Two cops approached 23-year-old Charlie Vazquez in the Bronx.

The officers were responding to a 911 call for a person with a gun about 8 p.m. near E. 187th St. and Beaumont Ave. in Belmont.

When Officers Alejandra Jacobs and Robert Holmes arrived, they found Charlie Vasquez, 23, of Greenpoint, Brooklyn, sitting on the stoop of an apartment building, police said.

He matched the description from the 911 call “to a T,” NYPD Commissioner Dermot Shea said at a late-night news conference. “Within seconds, they are involved in a gun battle,” he said.

Continue reading →

At WaPo, Ruth Marcus calls it the “Rule of Six,” and argues that it’s the end of the world as we know it.

[Supreme Court associate Justice William] Brennan, master vote-counter and vote-cajoler, was right — but there is an important corollary to his famous Rule of Five, one powerfully at work in the current Supreme Court. That is the Rule of Six. A five-justice majority is inherently fragile. It necessitates compromise and discourages overreach. Five justices tend to proceed with baby steps. Continue reading →

The word “Latinx” is a litmus test. Hispanics want nothing to do with the word. They didn’t ask for it. They don’t want it. They won’t use it. And they don’t want college sophomores and their woke enablers bastardizing their language for the sake of saving them. Anyone choosing to use “Latinx” brands “themself” as “woke,” smarter and more virtuous than the ignorant peons they’re saving, and beyond the realm of normalcy.

It turns out France isn’t taking this any better. Continue reading →

President of the New York Police Benevolent Association, Pat Lynch, has never been shy in his defense of NYPD cops. If they administered a beating, a killing, lied, cheated, raped or stole, Lynch was always available to remind us that if we didn’t like they way cops handled things, the next time we were in trouble, call a criminal. It was, in essence, Pat Lynch’s way of reminding us that cops were all we’ve got, and if our option was take them as they came or tough nuggies.

Or, as was too often then case, take them if they came, since they didn’t owe us the time of day, no less a little courtesy or concern for the public. If they had a job to do, maybe they would do it. Maybe not. Maybe they would do it badly. Maybe violently. Maybe violently against the wrong person. Maybe any damn way they pleased, because they were the cops and we were…not. Continue reading →

News broke that the Staatsballett in Berlin had canceled this winter’s performance of Tchaikovsky’s Nutcracker.

The Staatsballett Berlin has quietly removed Tchaikovsky’s Nutcracker from its year-end programme.

Director Christiane Theobald says it contains a Chinese dance and an oriental dance that amount to ‘a clear case of racism’ – even more so since the Berlin production follows Tchaikovsky’s 1892 original.

Continue reading →

We interrupt your regularly scheduled Friday Funny to bring you my unsolicited thoughts on the second season of “Tiger King,” the Netflix docuseries about a gay meth-head country singer who once owned a bunch of tigers.

The following will contain plenty of SPOILERS (which I am advised I’m to type in all caps for those who believe such warnings necessary), so if you’re really interested in taking in the whole experience for yourself, come back to this post after watching the five episodes. For the rest of you with better things to do, read on! Continue reading →

For decades, some defense lawyers have been screaming into the void about how the economic loss guidelines for federal sentencing are out of whack, arbitrary, and many times just plain draconian. I’m lucky enough to have been doing it for about 10 years, and whenever a sentencing hearing is around the corner, I scavenge for more ammo to convince Judges to look past the nonsense that’s in section 2B1.1.

Some of the best weapons, though, come not from the defense’s argument, but from Judges who have found these numbers to be the equivalent of black box science. It’s as if the defense is telling the sentencing Judge, “Your Honor, it’s not just your not-so-humble servant that says that, but some of your brethren have also said it!” Implied in that message is something like, “Your colleagues took the plunge and called BS on these things, and now this Court can too!” Continue reading →

You may not remember, given the length of the average attention span these days and the refusal to admit that yesterday’s outrage, so vehement that some were ready to change everything because of it, turned out not only not to be particularly outrageous, but not to matter at all. At the outset of the Arbery trial, the media, the punditry, the social justice warriors, the work reformers, went nuts over the racial makeup of the jury. Sound remotely familiar?

The jury, which is made up of residents from Glynn County, where more than a quarter of the population is Black, includes 11 white people and one Black person. Anxiety over what the jury’s racial makeup would be had been palpable among observers and participants in recent days.

Continue reading →

There are some who passionately believe that it’s their duty to ruin Thanksgiving. It used to be that they were duty-bound as allies to inform their less-woke relatives at the table of how privileged they are and wrong about everything. It now includes the duty to inform them of their complicity in genocide, ethnic cleansing, stolen land and colonization, demanding the right to acknowledge that the land upon which their table sits once belonged to others from whom it was stolen.

Screw that. History is replete with people doing bad stuff to other people, and good stuff too, though it’s never good enough to match up, no less overtake, the bad. But we can’t change history, good or bad. We can only do better ourselves, and one very important way to do so is to be appreciative of what we have, family, friends and the opportunity to tell them how thankful we are. Continue reading →

It wasn’t too long ago that calls to eliminate the crime of felony murder were loud and strident. After all, why, but why, should some kid who only meant to steal go to prison for life when it was his partner who pulled the trigger and killed the shopowner? He didn’t do it. He didn’t know his partner would do it. He just wanted to steal. He never wanted anyone to die. Is this justice?

While the specific parameters of the rule vary between jurisdictions, the general idea is that if a death results from the conduct of committing a felony, everyone involved is guilty of murder for the death. Usually, there is a requirement that it be reasonably foreseeable, at least to accomplices or co-conspirators if not the actual killer, but that’s more a matter of coming up with a good explanation for chaos theory connections than reality. Continue reading →