It takes a lot to make me sick...

But this does it:

After allegedly starving their disabled daughter to death, the parents of Danieal Kelly turned around and sued the city for failing to protect the girl from them.
Andrea and Daniel Kelly, with the help of some greedy attorneys, filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the city, state and outside social service contractors who were charged with supervising Danieal while she was under her mother's care.
...
The civil suit seeks reimbursement for medical bills, funeral and administrative expenses. The suit said the parents and the siblings were deprived of Danieal's "love, tutelage, companionship, support, comfort and consortium."

So a dispicible family starves their child to death, and then has the balls to sue the city for not stopping their heinous acts? And reading the discription given, it seems even more awful:

The suit was filed a day after the couple was charged in the death of Danieal, 14, who weighed just 42 pounds when her bedsore-ridden and maggot-infested corpse was found in a squalid West Philadelphia rowhouse on a feces stained bed, where she lived with her mother and siblings.

All of the "problems" the family faces is of their own making. Medical bills? Funeral arrangements? Mental anguish? Lawyers for criminal charges? Well, none of this would be an issue if you fed the poor girl now and again, maybe given her a clean mattress, so she wouldn't get a disease or bedsores, and had generally taken care of her. Her death costs are because you killed her, and your legal problems are well deserved. That any lawyer would take this case is disgusting. Hopefully these ambulance chasers will join the parents in jail.

Reading the complaint, I'm reminded of a scene from the movie The Condemned. Steve Austin walks into a room full of corpses to find the bad guy after a brutal mass murder. Trying to justify himself, the murderer begins blaming others, "You don't know me. I've had a hard life!" To which Austin replies dismissively, "Well, lucky for you, it's over now." I think a similar response is in order here. To their cries of "I miss her so much! We have been deprived of her love and company." The quick response should be "Don't worry, you're going to join her shortly."

Wait, wait, What?

Fundraiser Turns Himself In

A top Democratic fundraiser wanted as a fugitive in California turned himself in Friday to face a grand theft charge.
A judge in San Mateo County Superior Court ordered Norman Hsu handcuffed and held on $2 million bond. A bail hearing was scheduled for Sept. 5, at which the judge will consider reducing his bail to $1 million.
Hsu appeared in court here Friday following reports that he had skipped his sentencing on a 1991 grand theft charge. In the ensuing years, he became a top donor to numerous Democratic candidates, including presidential contenders Hilary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama.

This is someone who has already pled guilty to a grand theft charge. Instead of face punishment, the guy then fled and has been a fugitive from justice for years. The question here is why would anyone in their right mind offer Hsu bail? He fled from justice once, why give him a second chance?
There's no reason he should be given ANOTHER get out of jail free card. When you plead guilty, you don't get bail. You immediately serve your punishment. In Hsu's case, it's 3 years. Instead of getting Justice for theft, he's been allowed for a decade and a half to donate to people like Obama and Clinton. So now that he agrees to go back in...he gets off again.

It's sickening. But that's what happens to high up Democrats...

Nothing. Ugh.

Somalia Found Naked on Crying Woman-NOT Rapist

A truely disgusting story from St. Paul...

Cops: Tape Shows at Least 10 Witnesses Ignoring Minnesota Woman's Cries for Help During Sexual Assault

ST. PAUL, Minn. — A security video from an apartment hallway shows at least 10 witnesses ignored a woman's cries for help for more than an hour as a man beat and sexually assaulted her, prosecutors in Minnesota said.
The surveillance video clearly showed men and women looking out their apartment doors or starting to walk down the hallway before retreating as the woman was assaulted for nearly 90 minutes, police spokesman Tom Walsh said.
Police said they responded to a call of drunken behavior and found Somali immigrant Rage Ibrahim, 25, and a woman lying unconscious in the hallway early Tuesday. The woman's clothing had been pulled up and she had fresh scratches on her face and blood on her thigh, according to the criminal complaint.

Of course, despite being found naked on top of her, he's innocent!

Ibrahim says he is innocent and that the incident was a misunderstanding, according to Omar Jamal, the executive director of the Somali Justice Advocacy Center, who spoke on Ibrahim's behalf.

It's COMPLETELY normal for a man to be asleep, naked, on top of a woman covered in blood, with her clothes ripped off. It's also normal for her to be crying and repeating over and over "I want to die."

Any juror who votes not guilty should be dragged out back of the courthouse and shot.

Minnesota law makes it a petty misdemeanor to not give reasonable help to a person in danger of "grave physical harm."
Walsh said it is unlikely police would pursue charges against witnesses in this case because authorities would have to show that witnesses knew the woman was in extreme danger.

For more than an hour, this poor woman sat in the hallway and screamed for help. 10 different people saw the assault and decided not to help. Each and everyone of those people should be charged as an excessory, and prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

And this piece of garbage who proclaims his innocence despite video evidence and being caught in the same position should be given the express lane to jail. And the lawyer (trying this for free...his bullshit argument not even worth repeating) should be jailed for trying to get this human waste off.

The Aclu Chooses the Wrong Side AGAIN!

Not That I think the original idea will work...

Cities sue gangs in bid to stop violence

But the ACLU opposing it certainly gives me a reason to support it.

FORT WORTH, Texas - Fed up with deadly drive-by shootings, incessant drug dealing and graffiti, cities nationwide are trying a different tactic to combat gangs: They're suing them.
Fort Worth and San Francisco are among the latest to file lawsuits against gang members, asking courts for injunctions barring them from hanging out together on street corners, in cars or anywhere else in certain areas.
The injunctions are aimed at disrupting gang activity before it can escalate. They also give police legal reasons to stop and question gang members, who often are found with drugs or weapons, authorities said. In some cases, they don't allow gang members to even talk to people passing in cars or to carry spray paint.
"It is another tool," said Kevin Rousseau, a Tarrant County assistant prosecutor in Fort Worth, which recently filed its first civil injunction against a gang. "This is more of a proactive approach."

It's an odd approach. Demanding that people who routinely disobey the law...follow a new set of laws. But the approach is not without it's charm, in that it gives the police new tools to attack gangs and take them down.

But the best feature of this? The ACLU don't like it!

But critics say such lawsuits go too far, limiting otherwise lawful activities and unfairly targeting minority youth.
"If you're barring people from talking in the streets, it's difficult to tell if they're gang members or if they're people discussing issues," said Peter Bibring, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California. "And it's all the more troubling because it doesn't seem to be effective."

Of course, they know this argument is crap. Injunctions are against specific people. As are all court orders. In the same way that, if you file a restraining order against your Hispanic neighbor-it doesn't apply to all Hispanics, this too doesn't give the police cart blanche to pull over "minorities".
Then again, the ACLU never argues the facts of the case, nor are they particularly truthful. They just argue extreme rhetoric and accuse their opponents of everything short of sacrificing children to the cloud god to make it rain.

Hell, it's not like the ACLU actually cares how their actions affect everyone else. They just like feeling good about themselves at night.
What a group of pricks.

A whole Lotta WTF

Understanding humanity means taking a look not only at our highs, but also our lows.
For example:

Accused grave robbers dodge sex charges

MADISON, Wis. - Three men who dug up a young woman's corpse to have sex with it after seeing her obituary photo cannot be charged with attempted sexual assault because Wisconsin has no law against necrophilia, an appeals court ruled Thursday.
A judge was correct to dismiss the charges against twin brothers Nicholas and Alexander Grunke and Dustin Radke, all 21, because lawmakers never intended to criminalize sex with a corpse, the District 4 Court of Appeals said in a 3-0 ruling.
The three men went to a cemetery in Cassville in southwestern Wisconsin on Sept. 2 to remove the body of Laura Tennessen, 20, who had been killed the week before in a motorcycle crash.
They said the men had seen an obituary of Tennessen with her photo and wanted to dig up her body to have sexual intercourse. Such an act is known as necrophilia.

There's something inherently wrong with someone who looks at an obituary picture and thinks "God, she's hot. Let's go have sex with her corpse." This is a sad day for Wisconsin, for the Tennessen family, and for our system of law in general.
I repeat: "If you knowingly wish to have sex with a dead body. You are fucked up, and should be locked away."

The men were charged with attempted third-degree sexual assault and misdemeanor attempted theft charges. But Grant County Circuit Judge George Curry dismissed the sexual assault charges in September, saying no Wisconsin law addressed necrophilia. Prosecutors appealed his ruling.
At issue is a provision in the sexual assault law saying criminal penalties apply "whether a victim is dead or alive at the time of the sexual contact or sexual intercourse."
The appeals court said the law was ambiguous but the most reasonable interpretation was that it does not ban necrophilia. Instead, the court said, the law was meant to make sure prosecutors could bring sexual assault charges in rape-murder cases in which the victim ends up dead.

The ambiguity, of course, doesn't exist. The wording of the law is crystal clear. But, as is often the case with liberal judges, what the law says doesn't matter so much as what they WANT the law to say.
This imaginary distinction would be laughable if it wasn't so disgusting. Murdering your rape victim doesn't in any way, shape, or form protect you from a rape charge once the body is found. No one I have ever heard of has raised the defense "I can't be charged with rape, cause she's dead!" Evidence of forcable sex in a murder victim is often considered ipso facto evidence of rape.
The law was made to erase the need to prove a victim was alive to charge with sexual assault. That it say penalties apply "whether or not the victim is alive", not "whether or not the attacker killed the victim before or after the assault", clearly puts this crap to rest. Both judges are pretending that there's some magical Bubblegum Clause that specifies that a murder has to be involved, when the law clearly is made to punish sexual contact with a victim who can't say no due to death.

As the old saying goes, why let the facts get in the way of a good story.

We've gone from "as long as it's between consenting adults" to "as long as she can't say no"....