Quick Links to Posts By Category

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, August 07, 2007

The Political Lynching of Stephanie Mohr

She didn’t kill anyone. She didn’t rob a bank. But her police dog bit an illegal alien. So she’s spending ten years in federal prison. Sounds absurd, and it is.

How did it get this way? Well, this is another case of an out-of-control Department of Justice prosecution. Like the Ramos and Compean case, both prosecutors and judges showed a complete lack of common sense and discretion.

The incident happened in 1995. The illegal aliens were suspects in a series of burglaries that had plagued the Takoma area in Prince Georges County, Maryland. They were spotted on a roof and called down by officers searching for them. During the initial tense moments of confronting the suspects Stephanie released the dog. She thought the suspect was trying to flee.

Five years passed. The DOJ waited until the last day before the statute of limitations would have left Stephanie free of prosecution.

The government went all out to convict her and even went after a fellow officer on a conspiracy to violate civil rights. In the first trial she was acquitted of the conspiracy charge, but there was a hung jury on another charge of deprivation of civil rights.

The government would not quit. They located the two illegals from El Salvador to testify against Stephanie. They launched a second trial. The government played the race card with a mostly minority jury. They said she was motivated by racial hatred and wanted to hurt minorities by having her dog bite them. The government got another officer to testify against Stephanie in trade for not prosecuting him on similar charges. The trial judge allowed hearsay accounts that she had used racial slurs in other arrests. Despite many obvious prosecutorial travesties during trial, the appellate judge did not overturn the guilty verdict.

The appellate judge, in her conclusion, coolly congratulated herself and the trial judge that Stephanie had gotten a fair trail and exactly what she deserved.

In the years long struggle with the feds, Stephanie lost her life savings, the custody of her son, and her freedom. The DOJ had spent tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars to convict her.

I remember radio host Dennis Prager explaining once that an “Eye For An Eye, Tooth For A Tooth” was a tremendous advance in civilization. In those ancient times a mere insult could spark a blood feud and the wiping out of entire families. Hence, tooth for a tooth was both a higher and more reasonable law.

Stephanie’s sentence is barbaric. Would it not be more just to have the illegal alien bite her in the leg? Or let another dog bite her? No. Instead she must serve ten cruel years for the slight injustice she may or may not have been guilty of. That’s right folks. Our vaunted system of justice as practiced by the DOJ, Civil Right Division, cannot even rise to the level of the ancient standard of eye for eye.

I have to admit it is painful to write about this subject. This isn’t about justice. This is a modern-day political lynching.

I have a theory and it is a good one. So pay attention. None of this likely would have happened to Stephanie -- a law enforcement officer with many commendations – had it not been for the Rodney King travesties a few years before. Under the direction of the Clinton administration, the DOJ beefed up its Civil Rights activity to catch unsuspecting officers in acts of “racism.”

Imagine civil rights bureaucrats with big salaries and benefits fit for kings sitting around looking for cases that fit a pre-determined prosecutorial agenda. In Stephanie’s case it took them five years.

The purpose of all this is to mollify the type of malcontent who rioted after the first Rodney King trial. If you remember the officers were acquitted in that trial and for very good reason. The famous video of that beating shown ad infinitum on Los Angeles television neglected to show the first 13 seconds of the video. That part showed Rodney resisting arrest, assaulting the officers, trying to flee before being put down on the ground. That was the part the jurors finally got to see. Suddenly the beating was put in context. Rodney was out of control, high on PCP, and strongly resisting even after being tasered.

But Hillary and her ilk knew how to appease. Ignoring the double jeopardy issue, the DOJ got a change of venue to more hostile territory for a second trial, this time in federal court. Thus, the DOJ won a federal conviction on a civil rights violation against the officers in the Rodney King case.

The DOJ was now free to hunt for other law enforcement officers. Stephanie Mohr was unlucky enough to fit the pattern they were looking for. Take one of the ambiguous federal civil rights laws, then stretch it to fit the selected law enforcement victim. Repeat often.

A policeman I know was incredulous when I told him about the Stephanie Mohr verdict. He immediately called up the case on his computer. His reaction was total disgust. He said simply:

“It sucks to be a cop!”

Pray for Stephanie Mohr. Like Ramos and Compean she’s a prisoner in an ugly political game.

You can find the appellate case at 318 F.3d 613


Blogger Right Hook said...

The situation shows what can happen with an out-of-control, all powerful national government. This is why the founding fathers envisioned a federal, not a national, government. The Feds had no business sticking their sizeable nose into the situation in a "civil rights" context.

There is a also a problem of just what are "civil rights". The operational definition gets twisted by unscrupulous lawyers and government officials to fit the situation and the desired outcome. Unfortunately "civil rights" has become the universal justification to use the force of government to politically pander to racial, ethnic, and social minorities rather than a definition of particular "rights".

There's this document known as the "US Constitution" that states that the American people have many rights and that the rights of the government are a very small collection specifically ceded to it by the people. The Constitution specifically provides that any rights not directly addressed in the document revert to the states and to the people.

As an illegal alien, what specific "civil rights" did the alleged "victim" have short of humane treatment?

As a current member of the US Border Patrol recently stated on the Laura Ingraham show, the joke among the agents is that the agency's motto should be "to protect and serve time".

8/08/2007 12:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

They're here illegally so they deserve what they get, right? Human rights, that's all BS, unless of course, it involves you or your family. It's irrelevant that there have been several other legal actions against this woman for the same thing over the years, right? And police brutality never happens, because we are America, the good guys. The media's all about covering up the injustices to these dedicated officers, so if there's anything negative, it must be a conspiracy. Even when other officers testify that the action she took was unjustified, they're just part of the conspiracy too. Oh, wait, they're part of the persecuted group...hmmm.

Yessir, I'm all for getting her out, since police brutality never occurs, so this must be politically motivated. Man, I'm glad we cleared that up.

3/28/2009 9:38 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home


MOB Logo

Powered by Blogger