'Dumbest criminal' robs cop (http://www.pennlive.com/news/patriotnews/index.ssf?/base/news/1238202618223350.xml&coll=1)
QuoteJerome Blanchett took a loaded handgun into the Holiday Inn-Harrisburg East on Friday, passing dozens of unmarked police cars in the parking lot and a sign at the hotel's entrance welcoming 300 officers to the Pennsylvania Narcotic Officers' Association conference, police said.
Nevertheless, the 19-year-old Harrisburg man went into the men's room and waited to rob the next person who walked through the door, police said.
Unfortunately for Blanchett, that person was John Comparetto, a retired New York City Police Department lieutenant.
"He chose to rob a cop in a place where there were 300 cops," Comparetto said afterward. "He's not very bright."
Comparetto said he walked into the bathroom about 8:15 a.m. and noticed a man in baggy blue jeans and a dark coat washing his hands. Comparetto went into the stall, and when he walked out three minutes later, he was staring down the barrel of a .40-caliber semi-automatic handgun, he said.
Blanchett demanded money, and Comparetto handed over $138, police said. Blanchett took Comparetto's cell phone, told him to drop his pants and threatened to kill him if he tried to follow him, police said.
Seconds after Blanchett left the bathroom, Comparetto pulled a handgun from his ankle holster and went after his attacker, he said. Their guns drawn, he and other officers took Blanchett into custody as he was trying to get into a taxi outside the Swatara Twp. hotel.
"He's yelling, 'Don't shoot me,' and I said, 'If you move your hands, I'll kill you,'" Comparetto said. "He was almost crying."
Blanchett, who is awaiting trial on four previous robbery charges, was arraigned before District Judge Michael Smith on new robbery charges along with charges of making terroristic threats, reckless endangerment, simple assault, carrying a firearm without a license and illegally possessing a firearm. He was taken to Dauphin County Prison.
"You're a danger to have on the street," Smith told Blanchett before setting bail at $1 million.
When a reporter asked Blanchett for comment as he was led out of court, he said, "I'm smooth." When asked if he could explain that, Blanchett smirked and said nothing.
Contacted later, his attorney, Assistant Public Defender Eric Delp, would not comment.
Blanchett had been out on bail since March 6 after Delp won a hearing on speedy trial rules, which require the prosecution to bring the case to trial within 180 days if the defendant is incarcerated.
He was being supervised by Dauphin County Pretrial Services. His trial on the previous robbery charges is slated to begin Monday.
Comparetto, 56, retired from the New York police in 1999 and was the chief of the Passaic County Sheriff's Department in northern New Jersey before retiring from there in August. He works part time for the Rockland County, N.Y., Sheriff's Department, about 30 miles north of New York City.
He had been at the conference since Wednesday and earlier in the week led a lecture on risk assessment and conducting raids -- not knowing he'd later have to put those lessons to use in the men's room.
"I knew I could take away the gun, but I hurt my back a few years ago," Comparetto said. "I'm too old to be fighting people. So I made an assessment that I would cooperate and worry about this afterward."
He was not shy about sharing his story with the media.
"This should make all Pennsylvania news as the dumbest criminal in Pennsylvania."
Professor Moriarty is spinning in his grave :(
April Fools. :yawn:
Quote from: Martinus on April 01, 2009, 01:40:50 AM
April Fools. :yawn:
Quote'Dumbest criminal' robs cop
Saturday, March 28, 2009 BY MATTHEW KEMENYOf The Patriot-News
Was posted on rotten.com on the 30th of March.
:contract:
The problem with modern crime, IMO, is that all the top-class criminal minds have found legitimate employment as bankers or politicians. Why break the law when there are vast fortunes and immense privileges to be gained by perfectly legal dishonesty and trickery?
This reminds me of the guy that tried to run after stealing from a US athlete in front of Maurice Greene during the World Championships at Seville. Or the one who stole a mobile phone a few meters away from where the Bush daughters - and all the Spanish policemen in their entourage - were. :lol:
"I'm smooth..." Huh? What a way to save face... :lol:
Now do you see why it's good to have a widely-armed citizenry, Euros? :)
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 01, 2009, 02:01:48 AM
The problem with modern crime, IMO, is that all the top-class criminal minds have found legitimate employment as bankers or politicians. Why break the law when there are vast fortunes and immense privileges to be gained by perfectly legal dishonesty and trickery?
True but there is nothing modern about that. :P
Since when is robbing someone 'making terroristic threats'?
Quote from: Caliga on April 01, 2009, 08:33:13 AM
Now do you see why it's good to have a widely-armed citizenry, Euros? :)
No, they don't.
:huh:
Quote from: Neil on April 01, 2009, 09:19:49 AM
Since when is robbing someone 'making terroristic threats'?
It was the threat to kill the guy if he followed him that was the terroristic threat.
Quote from: Valmy on April 01, 2009, 09:22:49 AM
Quote from: Neil on April 01, 2009, 09:19:49 AM
Since when is robbing someone 'making terroristic threats'?
It was the threat to kill the guy if he followed him that was the terroristic threat.
Seemed like just a regular threat to me.
It was a pretty terrorizing regular threat.
Quote from: Neil on April 01, 2009, 09:25:59 AM
Seemed like just a regular threat to me.
A threat to hurt somebody if they do X is a terroristic threat in legalese I believe.
Quote from: Valmy on April 01, 2009, 09:22:49 AM
Quote from: Neil on April 01, 2009, 09:19:49 AM
Since when is robbing someone 'making terroristic threats'?
It was the threat to kill the guy if he followed him that was the terroristic threat.
Seems an absurd definition creep.
By that account *any* threat is a "terroristic threat", since the whole point of a "threat" is to put someone in fear to make them do (or not do) something.
Quote from: Valmy on April 01, 2009, 09:27:32 AM
Quote from: Neil on April 01, 2009, 09:25:59 AM
Seemed like just a regular threat to me.
A threat to hurt somebody if they do X is a terroristic threat in legalese I believe.
Ah well, that's lawyers for you. Soon, the rule of law will be ended, and we can all relax.
Quote from: Valmy on April 01, 2009, 09:27:32 AM
Quote from: Neil on April 01, 2009, 09:25:59 AM
Seemed like just a regular threat to me.
A threat to hurt somebody if they do X is a terroristic threat in legalese I believe.
Up here it's just a threat. Sections 264.1 of the Criminal Code.
Quote from: Barrister on April 01, 2009, 10:16:57 AM
Up here it's just a threat. Sections 264.1 of the Criminal Code.
Well, duh, who's really going to be terrorized by a threat from Canadian?
Quote from: DGuller on April 01, 2009, 10:21:05 AM
Quote from: Barrister on April 01, 2009, 10:16:57 AM
Up here it's just a threat. Sections 264.1 of the Criminal Code.
Well, duh, who's really going to be terrorized by a threat from Canadian?
Well, baby seals for one.
Quote from: Caliga on April 01, 2009, 08:33:13 AM
Now do you see why it's good to have a widely-armed citizenry, Euros? :)
If he hadn't had a gun the policeman could have just beat the crap out of him in the toilet and stopped a bit of hastle.
Quote from: Tyr on April 01, 2009, 11:31:04 AM
Quote from: Caliga on April 01, 2009, 08:33:13 AM
Now do you see why it's good to have a widely-armed citizenry, Euros? :)
If he hadn't had a gun the policeman could have just beat the crap out of him in the toilet and stopped a bit of hastle.
The counterargument is "Dur, the criminals will have guns anyway!" but I'm not sure that'd be so in this guy's case.
Quote from: Tyr on April 01, 2009, 11:31:04 AM
Quote from: Caliga on April 01, 2009, 08:33:13 AM
Now do you see why it's good to have a widely-armed citizenry, Euros? :)
If he hadn't had a gun the policeman could have just beat the crap out of him in the toilet and stopped a bit of hastle.
But he would have a gun. After all, the gun he had was illegal, so apparently making them more illegal isn't going to be much of a deterrent, right?
Quote from: Tyr on April 01, 2009, 11:31:04 AM
If he hadn't had a gun the policeman could have just beat the crap out of him in the toilet and stopped a bit of hastle.
Wait a sec...in Europe cops don't have guns?
Quote from: Valmy on April 01, 2009, 12:46:47 PM
Wait a sec...in Europe cops don't have guns?
Was this question an April Fools? :huh:
Actually I didn't think British police officers routinely carried firearms... unsure about that though, and no idea on the rest of Europe except for Italy, where not only did they seem to always be armed, but usually they appeared to carry SMGs.
Quote from: The Nickname Who Was Thursday on April 01, 2009, 11:38:41 AM
The counterargument is "Dur, the criminals will have guns anyway!" but I'm not sure that'd be so in this guy's case.
Not sure that counterargument is generally correct - it would seem that in countries lacking a culture of widely accepted handguns, handguns are simply less common, even among crooks. They still exist of course - what seems to matter is *culture*. Even in places where hand-guns are strictly illegal, where a particular community has accepted their use they can be common - but often much less so than among the general population.
The startling example is here in Toronto, where the community of ex-pat Jamacans have a "gun culture" and accound for a bizzarely disproportionate number of shooting crimes - very often of the "guy gets dissed in a dance club and blasts away with his gun, shooting three innocent bystanders" variety.
What appears to be the case is that the law is only significant in that it reflects and shapes the culture, and what is important is the culture - that of dumb machismo combined with ready handgun ownership among young men in particular - which is important.
:facepalm:
Quote from: Berkut on April 01, 2009, 12:45:05 PM
Quote from: Tyr on April 01, 2009, 11:31:04 AM
Quote from: Caliga on April 01, 2009, 08:33:13 AM
Now do you see why it's good to have a widely-armed citizenry, Euros? :)
If he hadn't had a gun the policeman could have just beat the crap out of him in the toilet and stopped a bit of hastle.
But he would have a gun. After all, the gun he had was illegal, so apparently making them more illegal isn't going to be much of a deterrent, right?
Where guns are legal its a lot easier to get hold of one illegally than where they are always illegal.
QuoteWait a sec...in Europe cops don't have guns?
In the UK they don't. In most other places they do.
Quote from: Valmy on April 01, 2009, 12:46:47 PM
Quote from: Tyr on April 01, 2009, 11:31:04 AM
If he hadn't had a gun the policeman could have just beat the crap out of him in the toilet and stopped a bit of hastle.
Wait a sec...in Europe cops don't have guns?
They do, but they're not allowed to use them.
Quote from: Caliga on April 01, 2009, 12:56:06 PM
Actually I didn't think British police officers routinely carried firearms... unsure about that though, and no idea on the rest of Europe except for Italy, where not only did they seem to always be armed, but usually they appeared to carry SMGs.
They don't. But a high proportion are trained as firearms officers who can be issued with guns at short notice and are actually very competent at handling them.
And Malthus is right I think; apart from rural folk blasting away at rabbits and pheasants with their shotguns, firearms are very rare here, even amongst villains.
Quote from: Malthus on April 01, 2009, 09:30:03 AMSeems an absurd definition creep.
By that account *any* threat is a "terroristic threat", since the whole point of a "threat" is to put someone in fear to make them do (or not do) something.
Cookie cutter charge. Hear of it all the time. :contract:
Basically, any threat *is* a "terroristic threat" in legalese. It's what they put on you if they can't file simple assault charges.