# Mugger targets the elderly



## Flea (May 13, 2009)

Here's another charmer from my neighborhood.  I'm not posting the link for the sake of my own privacy, but here goes:



> Metro police are looking for a suspected robber who's targeting the elderly, including a victim attacked in her motorized wheelchair.
> 
> Both of the known victims were *attacked from behind* and then robbed.
> 
> ...


:barf:


----------



## arnisador (May 13, 2009)

As they say, a criminal is looking for his next victim, not his next fight.


----------



## Flea (May 13, 2009)

I wonder if they'd be able to prosecute this as a hate crime? What with the consistent demographic and all.  It would be convenient.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (May 13, 2009)

Honestly, I find the whole hate crime thing to be pretty silly.  They recently introduced legislation to make it a hate crime to prey on the homeless in Maryland.  

So what?  Assault of a straight white female is just assault, but assault of the same woman after she is homeless is now a HATE crime and brings extra penalties?  Lawyers have way too much time on their hands.

How about making crimes against kids a hate crime?  Or coeds?  Or women offering erotic massage services?

Targeting children, the elderly and the homeless is not a matter of hate but of predators doing what predators do best: separateing the weak from the strong and taking them down.  That is what predators do.  The lioness does not hate the frail older gazelle.  She strikes it because it is an easier catch that can inlict less injury than a strong gazelle.

How about stiffer sentencing and elimination of parole?  That would likely have a much greater benefit to all than frivolous legislation.

Daniel


----------



## CoryKS (May 13, 2009)

Flea said:


> I wonder if they'd be able to prosecute this as a hate crime? What with the consistent demographic and all. It would be convenient.


 
Criminals don't target the elderly because they hate them, they target them because they're easy prey.


----------



## Flea (May 13, 2009)

Of course!  But if the prosecutor can play it as a hate crime, it maximizes the penalty.  It's just wishful thinking on my part.


----------



## CoryKS (May 13, 2009)

Flea said:


> Of course! But if the prosecutor can play it as a hate crime, it maximizes the penalty. It's just wishful thinking on my part.


 
So, you're okay with abusing the law for emotional reasons?


----------



## arnisador (May 13, 2009)

Even for a crime such as this, encouraging prosecutors to bend the law is a very dangerous thing. We saw how "I hate rapists" became "prosecute (persecute) the innocent" at Duke U., after all.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (May 13, 2009)

Flea said:


> Of course! But if the prosecutor can play it as a hate crime, it maximizes the penalty. It's just wishful thinking on my part.


Be careful what you wish for.  There are plenty of people that would like to see other things receive hate crime legislation, things less malevolent than mugging the elderly or the homeless.

Here are some hot button issues that do not require death or injury.
1. Drunk driving
Okay, so a drunk driver can kill someone.  But even if they do kill someone, is it a *hate* crime?  Of course not.  It is a crime of stupidity.

2. Sexual harassment
This can escalate to a more serious crime, but chances are, the one doing the harrassing does not hate the victim; they just want to bed them.

3. Picketing certain types of clinics or businesses
Some feel that this constitutes hateful behavior.  Do you really want the government to be telling us who we can and cannot protest against, whether or not you agree with the protestors?

This is not a popular view, but honestly, if a skinhead paints a swastika on a synogogue, it is vandalism.  Same for the KKK vandalizing a predominantly African church.  Same with whatever group vandalizing a Catholic church.  Or a gay bar.  

If those same groups kill a Jewish rabbi, an African minister, a Catholic priest, or a gay man, it is murder.  Do we *really need* an extra special category of murder?  The fact that they were murdered _should_ be appalling enough to warrant a maximum sentence without a special hate crime category.  If a victim needs to be part of a special group in order to make our prosecuters do their job, then it is our justice system which is deficient, not our legislation.

Hate is the motive for a crime.  In court, the big things to prove are means, motive, and opportunity.  It is not illegal to hate.  We all hate someone or something.  Some people hate their ex enough to kill them.

Is that not a crime of 'hate?'  

Look, I consider racism, sexism, and other forms of discrimination to be abhorrant.  Nobody should be singled out for a crime simply because of their ethnic, national, or religious background or due to their gender or gender preferences, or even age, be it young or old.  But I do not feel that special hate crime legislation to be the answer.  

I do feel that elimitation of parole and stiffer sentencing for repeat offenders would go a lot further.

Daniel


----------



## Flea (May 13, 2009)

All fine arguments, but you're reading way too much into this.  The crime pisses me off, and I'd just like to see the doofus get roundly punished. (Especially since it's in my backyard. We have a _terrible_ reputation for crime around the city and this is an embarrassing new low.) It was a casual comment, that's all.  I'm sorry if I offended.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (May 13, 2009)

You do not offend at all.  I just do not think that hate crime legislation accomplish anything in terms of reducing the sort of crimes that they are supposed to address.

Daniel


----------



## Flea (May 14, 2009)

No, increasing the penalties for hate crime don't cut down on hate crime.  It just makes the rest of us feel less guilty for not doing something _real_ like writing our representatives, marching to city hall, or properly funding the EEOC.  

I know that age is a protected class when it comes to employment, that's why I thought it might be for hate crimes too.  Who knows.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (May 14, 2009)

Well, penalties should not exist to make the rest of us feel guilty.  If they do not cut down on crime, then they are useless.  

Begin rant:

Hate crime legislation does not make me feel guilty for anything.  All that it does is make the protected group feel like someone is doing something for them and enable a lazy and corrupt legislator to tout that he or she introduced the legislation when they run for reelection.  The only person that benefits from this is the legislator.

The failure in western society lies not in legal protection, but in our substitution of legal protection for genuine care of and concern for the elderly.  Our society cast off the elderly.  We place them in homes where strangers care for them and where likely more crimes against the elderly occur than anywhere else, including the mythical "street."  We want to be done with them so that we can move on in our lives.  

There is no money to be made by personally taking care of the elderly without robbing them of everything the have worked for.  We devour them and ignore them until they are a mere husk, and then we imprison them and live large on their money and posessions while they rot in a nursing home and are mistreated by orderlies who never grew out of being schoolyard bullies.

We do this happilly and gleafully.  We, the young are the movers and shakers.  They are merely has-beens.  So we continue with our self absorbed acquisition of goods and wealth without their hindrance.  

That is until we ourselves are elderly.  Then it suddenly matters.  Suddenly, it is unjust.  Suddenly, we bemoan the younger generation's lack of respect fot the virtues of senior citizens.  But is then too late.  We will have painted ourselves into our own corner as our children who have learned from our example do the same to us as we did to our elders.

Many senior citizens live alone and cannot afford to live in a gated community with amenities and a shopping center all on the grounds.  Many live in less safe areas in subpar appartments because they cannot afford to do otherwise.  Our near worthless government has bankrupted social security and simultaneously underfunded medicare, while giving greedy insurrance companies the keys to the kingdom.

For those of us who wish to do something "real" for the elderly, perhaps we need to stop placing the responsibility in the hands of elected officials and put it back where it belongs: on ourselves.

End rant.

Daniel


----------



## Flea (May 14, 2009)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> There is no money to be made by personally taking care of the elderly without robbing them of everything the have worked for.  We devour them and ignore them until they are a mere husk, and then we imprison them and live large on their money and posessions while they rot in a nursing home and are mistreated by orderlies who never grew out of being schoolyard bullies.
> 
> 
> Daniel



Wow, Daniel.  You must have had a terrible experience with someone.  My heart goes out to you.

For what it's worth, that isn't the case in every family.  My grandmother lived in a tiny rural village and adamantly refused any assistance at all, even though we could see she was declining.  It wasn't until she totalled two cars in a month, and didn't even remember purchasing the second car afterwards, that we put our collective foot down and had her evaluated.  It was an early stage of Alzheimers.  Even then her children made great sacrifices to spend every weekend with her and hire in-home help during the week.  Finally she went out one winter night, slipped on ice and broke her leg.  It was at that point that we moved in and insisted on her moving into a facility.  She chose an urban high-rise close to my aunt.  She has 24/7 supervision.  She recently transferred to the full-time nursing wing, where she's happy as a lark. 

I empathize with your frustration, but I don't see senior facilities as a dumping ground necessarily.  Of course they vary in quality.  But our indistrialized society is set up such that we can't usually give our elders the care they need.  Labor is too specialized, and there aren't enough nurses to go around even for hospitals.  This is not to say that some peole aren't dumped, but I don't think it's as bad as all that.

Respectfully,

F


----------



## grydth (May 14, 2009)

Flea said:


> No, increasing the penalties for hate crime don't cut down on hate crime.  It just makes the rest of us feel less guilty for not doing something _real_ like writing our representatives, marching to city hall, or properly funding the EEOC.
> 
> I know that age is a protected class when it comes to employment, that's why I thought it might be for hate crimes too.  Who knows.



Your basic impulses - to deter and punish violent crimes - are good, just perhaps not the right legal means.

I never much cared for the concept of 'hate crimes', as to me it has always been a means of making some victims worth more than others. To me, it always sounds like, "Some animals are more equal than others." To me, subjecting another human to a violent crime is always a hate crime in essence. Ever seen a mugging that was a LOVE crime?

A meaningful and fair system of justice puts *every one of us *in the "protected class" when speaking of violent crime, and imposes massive punishment for hurting or killing *any of us.

*I don't care what the mugger's hopes/dreams/dislikes may be.... I don't differentiate why he targets moms or gays or elders.....I just want him off the street and in the concrete hotel until, well, he is elderly.

In the blink of an eye, these elders will be gone.... and we will be in their place.....what sort of society will we find then?


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (May 14, 2009)

Flea said:


> Wow, Daniel. You must have had a terrible experience with someone. My heart goes out to you.


Some good, some very good, some bad, some very bad.  Probably true of everyone to some degree or another.

I appreciate your sentiments, though more because they seem heartfelt rather than sarcastic.  It is not so much a bad experience with any one person but what I see in society.  I find our society to be but a shadow of what it once was in many ways, inspite of many the many seeming improvements.



Flea said:


> For what it's worth, that isn't the case in every family. My grandmother lived in a tiny rural village and adamantly refused any assistance at all, even though we could see she was declining. It wasn't until she totalled two cars in a month, and didn't even remember purchasing the second car afterwards, that we put our collective foot down and had her evaluated. It was an early stage of Alzheimers. Even then her children made great sacrifices to spend every weekend with her and hire in-home help during the week. Finally she went out one winter night, slipped on ice and broke her leg. It was at that point that we moved in and insisted on her moving into a facility. She chose an urban high-rise close to my aunt. She has 24/7 supervision. She recently transferred to the full-time nursing wing, where she's happy as a lark.


Absolutely, some are very fine facilities.  But many are not and many elderly live in a far less noble condition than they rightfully deserve.



Flea said:


> I empathize with your frustration, but I don't see senior facilities as a dumping ground necessarily. Of course they vary in quality. But our indistrialized society is set up such that we can't usually give our elders the care they need. Labor is too specialized, and there aren't enough nurses to go around even for hospitals. This is not to say that some peole aren't dumped, but I don't think it's as bad as all that.


No, all of them are not, but I have seen enough in my life to know that many elderly people are simply ignored by their family.  As I said, some facilities are very fine, some pretty good, and some merely okay.  But many are also criminal in their treatment of their residents.  Then there are the seniors who cannot afford to live in a facility or do not wish to have their life savings stripped away simply because people know that they can get away with it.

I have seen an elderly man who served in WWII suffer a stroke and by the time he had recovered, the nice (and it is a very fine facility) place he was in 'temporarilly' while he recovered became his permanent home.  Not because he chose it to be or because his family could not have taken care of him.  But because his wealthy kids divided his money up amongst themselves and made sure that he never left.  They sold his car, they took his cell phone, they took his savings.  

Is he doing well?  Yes.  Is he happy?  Yes, but not as happy as he would be had he not been treated so.  

Conversely, I had a great aunt who was treated very, very poorly in such a facility.

Then of course, there is the legal system, which has some very fine and dedicated people, but is also pulled in so many different directions by forces ranging from political expediency to corruption that it cannot possibly function with any degree of efficiency or effectiveness.

Daniel


----------



## Flea (May 15, 2009)

> No, all of them are not, but I have seen enough in my life to know that many elderly people are simply ignored by their family. As I said, some facilities are very fine, some pretty good, and some merely okay. But many are also criminal in their treatment of their residents. Then there are the seniors who cannot afford to live in a facility or do not wish to have their life savings stripped away simply because people know that they can get away with it.



You're very right.  I could draw a perfect analogy with another social service I know very well - psych hospitals.  There are some which are virtual country clubs.  There is another case in my city where a woman was raped by a nurses' aide.  The jury (and I'm thoroughly amazed that it went to trial at all) acquitted him because she gave "consent."  At least she carried the day with a $2 million malpractice suit.  She never should have needed to.  The sad thing is that when it comes to the mentally ill, they have much less legal recourse for these atrocities because whatever happens is usually "for their own good."  Most complaints, regardless of their legitimacy, are met with yet another diagnosis rather than scrutiny.

So after further thought, I agree with you completely.


----------



## Flea (May 18, 2009)

Update:  Guy turned himself in today.  The police believe there may be yet more victims, so they're still asking for tips.

Interestingly, the woman in the wheelchair was followed _into her building_ and assaulted.  She went to the doctor later feeling out of sorts, and found that she had a heart attack during the incident.  She needed bypass surgery.  My question is, _where_ were the assisted living staff while this guy was knocking a resident out of her wheelchair?  

Makes ya wonder.


----------



## jks9199 (May 18, 2009)

Flea said:


> Update:  Guy turned himself in today.  The police believe there may be yet more victims, so they're still asking for tips.
> 
> Interestingly, the woman in the wheelchair was followed _into her building_ and assaulted.  She went to the doctor later feeling out of sorts, and found that she had a heart attack during the incident.  She needed bypass surgery.  My question is, _where_ were the assisted living staff while this guy was knocking a resident out of her wheelchair?
> 
> Makes ya wonder.


Not really.

Depending on the facility and level of assistance they provide, there may only be a few people working.  At the lowest level of assistance, "assisted living" is more like a hotel with extra-attentive staff and an excellent concierge service.  At the highest level, it's hospital care with better ambience.


----------

