Yes, Even More MA "Justice"...

Suspect accused of boasting about pay for Chelsea killings

CHELSEA — The alleged hit man in an execution-style double killing early on Labor Day had bragged that he was paid a “substantial sum of money’’ to carry out the slayings, a prosecutor said yesterday in releasing new details about the horrific crime.

Assistant Suffolk District Attorney John Pappas said the two men were shot “without warning and without provocation, without justification or excuse.’’ He added that one of the men might have been sleeping when he was shot.

Getting things out of the way at first, the two men killed were "known to police", "involved in the local narcotics trade", and other indicators that they were other than pillars of the community. That doesn't mean they deserved to die, of course, but it's hardly some random execution.What really jumped out at me was this:

Andre was released from state prison after serving a three-year sentence for a 2006 armed robbery in Boston, according to prosecutors. He is serving a five-year probation term and was recently arrested on a trespassing charge. That case is pending.

Let's see. The two men who were killed had lengthy criminal records and pending prosecution, some for violent crimes. The killer was on probation for 5 years and yet was arrested for another crime, yet (again) was out on the street. One of the victims committed a crime in May, and, even with his lengthy criminal record, was given a suspended sentence - had he been prosecuted and jailed for his crime he'd be alive right now.

How many more chances do you think the killer would have gotten if he hadn't killed someone?

This is the logical conclusion of the way we currently approach criminal justice in the "enlightened" states, which from all appearances seems to be "as long as you don't kill anyone, you're out by nightfall." How else can you explain violent crime after violent crime, each committed while the thug in question was either out of parole, on probation, or awaiting sentencing? All the laws in the world won't do a damn bit of good if we don't prosecute people for breaking them. We might as well call them guidelines.

And notice the thug had no problem finding a handgun with which to murder two people. All the gun laws in the world - in MA, where "You're more likely to live here" because we have the toughest gun laws in the nation, no less - were insufficient to stop a determined thug from getting a firearm. Violent felon? Check. Legally barred from owning firearms? Check. No MA LTC to own a pistol? Check. No valid CCW? Check. Yet there he was carrying a gun just like many folks in MA want to do yet are prohibited by the restrictions on their license. Or maybe they can't afford the $500+ needed to get that license.

He won't be prosecuted on the gun charges, I'll wager. Those will get dropped in favor of the murder charges, which will most likely get pleaded out to manslaughter and he'll serve 5-7 for it, out in 4. He'll kill someone else next time and the handwringing will start all over again - about the easy availability of guns and why can't we pass more laws making it harder to get firearms. No one will question why a violent killer is out of the street so soon after committing violent crimes; no one will ask the tough questions like "if he's already prohibited from owning a gun, what's another law or 20 going to do to stop him?" They'll just bleat on and on, and the law-abiding gun owners will take it in the shorts.

I'll close with a quick quiz. Which of the following courses of action are most likely to stop someone with a history of violent crimes from murdering someone with a firearm:

A) One-gun-a-month law;

B) Magazine restrictions on semi-automatic weapons;

C) Approved Firearms Roster; or

D) Actually making them serve their whole sentences for previous crimes?

I think we all know that MA chooses E) A through C in this case...

That is all.