the sexual assault charges against Donald Trump has been on how they would affect his campaign. Will the accusations hurt Trump’s chances with women? Will they cause Christians to desert him? Few have considered the implications of the charges on Donald Trump’s personal life and business. The accusations against Trump are that he engaged in behavior that was not only unethical and immoral, but also illegal. Is there a possibility that Donald Trump could be prosecuted? Could Trump go to jail?

The charges against Trump fall under the broad category of sexual assault. Such crimes are typically prosecuted at the state and local level, rather than by the federal government. Each jurisdiction will have its own definition in its criminal code, but the US Department of Justice website contains a definition that should be similar to most statutes around the country. According to the DOJ, “Sexual assault is any type of sexual contact or behavior that occurs without the explicit consent of the recipient. Falling under the definition of sexual assault are sexual activities as forced sexual intercourse, forcible sodomy, child molestation, incest, fondling, and attempted rape.”

There are two major hurdles to prosecuting Trump for sexual assault. The first is evidence. Some types of sexual assault leave physical evidence. For example, in the case of rape, bodily fluids and injuries to the victim can support the accuser’s story. There is unlikely to be physical evidence to support the accusations against Trump because he is accused of improper touching, kissing and fondling, not intercourse.

Testimony by witnesses is another type of evidence. Because Trump’s actions allegedly occurred in private, there would be few, if any, witnesses to corroborate the stories of his accusers. This does not exonerate Trump either since it is plausible that he would only become aggressive in private when there were no witnesses.

Since many of the women who have come forward to accuse Trump allege that their stories were from several years ago, there is also the statute of limitations to consider. The statute of limitations establishes a time limit to bring charges against a defendant. In Florida, where some of the assaults are alleged to have occurred, the statute of limitations was doubled to eight years in 2015 according to WFTV. The measure is not retroactive, however, so the alleged assault on “People” magazine reporter Natasha Stoynoff in 2005 would be considered stale.

Findlaw.com does note a provision in Florida law that places a hold on the statute of limitations when the defendant is not in the state. Since Trump does not live continuously in Florida, he might be culpable on some incidents beyond the normal four or eight years. This provision can be used to extend the statute of limitations for “not more than three years.”

In New York, where several incidents are alleged to have taken place, the statute of limitations is even more restrictive. According to the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network, the statute of limitations in New York ranges from two years for a misdemeanor to five years for a felony. For some sexual crimes, such as rape or aggravated sexual abuse in the first degree or sexual conduct against a child, there is no statute of limitations. So far, the accusations against Trump do not fall into the latter category.

There is also a civil lawsuit pending against Trump that alleges that he raped a 13-year-old girl in 1994. The suit alleges that Trump attended sex parties at the New York home of Jeffrey Epstein where he raped the plaintiff, known by the pseudonym “Katie Johnson,” on numerous occasions.  The suit was previously filed in California where it was dismissed on a technicality.

Jeffrey Epstein is a billionaire who is a convicted sex offender and who has associated with both Bill Clinton and Donald Trump. In 2008, Epstein was convicted of soliciting prostitution from girls as young as 14. He is widely believed to have run a private sex slave island in the US Virgin Islands where his rich friends could have sex with underage girls.

“I've known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy,'' Trump told “New York” magazine in a 2002 profile of Epstein. “He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it -- Jeffrey enjoys his social life.”

The rape accusations are outside the statute of limitations, but the suit asks that the five-year limit be waived due to the plaintiff’s age. She also claims that Trump and Epstein threatened the girl and her family if she reported the abuse. The Real Deal quotes the lawsuit complaint, “Both defendants let plaintiff know that each was a very wealthy, powerful man and indicated that they had the power, ability and means to carry out their threat.”

Because the lawsuit against Trump is a civil case, it won’t result in jail time for Trump, even if he loses. There is the possibility that he will have to pay a civil penalty. Epstein has settled several similar suits outside of court. The case won’t go to trial until December 16, long after the election is over.

So far, Donald Trump has denied all accusations of sexual assault. He claims that his comments on the now-infamous “Access Hollywood” tape were “locker room talk” that he never acted on. Trump told a crowd in Charlotte, N.C on CNN, “As you have seen, I am a victim of one of the great political smear campaigns in the history of our country.”

Whether the accusations are true or not, the lack of evidence and statute of limitations mean that Trump probably doesn't have to worry about going to jail or being forced to register as a sex offender. That could change if an accuser comes forward with a more recent incident.


Originally published on The Resurgent

Thursday, July 18, 2013

Who killed Trayvon Martin? An honest discussion of race and crime

Earlier this week on July 16, Attorney General Eric Holder addressed the NAACP convention in Orlando in the wake of the George Zimmerman verdict. In the speech, Holder said that the “tragedy provides yet another opportunity for our nation to speak honestly – and openly – about the complicated and emotionally-charged issues that this case has raised.” In truth, the national conversation about the killing of Trayvon Martin has been anything but honest. 

George Zimmerman admits that he shot and killed Trayvon Martin. Even though Zimmerman pulled the trigger to fire the shot that ultimately killed Martin, he was not the only cause of Martin’s death. There seems to be plenty of blame to go around.

As noted in Examiner, Zimmerman, a registered Democrat, lived in a racially mixed neighborhood. In fact, Martin’s father’s girlfriend lived in the same neighborhood. It is unlikely that Zimmerman would have thought the mere presence of a black teenager would be alarming unless he was acting suspiciously. The Daily Caller reported in April 2012 that Zimmerman was one of few people in Sanford who pushed for justice in 2010 when the son of a white police officer beat a black man.

It seems likely that there is more to the case than the media narrative of a racist neighborhood watch captain killing an innocent black teenager. In many accidents, investigators point to a chain of events that lead up to the final incident. If any of the events that link together to cause the accident had not occurred the accident chain might have been broken. In the case of Trayvon Martin, there are several links in the chain.

The most obvious link in the chain is the string of burglaries that occurred in George Zimmerman’s neighborhood prior to his encounter with Trayvon Martin. According to CNN, there were at least eight burglaries within the previous 14 months. CNN notes that witnesses reported black males were responsible in three to four of the incidents while the other four had no witnesses or suspects. One resident said that George Zimmerman had called to alert police to a burglary in progress at his home on Feb. 2. Zimmerman’s call noted that the burglar in this case was also a black man.

According to the FBI, blacks represent 28 percent of arrests in the United States even though they make up only 13 percent of the population according to the Census Bureau. This means that they commit a disproportionate number of crimes compared to other demographic groups. Half of all murder arrests and more than half of robbery arrests are blacks. Thirty-one percent of burglary arrests are blacks. The statistics are even higher for juvenile arrests. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, blacks are “disproportionately represented among both homicide victims and offenders.”

None of this means that every black person should be automatically suspected of criminal behavior. However, it does show that if a black teenager is acting strangely and looking into houses as Zimmerman alleges, investigating further is not unreasonable. The very purpose for the existence of a neighborhood watch is to be alert for suspicious activity regardless of race.

The question is why crime and incarceration rates among blacks are so much higher than their share of the total population. The answer can likely be found in the destruction of the black family. Data from the Annie E. Casey Foundation shows that 67 percent of black children live in single-parent households. This is a far greater rate than for other races. Seventy-two percent of black children are born to unwed mothers according to NBC News.

The link between single-parent families and risky behaviors of children is well established. According to the National Fatherhood Initiative, especially when the absent parent is the father, children are much more likely to become sexually active, use drugs, and have increased risk of juvenile delinquency.

The underlying truths represented by these statistics may have shaped Trayvon Martin’s young life. Martin’s step-mother, Alicia Stanley, raised him for 14 years until she and Trayvon’s father, Tracy Martin, divorced. Trayvon apparently changed after the divorce. In a CNN interview, Stanley said that he wasn’t a “thug” and that language like “creepy-ass cracker” was not used their home. Stanley said that she did not believe that race was a factor in the shooting.

Nevertheless, New York Times reported that, after the shooting, pictures and text messages found on Trayvon’s cell phone included guns, drugs, fighting and the fact that he had been kicked out of his mother’s house. One picture apparently shows Martin smoking marijuana, which has been shown to cause aggression, anxiety and paranoia. The Daily Mail reports that Trayvon was suspended from school three times in the months before his death. Reasons for the suspensions were possession of a burglary tool and jewelry, truancy, and possession of marijuana paraphernalia. Twitter messages refer to Trayvon hitting a bus driver. (Martin’s complete tweets can be viewed here.) ABC News also reported that Martin’s autopsy showed THC, the drug found in marijuana, in his blood.

In one eerily prescient exchange of text messages, reported in the Miami Herald, a friend asked Trayvon “so you just turning into a lil hoodlum [?]” and then warned “Boy don’t get one planted in ya chest.” Three months later, Trayvon was dead.

There were many links in the chain that led to Trayvon Martin’s death. George Zimmerman’s ill-considered decision to follow the teen is only the most obvious. Directly related to Zimmerman’s paranoia was the spate of burglaries that local police either could not or would not solve. The “broken windows” theory of policing holds that prosecution of small crimes can prevent larger, more violent crimes. In this case, if the police had solved the string of burglaries, they might have prevented an assault and killing. Likewise, if Trayvon’s parents and school administrators had reacted more strongly to the warning signs in his academic career, he might have been “scared straight.”

The biggest and most difficult link to break is the destruction of the black family. Trayvon Martin’s problems may have stemmed from the divorce of his father and step-mother. Like many children of divorce, Martin seems to have begun having trouble at school, become involved with drugs, and finally graduated to violence. Eyewitness testimony, reported by ABC News, supports Zimmerman’s story that he was pinned by Martin and screamed for help. If Martin had returned to his father’s girlfriend’s home rather than turning to confront Zimmerman, regardless of who threw the first punch, he would be alive today. His anger, resulting from anger at his parents’ divorce and compounded by drug use, may have played a role in his decision not to walk away.

Bill Cosby is one of the few black leaders who is willing to speak frankly about the problems facing the black community. In a 2011 interview with the Christian Post, Cosby decried the rise in single-parent families and the “media that romanticizes criminal behavior, things that a person will say against women, profanity, being gangster, having multiple children with multiple men and women and not wanting to is prevalent.”

The way to prevent more Trayvon Martins is not banning stand-your-ground laws, guns or hoodies. Preventing the deaths of more young black men and women starts with repairing the damage to the black family, a much more difficult task than demonizing George Zimmerman. Perhaps that is why so many choose to ignore the problem.

Originally published as Atlanta Conservative Examiner

Tuesday, July 2, 2013

Two robberies show need for gun rights

Citizens of the small Georgia town of Villa Rica got a lesson in gun control last week. On two consecutive days last week, armed robbers attacked local businesses in the normally quiet suburb of Atlanta. In each incident, a man was killed by a gun. Ostensibly both were victims of “gun violence,” but for circumstances were very different. After a weeklong manhunt, the final suspect was arrested this morning in Atlanta.

According to the Villa Rican, the first incident occurred on Tuesday, June 25, when a 19-year-old man wearing a hoodie and ski mask entered Junior’s Food Store, a local convenience store and gas station, around 9:45 p.m. The man, Durante Octavious Ashley, 19, was a part-time employee of the store, but that night he pulled a gun on the clerk who was on duty and demanded money. The clerk opened the cash register and, when Ashley turned his attention to the money inside, pulled his own gun and shot the robber, killing him.

Store owner Rosh Patel confirmed to Examiner on July 2 that because the shooting was in self-defense, no charges are expected against the clerk, whose name was not released. Mr. Patel said that the clerk was very shaken by the incident and was taking some time off from work.

Less than 24 hours later, four men entered a jewelry store on the other side of town. Inside the store, they took out hammers and began smashing jewelry cases to steal the contents. Before the incident ended, one of the men shot and killed store owner Mitch Mobley. Although other people were in the store at the time of the robbery, no one else was injured according to the Villa Rican, although others, including one of Mobley’s sons, were also in the store.

WSB reported that Urarahy Rodrigues, the 34-year-old owner of Defkon One Fighting and Fitness, saw the four killers run past his gym in the same shopping center as the Mobley Company. Rodrigues took a cell phone video of the fleeing suspects and then chased after them. He caught up to 16-year-old Eric Billings, the alleged trigger man, and held him in a choke hold until police arrived.

The four robbers fled after the murder. As of this writing, three of the four men have been arrested. According to WTOC, the sixteen-year-old, Eric Billings, and Raphael Rucker, 23, were arrested on June 27, the day after the murder. On Saturday, June 29, WSB reported that 20-year-old Gregory Clifton was captured by police. The fourth suspect, 21-year-old Cranford Phelps, was arrested in Atlanta in the early hours of July 2. The three adults all had prior criminal records. Since Eric Billings is a juvenile, his record could not be verified.

The two incidents illustrate the difference between armed and unarmed victims. At Junior’s, because the clerk was armed with a legal gun, he was able to act to save his own life. Mitch Mobley, who was apparently unarmed, was at the mercy of the four robbers who burst into his store. In both cases, the police were unavailable to protect the victims during the robberies. All too often the role of the police is to arrest murderers in the days after the crime. This is a necessary and important role, but arresting his murderers won’t bring Mitch Mobley back to life. In fact, if it weren’t for Urarahy Rodrigues, who says “I am not a hero,” the perpetrators might have escaped.

Mobley was mourned by the community. Villa Rica had lost more than a business leader and a family man. He was also a philanthropist who organized charity golf tournaments to benefit causes such as cancer research. His store may have been targeted by the men from Atlanta simply because it was near Interstate 20.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics notes that the number of gun homicides has declined 39 percent from 1993 through 2011 (the most recent year for which statistics are available). There were 11,101 fatal firearm homicides that year. According to the Centers for Disease Control, there were 31,672 gun deaths in 2010 (compared to 33,687 motor vehicle deaths).

The decline in gun homicides comes at a time when the total number of guns in the U.S. has increased sharply. There was a surge in gun sales after the election of Barack Obama and in 2011 Gallup found gun ownership at a 20 year high. Gun violence also declined amidst the Great Recession even though crime is traditionally assumed to spike in times of economic distress. The data calls into question the effectiveness of traditional gun control methods and seems to confirm economist John Lott’s groundbreaking 1998 study, “More Guns, Less Crime.”

Another gun control issue brought into question by the report is the effort to impose background checks and waiting periods at gun shows. According to the BJS report, less than two percent of criminals bought weapons at a flea market or gun show. The vast majority obtained their gun from family or friends (37 percent) or an illegal source (40 percent).

The BJS report notes that in about one percent of nonfatal violent crimes (about 4,600 incidents), a victim reported using a gun to defend themselves. About 0.1 percent of victims of property crime also used guns in self-defense. Without guns for self-defense, the number of gun homicides might rise by almost 5,000.

No one can know for sure whether Mitch Mobley would be alive today if he had kept a gun in his jewelry store. What can be said for certain is that when the gang of criminals burst into his store, he, his staff and his customers were at their mercy. They gave him none.

Originally published as Atlanta Conservative Examiner

Friday, February 1, 2013

Fear of ban prompts run on AR-15s

President Obama’s proposed gun ban has not yet become law, but it has already made some guns almost impossible to buy. The fear that “assault rifles” may soon be banned once again has led many gun owners to snap up guns that may be on the government’s list. In particular, AR-15s, the model of rifle used in the Sandy Hook and Aurora, Co. mass murders, have been flying off gun store shelves.

It is extremely difficult to find a gun store that has AR-15s in stock. Wal-Mart’s website lists several different models of AR-15, but notes that the guns are only available in its stores. A search of stores in the Atlanta area and elsewhere reveals that the guns are out of stock everywhere. Even models of the gun that are chambered in .22 Long Rifle, a smaller and less powerful cartridge than the normal .223, are sold out.

The Bass Pro Shop in Atlanta and the Barnes Store in Carrollton, Ga. report that they cannot keep AR-15s in stock. Both stores say that they have the guns on order, but have no idea when or if they will be received.

Elsewhere the story is the same. At the Gander Mountain store in Wichita, Ks., clerks say that AR-15s sell out as soon as they are received. The store recently received a shipment of the guns, which retail for about $750 depending on the model, and sold them all in about 10 minutes. “The first 10 people that came in and looked at them bought them,” said one clerk who requested his name be withheld.

One store that did have AR-15s in stock was the Elite Pawn shop in Cartersville, Ga. The store had three of the guns to sell, but was charging a premium. The guns, all different models, ranged in price from $1,700 to $1,900, a thousand dollars higher than retail. Unlike the local stores, employees at chains like Bass Pro and Gander Mountain say that they have not increased prices as demand for the guns has increased.

Assault weapons were banned during the Clinton Administration in 1994. The ban lasted through 2004. As John Lott, author of “More Guns, Less Crime,” wrote in the Los Angeles Times, the ban was a failure. According to Lott, “there is not a single published academic study showing that these bans have reduced any type of violent crime.” He also noted that despite warnings that crime would increase after the ban expired, the crime rate actually declined. According to the Justice Department’s National Crime Victimization Survey detailed in USA Today, the decline in crime continued until 2011.

According to FBI Violent Crime statistics for 2011, there were a total of 12,664 murders in the U.S. Rifles of all types were used in only 206 of these murders, about 1.6 percent of the total. Because “assault weapon” is a political term, there are no separate statistics for these weapons.

Reports from around the country indicate that gun sales are booming, a trend that began even before the Sandy Hook massacre according to MSN. Reuters reports that the FBI’s National Instant Background Check System has had nine of its top 10 days for firearms checks since the Sandy Hook murders on Dec. 14. The trend is likely to continue either until a ban is in place or the Obama Administration relents in its efforts to impose one.

Originally published on Examiner:

http://www.examiner.com/article/fears-of-ban-prompt-run-on-guns?cid=db_articles

Thursday, January 17, 2013

Obama gun control would not prevent shooting sprees

Yesterday President Obama began the largest push for gun control in decades with a list of proposals for congressional action and series of Executive Orders that the president signed unilaterally. A comprehensive list of the president’s proposals in the New York Times reveals that the president’s proposals would not have prevented most of the recent mass murders.

While the president’s wish list is long, it conspicuously excludes the one thing that could have prevented several of the recent shootings. President Obama and Vice President Biden did not ask congress to expand instant background checks to include mental health information. As a recent Examiner article discussed, most mass killers have a history or can be reasonably suspected of having mental illness.

While the president’s plan does call for increased spending on mental health programs for young people and the opening of national dialogue on mental health, it does not tie mental health to gun purchases. Instead the president concentrated on tried and failed ideas such as an “assault weapons ban” and limit on the capacity of magazines. These ideas failed to reduce crime when they were enacted in the 1990s. When they expired, the crime rate did not increase as many liberals had predicted.

One of the president’s Executive Orders also attempts to clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prevent doctors from asking patients about guns in their homes. In reality, an amendment to the ACA’s section 2716 specifically states that health or wellness programs under the law “may not require the disclosure or collection of any information relating to… lawfully possessed firearms or ammunition….” The law also prohibits data collection on the possession and use of lawful firearms and ammunition. The president is essentially attempting to use an Executive Order to amend a law enacted by congress.

The big question is whether the president’s proposals would have prevented recent mass shootings like the one in Newtown. The answer seems to be no, especially in light of the fact that existing assault weapons would remain in the hands of their owners.

Adam Lanza did not purchase the guns that he used to murder 20 children and six adults on Dec. 14, 2012. According to the Daily Mail, Lanza stole his guns from his mother, Nancy. Adam shot Nancy in the face with one of her legally purchased weapons. He then stole her car and drove to Sandy Hook Elementary. According to the New York Times, the school was locked, but Lanza shot his way through the door.

A few days earlier on Dec. 11, Jacob Tyler Roberts killed two people in the Clackamas Mall in Portland, Ore. The rifle used by Roberts was stolen from one of his friends according to the Associated Press. According to Portland’s News Channel 8, Roberts killed himself after being interrupted by a man with a legally concealed handgun, who may well have kept the death toll from being much higher.

In a third December shooting, William Spengler killed two firefighters who were responding to a fire he had set in Rochester, N.Y. Spengler, a convicted felon, could not legally purchase or own a gun. NBC News reported that Spengler’s suicide note revealed that a straw purchaser, 24-year-old Dawn Nguyen, bought the guns for him. Nguyen is facing federal and state charges for making false statements in the purchase of the guns.

According to CBS News, James Holmes, the “Dark Knight” killer from Colorado, purchased his guns legally from three different stores over a period of several months. The guns were purchased well in advance of the Aurora, Co. mass murder. The stores performed the required background checks, but Holmes had a clean record at the time.

ABC News reports that a University of Colorado psychiatrist who had counseled Holmes warned the Aurora Police Department about Holmes several weeks before the murders. The information was not placed into the instant background check system and may have come too late to stop the purchases in any event. The psychiatrist allegedly rejected an offer by the police to put Holmes on a 72 hour psychiatric hold according to Yahoo News.

In the wake of the Aurora murders, Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, a Democrat, led an effort to reform state mental health laws. The Wall St. Journal reports that the reform modernized Colorado’s commitment laws and provides that commitment records be crosschecked for gun purchases. The Journal notes that the reforms also protect the civil liberties of law-abiding citizens.

Jared Lee Loughner, the Tucson killer who shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, purchased his gun from a sporting goods store after passing a federally required instant background check. The Christian Science Monitor notes that Loughner’s background check was clear because he had never been declared mentally unfit by a court. Blogger Rob Doar also points out that Loughner lied on his instant background check application, a felony.

The Virginia Tech killer, Cho Seung-Hui, purchased his guns legally in spite of the fact that a judge had deemed him an “imminent danger to himself” in December 2005 according to CNN. Because the judge ordered outpatient treatment instead of committing Cho to a hospital, his mental health history did not show up on his background check. Cho bought his guns in separate purchases more than a month before his killing spree.

The Columbine killers, Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris, obtained their guns illegally. The Violence Policy Center says that several guns were bought for the teens by a straw purchaser. One gun was sold to the pair by a private seller who knew that they were under the legal age to buy a pistol. The straw purchaser, Klebold’s girlfriend Robyn Anderson, was never prosecuted, but the individual seller, Mark Manes, served 19 months in prison according to Yahoo. There is speculation that Anderson was not prosecuted in exchange for her testimony before the House Judiciary Committee.

Since most of the killers obtained their guns illegally, either through theft, straw purchases or fraud, it is unlikely that President Obama’s new laws would have prevented any of the mass killings. However, Colorado-style mental health reforms that would tie mental health records to the National Instant Check System and make it easier to mandate treatment for the mentally ill who pose a danger to themselves and others might well prevent some killers from obtaining a weapon. Stiff penalties for straw purchasers and enforcement of existing laws against fraud are also needed.

It will never be possible to completely end killing sprees. As Examiner previously reported, countries with much stricter gun control that the U.S. have had even worse shooting sprees. Even an outright ban of guns would leave many other weapons available. The worst school killing in U.S. history was committed with bombs, not guns. On the same day that Adam Lanza attacked Sandy Hook Elementary, a man in China injured 22 children in their school with a knife according to CBC News. This was the latest in a series of knife attacks against Chinese children. Even the presence of armed guards, an idea endorsed by the National Rifle Association, cannot guarantee that a determined murderer would be unsuccessful.

Perhaps the best advice on preventing school violence came from Paul Regnier, a spokesman for the Fairfax, Va. school system after the Virginia Tech murders. Speaking to the Roanoke Times, Regnier said, "A principal once told me, 'we don't need metal detectors at the schools; we need mental detectors.’”

 

Originally published on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-gun-proposals-would-not-have-prevented-recent-shooting-sprees?cid=db_articles

Friday, March 9, 2012

Pat Robertson endorses legal marijuana

Evangelical leader Pat Robertson shocked the nation recently when he advocated the legalization of marijuana. In an interview with the N.Y. Times, Robertson said, “I really believe we should treat marijuana the way we treat beverage alcohol. I’ve never used marijuana and I don’t intend to, but it’s just one of those things that I think: this war on drugs just hasn’t succeeded.”

Robertson said that his views on legalization formed over time as he came to realize that the U.S. “has gone overboard on this concept of being tough on crime.” He believes that legalization of marijuana would be a way to reduce social and financial costs of the drug war as well as reducing rates of incarceration.

According to the Justice Policy Institute, about one quarter of the two million prisoners in U.S. jails have been convicted of drug offenses. Sixteen percent of state prisoners and 18 percent of federal prisoners had committed crimes to get money for drugs. Department of Justice statistics show that 12 percent of prisoners at both the state and federal level were convicted of offenses involving marijuana. The number of inmates serving time for marijuana offenses is a relatively small portion of the total U.S. prison population.

Other arguments for legal marijuana cite statistics that show that states with more drug treatment admissions have lower rates of incarceration. According the Justice Policy Institute, the national average is 433.7 drug treatment admissions and 491 people incarcerated per 100,000 people in the general population. Georgia has fewer drug treatments than average at 369.28 and higher than average incarceration at 533.

Proponents of legalization also cite savings from ending the war on drugs and tax revenue from legal marijuana. It is likely that these benefits would be offset by the increased social costs of legalization as more people would use the drug if it were legal. These would include costs such as healthcare and treatment, lost productivity, auto accidents, crime, and social welfare programs according to a study by RTI International.

European countries have experimented with more liberal drug policies. The Netherlands does not enforce laws against marijuana which resulted in an international tourist trade for Amsterdam’s “coffee” shops. The government recently banned non-Dutch residents from the shops. In the Netherlands, there are strong penalties for possessing, selling, and producing drugs, but not for using. According to an article in Science, increases in use did not accompany decriminalization, but “later growth in commercial access to cannabis, after de facto legalization, was accompanied by steep increases in use, even among youth.”

A paper by the American Academy of Pediatrics examined the effects of decriminalization. The paper points out that legalization would decrease the perception of risk and make adolescents more likely to experiment with drugs. The AAP notes that even though alcohol and tobacco are illegal for minors, both drugs are widely abused by adolescents and companies actively market these products to minors.

The AAP also cites two studies by the American Medical Association and the Institute of Medicine that point out that there is no rigorous data to support the use of marijuana as a medical drug. While both studies call for more research, they note that, when smoked, marijuana delivers “harmful substances” into the body. Because inhaled marijuana cannot provide the “precisely defined drug affect” of pharmaceutical drugs, “there is very little future in smoked marijuana as a medically approved medication. If there is any future in cannabinoid development, it lies with agents of more certain, not less certain, composition.”

Far from being harmless, marijuana carries a host of negative effects for users. Emotional effects cited on About.com include paranoia, aggression, depression, anxiety, a distorted sense of time, random thinking, and loss of memory. When eaten rather than smoked, marijuana can also cause hallucinations, delusions, and disorientation. Marijuana increases the heart rate and decreases blood pressure leading to an elevated risk of heart attacks. Smoking marijuana causes the same respiratory problems as smoking tobacco and a link to cancer is suspected. The drug is also believed to suppress the body’s immune system, which can lead to other health problems including an increased risk of bacterial infections and tumors.

While marijuana is not as addictive as other drugs, including tobacco and alcohol, the National Institute of Drug Abuse found that estimated nine percent of users become dependent on marijuana. That number almost doubles for users who start young and is as high as 50 percent for daily users. Marijuana users also have higher rates of use for other drugs and drug problems than nonusers. More than half of the Americans who use illegal drugs use marijuana.

If marijuana were legalized, prices would fall as the supplies of the drug increased and became easier to obtain. Economic laws of supply and demand show that as prices fall, demand rises. Therefore it should be expected that use of marijuana would increase under decriminalization. The number of people addicted to marijuana and introduced to other drugs through marijuana would increase as well. While alcohol and tobacco are more harmful to society than marijuana today, if marijuana were legalized its negative impact on society would increase as well.

Ballot initiatives in several states are attempting to decriminalize marijuana. California voters rejected a proposition to legalize the drug in 2010, but Gov. Schwarzenegger signed a bill into law that made possession of less than an ounce a civil infraction rather than a misdemeanor. Colorado and Massachusetts are currently the forefront of attempts to decriminalize marijuana.

In Georgia, possession of less than an ounce of marijuana will normally mean probation on the first offense according to NORML. Subsequent offenses can lead to a year in jail and a $1,000 fine. Possession of more than an ounce can mean 10 years in jail. According to marijuana.com, Georgia allows distribution of medical marijuana that is received from the federal government. There is no notable movement to decriminalize marijuana in Georgia.

Most other Christian leaders are not following Robertson’s lead. In a 2010 commentary, Chuck Colson of Prison Fellowship pointed out the flaws in the legalization arguments. Colson said, “There is no legitimate moral or pragmatic reason to legalize a drug that destroys the lives of those addicted to it and that fuels crime and corruption.”

Robertson told the Times, “I believe in working with the hearts of people, and not locking them up,” but he has a lot of work to do in convincing other conservatives and Christians. Several prominent conservatives and libertarians have endorsed legal marijuana in addition to Robertson, such as presidential candidate Ron Paul, talk-show host Glenn Beck and the libertarian Cato Institute. Nevertheless, while 41 percent of Americans favor legal marijuana according to a Pew poll, only 25 percent of Republicans and 33 percent of Protestants do.

Originally published on Examiner.com

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-atlanta/pat-robertson-endorses-legal-marijuana