Saturday, January 06, 2007

BECOMING A Hellhole?

Some say Eureka's been one for some time. I don't know about that, but Eureka cerainly does seem to have deteriorated people- wise, at least since I moved up here in '73.

Eureka's Acting Police Chief, Murl Harpham, places much of the blame on methamphetamine, going so far as to say, " the treatment programs and lack of punishment enable meth users, attracting users here from other areas. We're giving them the opportunity,”.

I suppose some of that could be true, but I'd have to argue a little about throwing the blame on treatment programs. Do we have more treatment programs for drug addiction as opposed to other communities? I don't know. I'm not in that loop. I suspect some places have more and some have less.

What I find most bothersome about this is Chief Harpham, and other like minded folks, seem to offer no other alternative to methamphetamine abuse than incarceration or being killed.

It would seem to me to be in our best interests to try and get people off meth, if they have a problem with it, rather than keep throwing them in jail or, worst case scenario, ending up in a violent confrontation where someone ends up dead.

Maybe treatment doesn't work with everyone, but it seems to me to be the logical first step if one has an uncontrollable problem with drugs. I personally don't want to be left with incarceration or killing as the only ways to deal with the problem.


At 9:55 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I thought the libertarian viewpoint was to let people do what they want, including drugs, if it doesn't hurt anyone else. So, let these fools kill themselves. What's the success rate of these treatment programs? If it's low, nix them as a waste of our money.

At 9:57 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

A further thought... it's natural selection to let these fools kill themselves. There are strong and weak in any population. You can make an argument for people born with an ailment, but with drugs, we're talking about a choice. It's self-inflicted harm, and usually not induced by mental illness. Perfectly healthy people destroy themselves. That's a fact of life. Stop fighting reality.

At 10:05 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The problem with that idea is that before they kill themselves on drugs, they commit many crimes to get the money to buy their drugs.

At courthouse yesterday, a meth user was outside talking to friends as he had just been let go of charges because of Prop 36. Maybe that's why we have so many drug dealers - they take drugs and get off punishment with Prop 36. In danger of becoming an addict should not be used for dealers.

At 10:10 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Murl Harpham is right .Treatment programs attract more scum up to , Eureka ,

At 10:16 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

10:04, you're wrong. There's no problem. If druggies commit crimes, throw them in jail. If you operate a good jail, there are no drugs there, and the druggies clean up for once in a long while. That's more effective than any so-called treatment program. See, the real problem is that if you steal my car, you do not go to jail. You're let back out on the street so you can steal it again. That's the problem.

At 10:19 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

And the follow-up response to your next question... Yes, I would pay higher taxes if it meant keeping so-called petty criminals off the street. A bad egg is a bad egg. We slap their wrist, and they know it. When a child gets slapped on the wrist, he knows that crossing his parents is easy (and fun/lucrative), so the pattern of behavior is actually encouraged. If personal conduct is wrong, create a real deterrent to continuing that behavior. We have yet to do so.

At 10:33 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The criminal element and social leeches in this county play the bleeding heart progs/libs like fiddles, and they laugh about it right to their face. "That's OK that you broke into my neighbor's house, and stole everything that wasn't bolted down for blocks around; I know you have a 'drug problem' that made you knock down that old lady and steal her purse; we won't put you in jail with the real criminals; here's a baggie with some fresh needles, some alcohol wipes, some antibacterial ointment, and even some little dishes in which to cook up your drugs. Remember, you are loved and it's OK that you have a problem. Free food, no problem! Don't waste your hard earned money on rent, we'll give you a place to stay (but not near my house) Big mean cops trying to arrest you? Don't worry, we're gonna get a group of loudmouth commies to scream about them and get them to back off!

At 12:10 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with 10:33

At 12:12 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am sorry to say that I have to agree with all of the posts above.

At 12:50 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow this place is full of pigs and pig apologists today.

At 12:51 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

At 1:11 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fred. How do you feel about these shootings? Are you taking one side or the other? Does the side you are taking fit with your "libertarian" values?

Fred, are you concerned your opinions are being read by EPD?

Are you afraid of them raiding your house on false charges for saying something they don't like?

Are you planning on not being true to yourself and thus allow the police state to form around you?

Are you and your wife planning on going into hiding?

At 1:12 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't think Fred is a libertarian anymore. He's a closet republican and the libertarian movement in Humboldt county is deader than Cheri Moore.

At 1:42 PM, Blogger Fred said...

1:11 wrote, "Fred. How do you feel about these shootings? Are you taking one side or the other? Does the side you are taking fit with your "libertarian" values?"

I don't know that I'm taking one side or the other. I can tell you I'm not on the cop hating side; Those that think cops go around trying to kill people.

"Fred, are you concerned your opinions are being read by EPD?".

No. I suppose it might be a good thing if they do stop by here now and then.

"Are you afraid of them raiding your house on false charges for saying something they don't like?".

No. What have I said that "they don't like"?

"Are you planning on not being true to yourself and thus allow the police state to form around you?".

You'll have to explain that a bit more. I have no idea what you're trying to say.

"Are you and your wife planning on going into hiding?".

No. Why would we do that?

At 1:46 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Police apologist? What has EPD that it has to apologize for? I'm proud of their conduct and efforts to keep Eureka safe. Cop haters are cop haters. 'Nuff said.

At 1:49 PM, Blogger Fred said...

10:10 wrote, "Treatment programs attract more scum up to , Eureka.".

This goes along with what I asked originally: Do we have more, as many, or fewer programs for drug rehab as any other county does? I have no idea.

I know I was reading something in the Santa Rosa Press- Democrat a while ago about how bad their meth problem is. From reading it you'd think they have the worst problems with meth in the state.

Do they? I don't know. What kind of treatment programs are available there? More than we have, or pretty much the same?

I'll have to keep an eye out and see if people think people in Sonoma County think druggies are being drawn to their county because of the drug treatment programs.

I find it hard to believe some druggie is going to move anywhere because of the quality, quantity, or lack thereof, of drug treatment programs.

Other social programs, maybe, but not drug treatment. Please someone correct me if I'm wrong.

At 1:52 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

As one "in the loop" i can tell you that the success rate for treatment of druggies is about 5-6%. The rest just continue to use and to abuse the system. Harpham is right, EuTweeker has become a hell hole. Note the biggest employer in this county is the County! The biggest department is Health and Human Services (1200-1400 employees.) The signes enter our county should be cahnged to "Welcome to HumDope County."

At 2:04 PM, Blogger Fred said...

9;55 wrote, "I thought the libertarian viewpoint was to let people do what they want, including drugs, if it doesn't hurt anyone else. So, let these fools kill themselves.".

Certainly if someone is simply abusing drugs by choice, and not bothering others, he should be left alone. If drug use, directly or indirectly, results in their committing crimes against others, their drug use may need to be addressed.

That said, I don't believe in people using drugs as an excuse for their crimes.

I remember watching Court TV a few years ago. It was a show profiling "drug courts", the latest rage among some in the criminal justice system where they try to keep people out of the mainstream criminal justice system.

The first case was a young girl arrested for petty theft. The first words out of her mouth are along the lines of requesting a drug treatment program. No mention of what crime she committed.

I say NO. She needs to be held accountable for the crime she committed and not use drugs as an excuse.

Then again, a drug treatment program might well involve a lot more inconvenience than whatever punishment she'd get for petty theft- sentenced to time already served or whatever. In that case a drug treatment program might well be a good trade off for all involved.

Still, I don't like this being used as an excuse for doing whatever criminal acts they engage in.

Oh, and while it may not seem libertarian supporting drug treatment programs, I don't see anything wrong with reaching out a hand to someone in need.

As was mentioned in another comment, some claim drug treatment programs aren't very effective. That may or may not be true. I suspect there's a lot of truth to that. Still, I don't see anything wrong with trying to help save someone who wants help.

They really need to want it for it for treatment programs to have a chance for success, I would think.

At 2:04 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon 1:46. EPD has a record of unprovoked murders and incompetent behavior. Combine that with a willfull disobedience of the law and ignorance about police procedure you have a recipe for disaster.

At 2:12 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

seems like an out republican to me, at least for the north coast

At 2:19 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Certainly if someone is simply abusing drugs by choice, and not bothering others, he should be left alone. If drug use, directly or indirectly, results in their committing crimes against others, their drug use may need to be addressed."

This is very succinct and well stated. I am surprised so many commenters are name-calling and finding your position to be problematic.

At 2:37 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

At 2:37 PM, Blogger Fred said...

1:12 wrote,"I don't think Fred is a libertarian anymore.".

I'm curious what your definition of a libertarian is, 1:12? Not picking on you, mind you, it's just different people might describe libertarians and libertarians different ways.

At 2:38 PM, Blogger Fred said...

That was supposed to be libertarians and libertarianISM...

At 2:43 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fred, I am impressed. You are really progressing. This is one of the most thoughtful blogs of yours I have read. Good Work!

At 2:49 PM, Blogger Anon.R.mous said...

It's sad that the "pig haters" in Humboldt are so full of vile and hate that they take anything that the police do as an action against themselves. It also makes me wonder what these people would do if they got raped or robbed, would they blame the police for not having the person behind bars (even though the DA office pleaded them out, most likely) or would they willfully hand over their money and bodies because they know that they are only doing the crimes because GWB is in office, not my president, no war for oil.

Sure, I'd like to see a citizen review board, only if the people sitting on the board have gone through POST training and hold current POST licenses, and go out on ride alongs 5 days a week for at least 8 hours a day.

At 2:59 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fred, here is Eureka in a nutshell: It's a nice place to shop, but I wouldn't want to live there.

BTW, has anyone else noticed that on windy days the old Eureka stink is in the air? That pulpy stink that used to plague Eureka every day. Is something different on windy days, besides the wind?

At 3:15 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

So fred the sucess of the enablers is the real botton line. If the dummies on speed,stealing from themselves ultimitely,aren't doing their thing,then the Jonh Wooley crowd quites getting their fat paychecks. John get $ 80,000 + benifits. Look at the time frame of our deterioration and the rise in position of progressives. What's the #1 growth industry in Humboldt? Its rebab,half-way housing,shelters,etc. and the bleeding hearts(really their greedy hearts) that are taking advantage of this rediculous enabeling philosophy. By letting these so called non-profits proliferate the property tax base also drops. Anyone who advocates personal responsibility,working for your dinner,and a hand up not a hand out will be vilified. The EPD are easy targets for these phonies. You should have listened to KINS on friday as Wooley supported this stupid system he helped force upon us. It made me sick to my stomach.

At 3:21 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Spot On 3:15 Worse yet per front page TS today. Cheese-bro will be getting $117,000 for a seat on waiste comm. He and Wooley both need to be changing senior diapers at a rest home. Give'em a taste of their own medicine.

At 3:46 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


Repent! Repent! Repent! In the name of the Holy Lord Repent! Idle threats from Lucifer Lackeys will be met by a Holy Light. The Holy Light will blind your crooked eyes, and remove that forked tounge from your mouth! In the name of the Lord I pray!

At 5:17 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Considering Eureka is dominated by one prominent citizen, perhaps it should be referred to as an A-hole.

At 7:37 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


You're the A-hole.

If there was true domination there would be a bunch of Connie Miller's on the Council. I get your need to have someone with substance to hate. The insecure are always that way. Y'know, run down the successful to assuage your own failures.

Give it a rest pal....I'm no fan of Arkley, but I don't categorically condemn anyone just to get some attention on a blog.

Maybe that occured to you? can satisfy my expectations and call me some names now.

Fred, I suppose that if you required at least 75 IQ to post here it would be more meaningful but, less interesting.

At 10:06 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Whats the preoccupation with hating Arkley? If you were living your own life fulling I don't see that he would have much berring one way or another. The previous suggestion of jealousy does seem a possibility. In almost every situation you get out of life what you put into it. That doesn't discount the reality that we are all connected or need help,but often true help comes to us as we work hard and help others. As Arther Miller wrote in his play the Crucible--- "look to your own improvement goodee Proctor" good words of advice me thinkest.

At 12:29 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fred Fred Fred. Did Harpham say the only answer to meth use is incarceration or killing?

BTW it is obvious that 12:50PM, 12:51PM, 1:11PM, 1:12PM, 2:04PM, and 12:37PM is the same total asshole with little or nothing to add.

Harpham is wrong about Eureka being a Hellhole. It's a shithole. Sad but true. People seem to forget that the tweekers don't just steal to buy drugs. They attack or assault people, get in car wrecks, abuse their kids, and ?

At 6:30 AM, Blogger Fred said...

"Did Harpham say the only answer to meth use is incarceration or killing?".

What other answers are there, other than treatment programs, assuming treatment programs help in some way?

Seems to me he basically said we should defund [in other words, close down] treatment programs because they attract the druggies to Eureka.

If you know of some other options in dealing with the meth problems other than incarceration, treatment or killing, I'm all ears (or in the case of this blog- eyes).

At 6:49 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Harphlegm just wants more people in prison to help his stocks in the prison industry to go up.

Incarceration is big business these days, its no longer about justice.

At 7:45 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yo Fred. How about eliminate the source? Drug dealers! No bail. Prison. Nothing less for meth dealers. Kind of zero tolerance. If you can get the DA's office to go along with the idea.

And Fred can you keep Maynard from clogging up the blogoshere with his rudeness and insanity? Maynard is the dude at 6:49AM.

At 7:51 AM, Blogger Fred said...

Interesting idea, but even in countries where they regularly execute drug smugglers and dealers they still have people selling drugs.

Seems to me it's about like to trying to end prostitution.

As far as "Maynard", I figure comments like that speak for themselves so I usually let them go. I did delete one earlier from whomever. I guess it depends on my mood at the time.

At 8:12 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

But Fred in those countries where they execute drug dealers they don't have much of an addict population at all. The dealers or smugglers in those countries are going for the quick buck, big buck. There will always be people willing to take a great risk with their life for the chance at easy money! Bank robbers, marijuana rip offs, etc. You take out the dealers/traffickers/smugglers and the addict population will go down. But that would require tough, as in really hard teaatment of the dealers. From small time to the big boys (and girls). That would require that not only the cops do their job, but the DA and the judges. And we know that expecting all that is just a pipe dream. In the meantime Eureka will continue to be a shithole with the outlying areas to follow.

At 8:55 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Maybe 5:17 had his mortgage foreclosed on.

Maybe 5:17 was aced out of a lead role in a ballet production in favor of a girl from a more prominent family.

Maybe 5:17 is a local tradesman whose bills went unpaid and were told to sue if they dared.

Maybe 5:17 is a former employee who felt they were fired for unjust reasons.

Maybe 5:17 is a waitress or bartender who had to endure unwanted verbal advances.

Maybe 5:17 is a scorned lover whose hush money has run out.

Maybe 5:17 is a former friend who was lied to or cheated.

Maybe 5:17 is a neighbor who has been threatened with financial ruin if they don't contain their dogs.

Maybe 5:17 is an unlucky slob whose parked car was hit by the wrong person but who had to pay for all damages to both vehicles.

Maybe 5:17 was an unfortunate rookie police officer who pulled over a drunk driver one night and was released from the forced less 4 months later.

Maybe 5:17 is an employee who is fed up with the rampant deceit, blatant favoritism and general weirdness in their workplace.


Maybe 5:17 is an insecure failure like 7:37 says.

At 9:13 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Maybe 5:17 is Rob Arkley.

At 9:23 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nope, 8:55 AM is Maynard again.

At 10:20 AM, Anonymous Officer Girl. said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

At 10:22 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

10:20 is maynard going for a new low.

At 10:27 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

10:22 is Maynard trying to distract us from thinking its him.

At 11:05 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

At 11:24 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

sorry Fred

At 12:08 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think Harpham was really out of line to blame treatment. Its another example of why we need a police chief from out of the area to really shake that department up. Preferably a woman, too. Of course, whoever gets the job is going to face a tough situation both inside and outside the department.

At 2:59 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What makes you think a woman would be better? Any rational, logical reason?

At 3:01 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

A chief from out of the area would be OK, probably even good. But a new Chief will still have the same problems; lots of crime, lots of drugs, a low paid department with low moral, and problems retaining trained experienced officers. How is picking a woman for chief going to make that any better?

At 3:21 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It may not. I recomend a woman chief for the simple reason that Eureka has never had one. I recomend an outside chief because to my knowledge Eureka has never had one (At least in the last 20 years). It makes sense to me. If they cant find a qualified woman, then they cant. But I know they can find somebody qualified to shake this department up and bring it into the 21st century.

At 5:00 PM, Blogger Anon.R.mous said...

Eureka has never had a retard as Chief of Police, but I don't think we should have one "Just Because". I don't care if the person stand or sits to take a piss, it's the ideas, not the sex, that people SHOULD be looking at.

At 5:02 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree 5:00, but I think that place could use a womans touch.

At 5:51 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

That place needs a DA that follows through once the bad guys are in custody and charged with crimes. Putting bad guys back out on the streets has repercussions. Right now the bad guys, the dealers, are laughing about the fact that nobody is going to do anything to them.

If you can find a woman police chief that can tell it like it is like Murl Harpham, well, she'd still have the same problems to deal with - would she have the experience and temperament?

At 6:09 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rose. Murl, like Paul is part of a chronic problem. Actually, I dont dislike either of them. Murl shouldnt irrationally blame treatment facilities - Meth would still be in the county. And Paul needs to make a decision regarding the Moore shooting- but I dont think he desires to let criminals out on the street.

At 10:41 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I see some comments about if drug users commit crimes, arrest them, etc. Well, of course. But there's a difference between crimes against property or the person of another and those crimes involving addiction and the addict's abuse of their own bodies. Arresting and incarcerating a simple drug user is not going to solve the problem. They'll get dope while in prison, the guards will get double and triple overtime, and when they're back on the streets, they'll still be druggies. That's why in some cases mandatory rehab has replaced the revolving door. This isn't the case just in Humboldt either, kids, but at least its state wide and mandated by law.

If the acting chief wants to go head on with the meth hellhole, he should concentrate on busting the dealers and the meth labs. It's easy to pick up an addict, and gets the patrol officer four hours of paperwork before he has to hit the streets again. But the challenge is in eliminating the source of the drugs while at the same time getting the addicts cleaned up and pointed in a more constructive direction. These tweakers start out as stupid kids right out of EHS, and if they're left to spiral down into the toilet of drug addiction, they'll never be the bright and promising young men and women that they seemed destined to be when they were in elementary school.

At 11:31 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You're kidding, right 6:09?

At 9:01 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


If you knew anything about Prop. 36, you'd know that offenders are currently receiving treatment, treatment, and more treatment, and that it is a dismal failure.

One of the problems is that they are not locked up with Prop. 36 and that is probably the best way for people to dry out.

I agree with many of the comments above, including the opinion that the progressive agenda is contributing to the demise of this community. It will be interesting to see how Wooley continues to collect his fat paycheck with the tax base shrinking.

If the local politicians continue to chase off business and tax paying people in favor of services for druggies and homeless, and chime in on the vilification of officers who are trying to stave off crime, they will have major budget problems. Maybe when it effects their pay, they will change course, but right now, their strategy is failing.

At 9:11 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fred - we do have more here because the thought is that it is a cash cow for medi-cal and grants which pay for them.

You cannot force someone into treatment - they have to want it. Most places are filled with persons who want to utilize Prop 36 to stay out of jail and not stop using.

The current view in the DA's office is if there is a prop 36 drug crime and other crimes, then clear the slate by dismissing the other crimes, have them plead to just the prop 36 drug crime and put them back out in the community.

At 9:48 AM, Blogger Fred said...

9:01 wrote, "If you knew anything about Prop. 36, you'd know that offenders are currently receiving treatment, treatment, and more treatment, and that it is a dismal failure.".

What I've been hearing is that a lot of people that fall under Prop 36, assuming they can get into treatment programs, don't bother completing the program and there's no real way to make them complete it. They just keep re- sentencing the people to the same drug programs.

I don't know how true that is. Seems to me you should have to have some sort of "teeth" to use to force compliance. Of course, forcing compliance is not that useful as I've said before someone has to want to go through the program for it to work.

It kind of reminds me of a back and forth I had with some fellow libertarians a few years back. They were throwing out the old libertarian mantra about "non- violent offenders shouldn't be in jail...". To which I responded, "Define non- violent".

Are burglars and petty thieves "non- violent"? Some felt they were. So I had to ask what were we to do with burglars. Response: "Put them on probation.". I would ask "What if they violate the terms of their probation, or reoffend". Response (believe it or not) "Give them more time on probation. Sure, it may not seem like much but we can make their lives miserable...".

Sorry. That dog ain't gonna hunt. I suppose I'm digressing here but it seems like the same thing I'm hearing is happening with Prop 36 cases.

In the case of simple drug possession only cases, I'll be the first to admit I'm not all that concerned. If there are other crimes involved, and treatment is part of their sentence, there should be some enforcement available. If enforcement isn't available, that is certainly a flaw in Prop 36.

Also, as I've said before, I don't believe in dismissing criminal behavior by blaming it on drug use.

At 11:02 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Also, as I've said before, I don't believe in dismissing criminal behavior by blaming it on drug use."

Fred, of course you have the right idea here, but I would urge you to put the issue in the framework of classic libertarianism.

Drugs may be the motivation for criminal activity, but motivation is irrelevant. Just as a "hate crime" is no worse because the perpetrator had evil in their heart, the drug criminal needs to be held accountable for the crime itself. Our mutual defense contract (the police, courts, prisons) is there to defend our lives, safety and property, not to make the world a better place by helping people who have messed up their lives. That's the role of churches, charities and individuals who give a damn.

I suggest it's time to rewrite our mutual defense contract, or at least to give our employees some specific directions as to how they carry out their jobs on our behalf.

Apprehend and convict criminals based on the crime, not on the sob story.

Stop making deals with criminals just to make our employees' jobs easier.

Make prisons a real deterrence, not some kind of country club come school of crime come gang recruitment center.
There's a lot of distance between "cruel and unusual punishment" and what we call prison today. A little hard labor in a rock quarry, anyone?
Or what about more immediate consequences, like public stocks?

It's time to give up the myth of rehabilitation. We're tired of having our money wasted on failed causes.

These people work for us, don't they? In the real world they would have been fired long ago.

At 12:54 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Speaking of druggies, when is Rush Limbaugh's fat Nazi ass getting kicked off the air?

At 2:29 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

12:54 - go post on Heraldo.

At 6:38 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fred spoke about Burglars, and I'm taking this opportunity to share my thoughts on Burglary and Punishment.

Burglary is currently treated as a crime against property.

Burglary is in reality, a crime against persons.

Ask anyone who has come home to find their home ransacked by an unknown stranger. We never get over it. We can never feel safe in our own homes again. We can never go for a vacation or a weekend trip without fearing our most important personal possessions may be stolen or destroyed while we are away.

How can we relax while we take time away from home? Our irreplaceable family photos might be stuffed into a pillowcase and hauled away with other, far less important, things of ours.

Burglary leaves us feeling violated. Violated. Burglary is not Rape, but it is a violation of another human being, without remorse, and usually without punishment.

I want the penalties for Burglary to be increased high enough that only the stupidest of criminals will consider burglarizing another persons's home.

No probation. No leniency. No second chances.

What gives anyone the right to violate the sanctity of another person's home?

At 3:02 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Are you saying Rush Limbaugh isn't a racist Nazi drug addict? Apparently, you've never listened to his radio show. I'm sure that brain dead Harpham has. Go KKK, the GOP way!


Post a Comment

<< Home