Tuesday, January 5, 2010

"Ladies and Gentlemen, We Got Him!"

Maybe not as notorious and sought after as Saddam Hussein was in an international sense, but in a local sense--i.e. the Happy Valley--certainly comparable.

Anthony P. Baye, age 25, the alleged arson who terrorized his home city of Northampton with a late night fire spree was captured yesterday, charged with the murder of two innocent people.

Now it gets interesting.

Are we really a nation built on the premise that everyone is "innocent until proven guilty?" Or do we seek the convenience of declaring evidence close enough for a conviction, rushing to judgement to put this sorry episode behind us and allow the victims (that includes most of the city of Northampton) to get back to a normal life?

21 comments:

Ry Willey said...

Hopefully law enforcement has arrested the person responsible. Innocent until proven guilty and arson is a very difficult crime to prosecute.

Let's hope they crossed their T's and dotted their I's and remain silent with the information they have on this suspect.

Many times the press reports information the general public does not need to be made available during a crucial time.

If I was a terrorist I would now know which countries not to board a flight to the US from thanks to the media. Here is a list of airports with heightened security, thanks for info.

-Ryan

Anonymous said...

"WE" got 'em.

Larry get your meds checked. Your dissociative disorder is back and growing.

Anonymous said...

larry thinks we should abandon due process since it is close enough. nice going buddy.

tool.

LarryK4 said...

The "We" in the headline refers to a direct quote from Paul Bremer at a press conference in Iraq that I sort of despise.

After all, Saddam Hussein was completely vanquished and being the despicable despot he was, not too many of his formal troop were rallying around him.

Kind of like Mexican general Santa Anna captured by angered Texans after the Battle of San Jacinto cowering in a marsh.

Unlike Osama Bin Laden who, to this day, is still a rallying icon to evil forces who would do us great harm.

Silly me, I thought I would get criticized for strongly suggesting we stick to due process.

Never underestimate the stupidity of Cowardly Anon Nitwits I guess.

Anonymous said...

Hi Ryan - I was having breakfast at the Blue Bonnet Dinner this morning and Channel 40 was there interviewing people. I'll be on TV tonight saying what you just said here.
Steven Toplitz

LarryK4 said...

Behold the power of the blog.

And I did find it a tad interesting (and surprising) that the Daily Hampshire Gazette managed to get the arrest story in print on Page One this morning--albeit only a paragraph--and the Springfield Republican did not.

Anonymous said...

For the latest in media manipulation:

From here until the September election, count the number of times the name "Cahillane" shows up in stories about and from the DA's office.

They're getting him out there front and center.

Anonymous said...

Rumor has it Mr. Baye is from.....
......(gulp)......Amherst

Anonymous said...

Memo

To: ACLU
From: The People of the City of Northampton

Re: Use of Surveillance Cameras in Law Enforcement

Disregard earlier support.

Ed said...

I am sorry but this does not add up.

Not one but TWO police officers letting a drunk driver continue driving at that hour?

All those fires starting that quickly without the use of any accellerants?

I am sorry but I don't believe this is all out yet.

Anonymous said...

this morning's paper said he confessed to police about starting the Fair St. fire. So he is guilty.

Now to Ed's question, why did the po-po let him slip away if he seemed drunk? That's not someone I want protecting my neighborhood.

Anonymous said...

Ah yes:

America's second-favorite pasttime: second-guessing the police.

That's second only to second-guessing your child's high school teachers.

Rich Morse

LarryK4 said...

For sure.

But I remember the town of Ware losing a $1 million lawsuit 25 years ago when two police officers let a driver go who they suspected had been drinking and soon thereafter killed a father and daughter in a car wreck.

Anonymous said...

it didn't say he was drunk...

Ed said...

America's second-favorite pasttime: second-guessing the police.

That's second only to second-guessing your child's high school teachers.


It is called "public service" for a reason. And the reason why authority is granted - great authority - is because the public is going to be watching and second guessing and if you can't deal with that, there is always the dreaded private sector....

Anonymous said...

In the '90's, the police constantly spoke to me as a prosecutor about the Irwin case from Ware; it was constantly on their minds. And they incorporated the lessons of that case into their standard procedures for traffic stops. Those procedures live on in every Massachusetts municipal and state police force as a legacy of that case.

The issue has come up before in Amherst in conjunction with traffic stops and the accusation, now somewhat dormant, that they were being conducted on a racial basis here. My point then was that I saw considerable benefit in police officers erring on the side of caution, especially in a college town with a higher proportion of relatively inexperienced drivers, stopping drivers to check on their condition, which presupposes, of course, that some drivers would pass muster and be sent on. I saw considerably less benefit to public safety in cops constantly worrying about some racial disproportion showing up in some after the fact review of the drivers they'd stopped (many of them in the dark).

Anyone in law enforcement who's worth his or her salt worries about getting it wrong. But remember: it's ordered liberty that we're talking about here, and the cop has to respect it, whether you care to second-guess or not. And with the exclusionary rule, the stakes are high for the police.

There's "question authority" and then there's "know what you don't know". But that would involve humility on the part of certain armchair executives.

Rich Morse

Anonymous said...

I should be clear:

That last post was definitely not directed at you, Larry. And your mentioning of the Irwin case is on point, but I assure you that it hasn't been forgotten, but rather has been incorporated into the routine.

RM

Anonymous said...

They never said he was drunk.. give the cops a break.. the guy very well couldve had a few drinks and been ok to drive.. not everything has been released so dont try to speculate and second guess the police and the job that they do.

LarryK4 said...

I "second guess" EVERYBODY; including myself. (But only when it comes to punctuation.)

Max Hartshorne said...

That dumbfounded me too...arsonist stopped two times, in just minutes...sort of like why did that guy be allowed to get on the plane with his dyno-shorts?

But the biggest thing we need to figure out is why? How does anyone answer that? Why?

Ed said...

They never said he was drunk.. give the cops a break

They allegedly said that he had to stay at his girlfriend's house and couldn't be driving anymore that night.

the guy very well couldve had a few drinks and been ok to drive..

If so, the police would have violated his civil rights as he would have every legal right to drive anywhere he wanted to that night, all night long if he desired.

not everything has been released so dont try to speculate and second guess the police and the job that they do.

Being stopped twice inside of a half hour by two different departments strikes me as unusual. More than unusual...