Sunday, June 22, 2008

Stephanie Mohr's Appeal - a.k.a. Money-Suckers

Because I belong to several right-wing newsletters, I receive a great deal of silly emails. The most absurd are generally from "partners" of Human Events shucking miracle cardio cures and conservative books. And then there is shameless pandering.

Stephanie Mohr, her dog, and kid

This is Stephanie Mohr, her attack dog, and her kid. According to the email:
In 1995, Mohr was answering a call for backup about two men that were burglary suspects. These two suspects, Ricardo Mendez and Herrera Cruz, who are illegal aliens, were ordered to face the wall by Mohr and several other officers. As they were ordered to do so, Mendez made a movement that Officer Mohr thought was an attempt to run.

As Mohr was trained to do, she let her police dog go. The dog chased Mendez, grabbed him on the leg, and held him. The procedure that Mohr followed to capture the suspects was within standard police guidelines.
Beep-bee (that was me beeping off the Bullshit Alarm). After some 5 years, the Civil Rights Division stepped in and said "Oh-noh-you-di-in" and she's now serving year 5 of her 10 year sentence.

Why? Well, you can get the straight story elements from Snopes:
  • Steph and her dog have quite a history of violence
  • In this case, the dog was not supposed to be released except in self-defense, and her partner wasn't supposed to beat the shit out of the other guy, either
So, perhaps Stephanie's son would be getting bedtime kisses if his mommy wasn't a bad person. Then again, we could always blame it on the patriarchy, since Stephanie's place in the phalocentric police force was probably defined by her aggressive behavior.

But the best point to be made on this email is that it's not really calling for anyone to do anything about Stephanie; she was convicted, pure and simple. The story about Stephanie is being used by the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund to emotionally appeal to readers and - you guessed it - make them give the LELDF money.

The real kick in the dog balls also comes from Snopes: According to a 2004 report in The Daily Record, the LELDF's "most recent filing with the state shows the fund spent about 18 cents for each dollar collected to defend police officers — up from 7.5 cents in 2000."

Shady legal defense funds, coloring criminals as victims to empty your pockets, all coming from a right-wing email. Is anyone surprised?

23 comments:

Anonymous said...

http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/mohr.asp

Anonymous said...

http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/015002.P.pdf

Read page 3.

Ricky Shambles said...

Thank you for the comments and backing. Still shady as a case, but more horrible is the pimping of the case to raise money that will not be used in her defense, no matter how shady that is.

Anonymous said...

I agree with your points made about this particular case because I read several articles and the Appeals Court affirmation of Mohr's sentence, and it does look like she committed the crimes she was convicted of.

However, I do not at all trust the DoJ Civil Rights Division to do the right thing, because - using your kind of hyperbole - CRD is chock-full of leftist Carter leftovers and Clintonistas who have a loooong track record of only prosecuting Whitey and making sure that Democrats ALWAYS get away with stealing elections (and the last point is indisputable because they have NEVER brought federal indictments in the many, many, many clear-cut cases of felony conspiracy vote fraud cases which violated everyone's civil rights). Liberals have complained loud and long about DoJ being "politicized" while carefully examping CRD is just another example of their "whatever it takes" hypocrisy.

But what annoys me the most is the general snotty-little-shit tone of your post:

"Because I belong to several right-wing newsletters, I receive a great deal of silly emails. The most absurd are generally from "partners" of Human Events shucking miracle cardio cures and conservative books. And then there is shameless pandering."

and

"Shady legal defense funds, coloring criminals as victims to empty your pockets, all coming from a right-wing email. Is anyone surprised?"

Yessirree, ONLY "right-wing" people deserve criticism, while of course enlightened, super-smart and noble people like you who are one of The Annointed are just a weeeee bit better - no, make that a LOT better - than us unwashed non-liberal masses. What a bunch of shit.

Even though I posted under Anonymous, I'm not hiding - my email address is leonmck@charter.net

Ricky Shambles said...

Anon,

The fact that you don't agree with what I write is fine. That's how we have discourse in this country. The fact that you changed the topic, presented not one reference, and whined like a spoiled child tugging at Mommy's apron strings: not so much okay. I mean, I guess it is, but you undermine yourself by acting like a little bitch.

The point I was making in the post is that a shady, right-wing organization is using the BS sob story to solicit donations that will not directly help the person in question. Show me a left wing organization doing the same thing and I'll verbally slap them too.

Thanks for reading!

oakwoodwolf said...

My money was not sucked. I contributed to Stephanie's defense voluntarily, after examining both sides' arguments. By calling the campaign "money suckers", you insult the donors, presuming yourself to be the only qualified one to make an objective appraisal of the case.

oakwoodwolf said...

Besides, your jugdement is not objective, it is tainted with political prejudices from the very first sentence of your message. I received Stephanie's request directly from her defense fund and not from "rightwing newsletters".

oakwoodwolf said...

What evidence do you have that "donations will not directly help the person in question"?

Ricky Shambles said...

oakwood, so glad to get under your collar.

If you sent money directly to Stephanie's defense, then good for you. That's completely respectable.

The email was from Human Events, pimping the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund. If you donate directly to the LELDF, $0.18 of your dollar will be used to help defend folks, none of which is guaranteed to go to Stephanie, even though that is the case they used to suck your money from you.

But you sent money directly to her defense and are therefore not affected by LELDF.

Sidenote: I've got this great blog going with over 750 posts and it and I don't believe I have ever claimed objectivity. My profile clearly states that I am a "godless liberal." Not sure where you got that, but wanted to be clear.

Thanks for the comment(s)!

andy said...

The Real Crime here is Illegal Aliens, They are crimianls anyhow. They are NOT United States Citizens. They should not be protected by U.S. Laws. Stephanie needs a release and a medal for getting a couple of illegals.
All Illegal Immigrants need to deported and if they won't leave,, Maybe they all need a Dog to attack. A Illegal Immigrant is nothing but trash that needs to thrown out.
fbirdta9@aol.com

Ricky Shambles said...

andy,

Anyone with that much disregard for human life and humane treatment could also be considered trash. Thanks for the comment!

Anonymous said...

she's fine serving out the rest of her ten years, a badge can even make a woman turn into a pig. look at her letter claiming the court brought in "minorities" as to say they set her up.. please lady, innocent men and women go to prison every day, she belongs there

Ricky Shambles said...

I agree. Let her serve it out like anyone else who breaks the law. Thanks for reading!

Anonymous said...

I thought that you had to be a US Citizen to be protected under the laws of the US. Since both of these guys were illegal, do they have the right to protection under the laws of the US?

dkalb

Ricky Shambles said...

dkalb - It sounds as if you are insinuating that because they were illegal immigrants it doesn't matter what anyone does to them. Unfortunately for your speculation, our laws are in place to protect others as well as keep us in line.

If you do something your job doesn't allow, you can get fired; if you do something the law doesn't allow, you are legally liable. Doesn't matter to whom it is done.

Anonymous said...

I decided to leave a comment on this subject even though it's from so long ago. When I read this story I was absolutely disgusted. And when I read the comments DEFENDING the officer, that just made me more upset. The legal status of somebody's citizenship should not matter. What most people forget is that although YOU may be a legal american citizen, you're PARENTS or your GRANDPARENTS, or your GREAT GRAND PARENTS might not have been. Now imagine that same dog biting one of them. Exactly. NOT to mention, in the other cases where she set her dogs on those four teens, THEY weren't illegal citizens, they were AMERICAN citizens. The BOTTOM line is that people are people and EVERY person feels the same things. They don't deserve to be punished simply for being an "illegal alien." Borders are just lines created by imperialism. They DO however, deserve to be punished when they deliberately hurt another person, like Ms. Mohr did. :)

Sydney said...

Oh boo hoo.. Come on people. You're acting like the dog killed the man. I have respect for people, even illegal immigrants but unless the dog caused extreme injuries to the man... what is the big deal? How many other minority cases do you think cops across the country deal with on a day to day basis? Thousands. And do you hear blacks or asians etc. making a big stink about it? Hell no. This whole thing is ridiculous. He got bit on the leg. Go back to San Salvador and sell some more crack. And for all the Civil Rights Groups freaking out.. Focus your time on more important things.

Ricky Shambles said...

Sydney-
She broke protocol and the law. Why is that so difficult to understand? "Oh, she just set a dog on an unarmed man, that's all." Or does America just work for Americans like you? What if you were bit by a police dog without provocation? Would you be singing the same parrot tune?

Peggy Beck said...

If you Google Stephanie Mohr's you get a word for word look at the mass mailing she does for the Legal Defense Fund she is soliciing for. I have that letter and didn't buy it. Google has a clearer vision of this scam.

Joe Citizen said...

The day Charlie Rangel, Bawney Fwank Maxine Waters serve a DAY for THEIR KNOWN corruption, you can say "let her serve out her sentence".. until then, SHUT UP already, you Liberal PIMP! People serve LESS time, for MURDER!!! Right? So where do you see THIS sentence as "Fair"???? Typical two-faced Lefty....

Ricky Shambles said...

Peggy- Good point.

Joe- You are an angry, misguided person with nothing to contribute. By qualifying Mohr's horrifying actions, you also seem to lack a basic moral compass. Or is "wrong" okay if it happens to someone with brown skin?

Spartan said...

Well said Sydney for those whom are not in law enforcement and have never been faced with the split second decisions that are made everyday by us get your self a large cup of shut your mouth you dont have a clue. This was a tragedy and injustice that occured against this Officer. Fact she was acting in policy the two criminals were in the USA illegally and have since been deported. Wake up people do you want Police Officers to be proactive and catch criminals or do you want them to fear prosecution and only be reactive. If these two criminals had entered your familys home in the middle of the night and then were bit by a police K9 in the process of apprehending them would you feel the same!

Anonymous said...

I am in law enforcement and taught that no matter what, we still need to treat people like people...even when we are apprehending them. Mohr broke a lot of protocol when apprehending the two. First, police dogs are only used for self-defense and protection of others...as she said at her trial. Second, you don't beat the crap out of someone when they are doing what you have asked them to do. The rule is minimum force required to get the what you need. She also has a history of violence with her police dog and ordering attacks when the suspect is in compliance with what she is asking them to do. She has used and abused the power of a police dog too many times and should remain in jail.