Released Murderer Kidnaps Family in NC

News14.com out of Charlotte North Carolina reports on a man accused of kidnapping who had already received the death penalty back in the 1980s.

Details are not clear as to his motive, but apparently Jerry Case, 52 years old, took a family of four Friday afternoon from the Belmont, N.C., area and drove them to Cherokee County in South Carolina. While pulling over for gas, police say Case got distracted, and the family got away and called 911.

Court documents show Case was originally sentenced to death in 1986 for the first-degree murder of a taxi driver. He and another man kidnapped the driver in Tennessee, drove to Gaston County and murdered him by stabbing him seven times. He was retried in August 1992, when he pleaded guilty to second-degree murder in the crime and saw his sentence reduced to life in prison. He also received 30 years for a guilty plea of second-degree kidnapping.

One thing stands out is that 25 years ago he used a knife, this week he used a gun. Do you think that's an example of the criminal progression some of our commenters talk about?

The most obvious thing is that a man like Jerry Case should never have been released from prison. Does anyone doubt what the fate of that North Carolina family would have been had they not escaped? After 22 years in prison, Case had been rehabilitated so little that within a year of his release, he did almost the same crime that put him there in the first place.

The problem is how to distinguish between the criminals who serve their sentence and can be safely released and those who continue to be dangerous and should not get out. It's a similar dilemma we have when trying to assess the difference between your average gun owner, who is safe and responsible, and the ones who are not, and should not have guns in the first place. In both cases we want to protect the public without unfairly inconveniencing the innocent.

In both cases I'm afraid we have to err on the side of caution and prudence. Violent criminals who are truly changed, the ones who find Jesus or who get involved in substance abuse programs in jail, may have to serve longer sentences in order to keep the hardened, unchanged criminals behind bars longer. In a similar way, lawful gun owners, the ones who never were a danger to anyone may have to be inconvenienced with stricter gun control laws, less flexibility in the way they buy and sell their firearms and total bans on certain types of weapons. These measures would result in the lessening of gun availability which would result in a proportional lessening in gun violence.

What's your opinion? Do you think stricter sentencing guidelines for violent criminals combined with stricter gun control regulations might be the solution? Or do you think this is just part of the price we have to pay? Most men who serve 22 years for murder don't immediately repeat their crimes when they get out. Just like most gun owners don't become criminals. The ones who do, we just need to accept, is that what you think?

Please leave a comment.

O.J. Simpson Appealing

CNN reports on the legal action taken by O.J.'s lawyers in Las Vegas.

In the 47-page brief filed Tuesday, Simpson's attorneys accuse Clark County, Nevada, District Judge Jackie Glass of judicial misconduct, saying her behavior constituted "cumulative error that was so egregious and prejudicial that the defense could not get a fair trial."

The judge inflicted herself into the trial proceedings, issued improper jury instructions, improperly admitted hearsay evidence and refused to allow defense attorneys to fully cross-examine witnesses, the filing alleges.

I described the trial as a travesty of justice. To me, the charges were ridiculous. Kidnapping, they called it. Give me a break. Even if the actions of Simpson and his accomplices qualified for the legal definition of "kidnapping," I felt there was plenty of reasonable doubt that he may have been doing exactly what he said, trying to take back what belonged to him.

After his sentencing, I predicted the whole thing will be overturned in a year or so. General opinion of O.J. is such that, by spending a year or two in jail for this nonsense the public blood-lust will have been appeased, but in America a sentence like this cannot stand in such a high profile case. We can't lock someone up for 10 or 15 years for such a mickey-mouse crime. We cannot put people away for what we think they've gotten away with in the past. Where are all the law and order guys when something like this happens?

What's your opinion? Did O.J. Simpson get away with murder once and then pay a heavier price later as a type of compensation? Is that right? Or, do you think he's a womanizing brute whose incarceration best serves the public interest? Is he like Phil Spector in that regard?

Please tell us what you think.

Toledo's Bible Reading Kidnapper

I saw this bizarre story on the Alan Colmes' Liberaland site.

Here's the story from the Toledo Blade.

A 34-year-old man accused of holding a woman captive in his West Toledo apartment for three days and reading Bible passages to her will be arraigned Tuesday in Toledo Municipal Court.

Troy Brisport of 4127 Secor Rd., Apt. 105 was charged with kidnapping and felonious assault, police said. He was being held without bond Monday night in the Lucas County jail.

The victim's name is Shykea Boykin, 22 years old. The story goes that Brisport picked her up in Detroit, she had no place to go, fell asleep in his car and ended up in his Toledo apartment. There's got to be more to it, but even as it is, the story contains some of our favorite elements, bible reading and Toledo Ohio. The only things missing are the gun and a concealed carry permit.

What do you think about this guy? Is he just like the fundie folks we know and love but just a little bit further along the spectrum? Or is this simply an extension of that preachy approach some fundamentalists seem to have little control over.

Or is it Toledo?

Please feel free to leave a comment.

Oh, You Won't See Him No More

That's what Fat Clemenza said to Sonny the day after he shot Pauly in the Jersey Meadowlands and said the unforgettable and oft-quoted, "Leave the gun, take the cannoli."

Well, that's what I say about O.J. You won't see him no more. The L.A. Times reports that the jurors claimed to not be prejudiced because of what happened 13 years ago.

"We've been painted as an all-white jury that hates O.J.," said Dora Pettit, one of seven jurors at the news conference. "That's not true."

Pettit said she prayed for Simpson throughout the trial and said it was "unfortunate that he's facing the same charges as somebody who robbed a bank."

That was unfortunate indeed. The way I see it there was more than enough reasonable doubt to go around in the case. According to Dora Pettit, it's the evil Nevada law that's to blame, certainly not that they were prejudiced.

What amazes me is how some people who tend to extol the benefits of law and order, of holding people accountable, of Lady Justice blindly doing her thing, seem to think it's good that O.J. is convicted in this case even if it's a miscarriage of justice in order to make up for the wrong acquittal. Although I'd never condone their actions, I think I'd have more respect for a lynch mob.

What's your opinion? Did O.J. pay in this trial for the murder many think he committed 14 years ago? Is it good for the system to operate like that? Wouldn't a justice system that can do that be open to much worse abuses?

Let us know what you think.

O.J. Simpson's Case Goes to Jury

The Las Vegas Sun reports that the O.J. Simpson case has been sent to the jury. Last time we talked about this one, I mentioned in the comments that I think the kidnapping charges are trumped up and that I fear there's no such thing as an impartial jury for O.J., especially an all white one.

O.J. Simpson's fate and liberty now rests with nine women and three men from Clark County.

The 12-member jury will on Friday morning begin deliberating the 12 robbery, weapons and kidnapping charges faced by Simpson and his alleged co-conspirator, Clarence "C.J." Stewart.

One fascinating coincidence is that today is the anniversary of his famous aquittal in 1995.

I give O.J. the benefit of the doubt in this one. I think it's completely plausible that the stuff was his and that he went there to retrieve it. Arranging to be escorted by a couple tough guys with guns, which I know he denies, makes perfect sense to me. I'm not convinced that would even constitute a crime.

So, if we see a conviction in this case, I believe it'll be another miscarriage of justice. Whether he got away with murder 13 years ago or not, should have nothing to do with today's deliberations.

Here's what the spin doctors over at CNN have to say about it. The picture of O.J. is enough to understand their opinion.

What's your opinion?