1st Degree Murder Conviction for Wheel Man

MercuryNews.com reports on the conviction of the wheel man in a drive-by shooting.

MODESTO, Calif.—Prosecutors say the man behind the wheel of a car involved in a fatal drive-by shooting of a San Francisco man could get up to 140 years in prison after being convicted of first-degree murder and other charges Friday.

Stanislaus County Deputy District Attorney Brad Nix says 20-year-old Isidoro Mata could get even more time than the convicted shooter in the case.

Jurors needed only three hours to convict Mata for driving the car that carried the gunman who shot and killed 28-year-old Manuel Rayas at a child's birthday party in Modesto in June 2006.

Mata is due back in court April 23 for sentencing.

The gunman, Angel Cabanillas, was sentenced in October to 132 years to life in prison after being convicted of second-degree murder. Cabanillas was 14-years old at the time of the shooting.

To me it seems like a wildly excessive sentence for the shooter, since he was only 14. But the decision to charge and convict the driver for 1st degree murder is absurd. I'm all for shared responsibility, but this is something different.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

David Marshall Williams Changes Warfare

Cracked.com has a fascinating post about men who changed the world from behind bars.

If you're extra good in prison, you might earn yourself some Spork privileges. No more eating pudding with the folded up lid for you; you've earned the right to use utensils, son! But that's only if you keep your nose clean, stay out of trouble and generally go out of your way to make prison life more bearable for all. So how good do you have to be to earn gun-building rights? You can ask David Marshall Williams that question, he spent most of his prison time building, testing and refining new types of machine guns.

This one caught my eye, but the others are interesting too.

The Coffee Party Movement

Thanks to Laci. It's all about cooperation.

Parents Convicted in Child's "Accidental Shooting"

SFGate reports on the conviction of the parents whose 8-year-old shot and killed his little sister. We talked about it before.

The parents of a 2-year-old Vacaville girl who was accidentally shot to death by her 8-year-old brother have been convicted of criminal charges, an attorney in the case said Friday.

Michael Shanahan, 28, and Daniela Shanahan, 26, could each face up to two years in prison in connection with the Sept. 23 death of Ayana Shanahan.

Michael Shanahan pleaded no contest Thursday in Solano County Superior Court to one count of unsafe storage of a firearm. Daniela Shanahan pleaded guilty to one count of child endangerment.

Prosecutors are seeking two-year prison terms when both are sentenced April 30. But defense attorneys will argue for probation on the grounds that the parents have already suffered enough, said Michael Shanahan's lawyer, Anthony Finkas.

"Obviously, they are devastated by what happened," Finkas said. "They're serving a life sentence based on their apparent negligence."

Ayana was shot once in the head at the family's home on the 1000 block of Syracuse Circle as her brother was playing with a handgun.

The boy did not think the gun was real, police said. The parents were home at the time.

Michael Shanahan was an active Army reservist at the time of the shooting, and the gun that killed Ayana was one of numerous weapons in the home, authorities said.

I feel the defense attorney has a good point and I wouldn't mind seeing probation as long as Mr. Shanahan would forfeit his right to own guns forever.

What's your opinion? Do you think that "forever" part is too severe? Should a guy be punished so strongly for having made a mistake, one which he's not likely to repeat given how much it cost him? Or do you think like I do that guys who prove to be this irresponsible with guns once, are in fact likely to repeat?

Please leave a comment.

They're Calling it an "Accidental Shooting"

39OnLine.com has the story.

The mother of a man charged with murder for shooting at a car and killing a 13-year-old girl says it was an accident. Richard Calderon, 24, appeared in court today. He is free on bond. Calderon is accused of crashing into and speeding away from the car Alexis Wiley was riding in on Wednesday.

"It's a tragedy that this accident happened," said Isbel Calderon, the suspect's mother. "If the the mother was in the car then she should know exactly what happened, it was an accident."

Now, I hate to generalize, but this happened in Texas. Do you think the general shoot-em-up attitude in Texas partly explains this?

Or is this an ethnic thing? Is this all about Chicano and Black people?

Or is this another case of an individual doing something wrong who is 100% responsible for his actions, those actions having nothing to do with anyone else or the gun laws or, god forbid, any law abiding citizens?

I would add something else, contrary to popular opinion, I am not soft in criminals. The fact that this young man is out on bail is a travesty. The fact that in his area of Texas they've got plenty of marijuana offenders doing time as well as other non-violent offenders, is a travesty. Saying this was an "accidental shooting" is a travesty. What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

The Death Penalty and Women

The Huffington Post ran an interesting article about the percentages of women on death row who actually are executed. The statistics show that although only 2% of death row inmates are women, when it comes their time to be put to death, they are much more likely to receive the coveted commutation to life in prison. But, why?

Linda Carty is the rarest of rarities. She's a British subject who once sang for the Prince of Wales. She's a principal in a film documentary. She's garnered massive international media, legal and political attention and support. She worked as an informant for the Drug Enforcement Agency. And she's a grandmother. This last notation is mentioned only because that makes her one of only a handful of grandmothers who have ever been scheduled to be executed in a capital case. Carty was convicted of a murder, that she denies committing.

She could be executed in or before June in Texas if the Supreme Court turns down her appeal. It's her last; every other court has rejected her plea for a new trial. The odds on paper that the high court will dump her death sentence are long. The Court considers only about one in 30 death penalty appeal cases.

The gender bias that riddles the death penalty as much as racial and class bias is a good thing in that it saves the lives of women. What's problematic is the rationale for saving their lives. Prosecutors regard women as less violent, less threatening and more emotionally unstable than men. If they kill and maim, they supposedly do it out of blind love or loyalty to a man. This reinforces the notion that women are the dainty sex in need of guidance, protection and, ultimately, male control. This strips them of any social and moral accountability for and control over their acts. It makes it even easier to marginalize women. Carty's case typifies that. Carty says that four men kidnapped the victim, a woman, in a murder for hire scheme and then murdered her. Witnesses back her story and have publicly declared that she is not a cold blooded murderer.

What's your opinion? Do you think "women are the dainty sex in need of guidance, protection and, ultimately, male control?" Of course not, who would admit such a thing in this day and age?

Do you think focusing on this disparity will result in a higher percentage of women being executed or a lower percentage of men? I hope it's the second.

Please leave a comment.

Bill Maher on the Pentagon Shooting