Fucking hypocrites

A $90,000-per-year director with Mayor de Blasio’s Office of Criminal Justice was arrested along with two men Saturday night in Queens after a loaded gun was found in their car — double-parked just blocks away from the scene of an earlier shooting, police said.

Reagan Stevens — the Office’s Deputy Director of Youth and Strategic Initiatives — was busted on two counts of criminal possession of a weapon after cops found the loaded 9mm gun in the glovebox of the 2002 Infiniti double-parked on the corner of 177th Street and 106th Avenue in Jamaica around 10:25 p.m., cops said.
MORE

This entry was posted in Liberals, News. Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to Fucking hypocrites

  1. Nemo says:

    … nothing will happen to this POS Democrat

    • bogsidebunny says:

      If she’s banging the right folks in NYC politics she’ll mysteriously come up with a very rare NYC civilian Conceal Carry License dated back to 2016 but the ink will still be wet.

      • Mike_C says:

        Banging not required. Ms Stevens is CONNECTED. From the linked article:

        [Reagan Stevens’] mom, Deborah Stevens Modica, has been a judge [in Queens Criminal Court] since her appointment in 1997.
        Her stepdad, Salvatore Modica, is an acting Queens Supreme Court justice.

        However, my guess is that she will NOT want to be connected to that handgun (with defaced serial number, not suspicious at all, no sir) and certainly will not claim to be its lawful owner. Rather it’ll be that she had no idea her compatriots had a gun. Or that they were ALL shocked to find that someone had placed a gun into their vehicle, and while inspecting it prepatory to calling the police to have it disposed of properly, “the gun went off”. Five times.

        But I’ll take bets on whether the cops who investigated the five shots (coming from the Infiniti in which Stevens was found with criminals Caesar Forbes and Montel Hughes) will be censured for racist racist racist profiling. Just a guess, but how many white dudes named “Montel” do you know?

    • Exile1981 says:

      Both of her parents are judges. She is being arranged in the same court her mom is a judge at.

  2. lineman says:

    Not hypocrites they are enemy combatants…Big difference…You wouldn’t call a enemy fighting you a hypocrite when he tells you to lay down your weapon and let him kill you would you? People need to wake up to the fact that we are at war…

  3. Sabre22 says:

    Should be A Sullivan Law Violation Mandatory one year in the Slammer. But being it’s a female democrat and a deBlaasio aide nothing will happen

  4. cj says:

    Geez…love how even the headline just mentions a gun in the car…in reality it had defaced serial numbers AND the car in question was on video with someone inside popping off 5 shots less than an hour before (and shell casing on the floor) AND was reeking of weed, with one occupant carrying 5 bags.

    I’d bet if it was a white guy and just the shell casing, they’d be trumpeting about how they stopped a mass shooting.

  5. NewVegasBadger says:

    Not surprising since liberals tend to believe that they ought to be exempt from the laws they impose on others (for their own good of course, since the dumb masses are not smart enough to know what is best for them). Since she has political connections, she will get special considerations and treatment.

  6. Brother Antony says:

    Scratched or filed off serial numbers on a weapon can be recovered if the Police have the will and are not impeded by lawers of politicians.

    Researchers at the National Institute of Standards and Technology—or NIST—that uses a scanning electron microscope to detect imperfections in the metal’s crystalline structure.

    Part of what gives metal its strength is that its atoms are arranged in a well-organized and highly patterned crystal structure. But the act of stamping a serial number onto metal can damage that crystal structure deep into the material—well below the surface area that thieves will typically grind away to erase the stamped digits.

    As an electron microscope scans a beam of electrons across a metal surface that has been ground down to erase a serial number, the reflections can reveal what the crystal structure deep into the material looks like. Using software to differentiate the quality of the crystal pattern can then reveal damaged areas below the surface, which in turn can be used to re-generate serial numbers that have been erased.

    • Mike_C says:

      Always remember, kids: use a punch and not a file.

      • lineman says:

        Why do we always have to be on defense? Serious question?

        • Bacon says:

          A serious question deserves a serious answer, lineman. It’s because we’re the good guys. It’s axiomatic that the good guys play defense, because if we didn’t, then we’d be the bad guys.

          Remember Lexington and Concord: “Stand your ground. Don’t fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war then let it begin here.” Captain John Parker had it right, there’s good reason we don’t fire the first shot.

          The first shot ain’t shit, it’s the last shot that counts.

          • lineman says:

            Yea but they did have an organized resistance of sorts which is something we haven’t even begun to start…They did know what they were fighting for and had a goal in mind…And they went to war on stuff we sit and take every day so we’re they bad men for doing that…And who really knows who fired first remember the victors write the history books…

            • Bacon says:

              I mostly agree with your points lineman, so I’m not trying to disagree. I just think we have a somewhat different perspective on history.
              — I don’t think their “organized resistance of sorts” was all that much more organized than we are today. It merely looks that way to us from our perspective. From their perspective at the time, they hadn’t “even begun to start” either.
              — Even with all of the King’s many abuses, the Colonials lived a much freer life than most of us do today. Certainly they knew what they were about, but no more so than many of today’s homeschooled farm kids.
              — The Colonials also took a lot of shit for a very long time before they finally rose up in rebellion. And when it started, it wasn’t yet about gaining freedom from England, it was about having being denied the “Rights of Englishmen”. Only later did things morph into open revolt.
              — Yeah, the victors write the history books but in this case the historical record seems clear enough if you compare firsthand accounts from both sides.

              Anyway, I meant what I said to you above. We don’t always have to be on defense but it’s raining and we need to keep out powder dry.

        • Mike_C says:

          >Why do we always have to be on defense?
          Short answer: We don’t.

          Longer answer: Depends on what you consider defense. I’m not going to go full Henry Bowman* (and even if I had plans, I’d never admit that in a public forum**). But my “courtesy filters,” for lack of a better term, are switched to OFF. By that I mean that comments and actions by others I would have let slide in past years I now don’t. I especially don’t let slide remarks of the “so we all agree [on something stupid]” sort. Additionally, I now openly comment on things that many people are afraid to talk about. Both of these have a purpose besides the personal satisfaction of “telling someone off” (in fact, I don’t particularly enjoy confrontation; gets my adrenaline and cortisol up). I do it to let the sane but quiet people know they are not alone in their (sane) opinions. Finally, I make the time to talk to people, especially young people, who seem “red-pillable,” not to harangue, but to have a real conversation, and toss out facts and observations to get them thinking. I don’t want to tell anyone WHAT to think, but I do want to get people thinking critically about the wrong assumptions they’ve had stuffed into their heads.

          I have examples of each, but this is long enough as it is. If anyone cares I can expound further, but I’d be impressed if anyone is still reading to this point… I know it’s not rucking with body armor, with plates, and a 50-lb pack every weekend, zeroing my Barrett (dream on, I live in bloody Massachusetts), nor even wiling away evenings sharpening muh tomahawk, but it’s not nothing either.

          *Henry Bowman. In the off chance someone reading this has no idea who HB is, get a copy of Unintended Consequences by John Ross. Read it. Pass it around to friends.
          **public forum. Personally I think of this as Kenny’s front porch, his place, his rules and all that, but realistically this is a public forum where anything you say can be read by anyone, the implications of which are clear.

          • lineman says:

            If we were sitting down having a conversation f2f much more could be shared and discussed but your living in a place that the founders already would of been engaged in war over…You have my sympathy…

          • Bacon says:

            “I do it to let the sane but quiet people know they are not alone in their (sane) opinions.”

            This is exactly right. It’s definitely “not nothing” either.

    • Bacon says:

      Interesting and worthy comment Brother Antony. You are correct in theory, but unfortunately, it generally isn’t that simple.
      — Beyond limited funding for such data recovery, there are a limited number of scanning electron microscopes available.
      — Not all techs who can run a scan can run one at that level of precision.
      — Any/all techs involved not only need the certifications to do the work, they also need to be admissible for court deposition.
      — It’s relatively easy for a defense attorney to block the admissibility of such technological evidence.
      — The scans take time and the techs need to maintain chain of custody, making the process even more expensive.
      — Recovery is not even close to 100%. The scanning process often results in only partial serial numbers.
      — Even if you get the serial number, technophobic judges might not accept the scan results unless they are corroborated by other sources.
      For all these reasons, the technology has great potential but limited practical utility at this point. It’s usually reserved for much higher profile cases than this one.

      • Brother Antony says:

        Thanks for the update, Bacon. I must admit I’m not surprised because that sort of shit is pretty common this side of the pond. In fact we have Judges who are so thick and decrepit they think an iPad is something used to protect an injured eye.

  7. realspark21 says:

    Typical ‘Limousine Liberal’…”Do as I say not as I do, peasant!”

If your comment 'disappears', don't trip - it went to my trash folder and I will restore it when I moderate.