Academia, Criminal law, Society

GW Student Heralded As Hero After Intervening In Assault Of Lawyer

A GW law student, Andrew Miller, 23, is being celebrated as a hero this week after he came to the aid of John Rowley, 62.  Rowley was attacked by a group of teens in a D.C. Metro station and Miller ran to his aid.  Miller suffered a concussion in the incident while Rowley was left with facial swelling and bruises.

Ironically, the victim is a fellow lawyer.  Rowley is a partner at Baker McKenzie.  Police reportedly arrested two teenage assailants.  Metro Transit Police said that the two teenagers were primarily responsible for the attack.

Miller is entering his final year at the law school.  We are all extremely proud of Andrew at George Washington and thankful that he was not more seriously injured.

Great job Andrew.

64 thoughts on “GW Student Heralded As Hero After Intervening In Assault Of Lawyer”

  1. Well, at least his attack was reported by the media! How many black on white attacks are ignored by the media? Well, we’ll never know. The Advocate, for example, refused to even report on the attack by the three black youths who beat and robbed me one Sunday morning in Baton Rouge. At the time, I was a white professor at all black Grambling State University. None of the literary journals in Louisiana would publish my poem (or essay) regarding the incident. At least the student newspaper published my account. Bravo to those black student newspaper editors! Here’s the poem:

    Guard Down in Louisiana

    Self-assured the black youth chatted me up, and
    insufficiently leery, if not like a damn old fool,
    I bit the bait, for readily I talked with strangers

    In a split second he scurried round me, a large
    red-eyed rodent with a dated Afro and,
as my eyes followed instinctively,
    my face received a sharp-ringed punch
    from one of his black lieutenants,
    though 
I don’t even recall it—the scars bear witness—,
    and down I went over the cretin now crouched
    behind me, cracking my head on the cement

    What brilliant street-wise strategy! Bravo to the
    parents and educationist pedagogy!

    An endless bout of vicious kicks assailed my body,
    head, and mind, leaving me upon my back
    like a stunned carcass in the slaughterhouse,
    steel-piked in the skull, or perhaps more like a Jew
    at the mercy of Brown Shirts stomping jackboots.

    Quickly realizing the three soul-less souls serious
    in intent, I hollered for help until finally they fled,
    running off with my wallet and keys, salivating like
    
pit bulls back to their cliché hip-hop dawg horseshit.

    Dazed, still clutching my camera with the right hand,
    I stood up and stumbled on back to the car, 
reluctantly humiliated,
    for I was a man getting older, 
caught off guard and failing to defend myself.

    Later, they’d go on a $1,000 shopping spree at Wal-Mart
    —not for food, but for guns, sneakers and play stations.
    Later still, they’d lay in wait for another unsuspecting citizen;
    sure, I’d try publishing an account of it in The Advocate
    which, bound to the local Chamber of Commerce,
    would evidently want no part of it.

    My blood coagulated in multiple droplets
    —dried dark purple in a large area upon the cement
    in the bright Louisiana sunshine
    there by the public library, by the city theater, there
    by the opera house in downtown Baton Rouge
    —no longer quite part of me. 

    In my past I’d seen similar splotched areas elsewhere,
    but only now did I fully realize what they meant
    for in them lay part of a man’s soul.

    …………………………………………………………………………………………
    N.B.: As a white professor at Grambling State University, an all black institution, the assault would leave me nevertheless paranoid and distrusting of black youth. Also, the lack of justice or even interest therein would leave me somewhat angry; for the cops, The Advocate (Baton Rouge), Wal-Mart, and credit card companies, I was a mere business statistic—a write-off. Needless to say, the literary journals in Louisiana (Southern Literary Journal, Turnrow, Louisiana Literature, New Orleans Review, Exquisite Corpse et al) were not interested in publishing this poem.
    ……………………………………
    G. Tod Slone, PhD (Université de Nantes, FR) aka P. Maudit,
    Founding Editor (1998)
    The American Dissident, a 501c3 Nonprofit Journal of Literature, Democracy, and Dissidence
    http://www.theamericandissident.org
    wwwtheamericandissidentorg.blogspot.com
    todslone@hotmail.com
    217 Commerce Rd.
    Barnstable, MA 02630

  2. As I read this story, my immediate thought was, “Who were the criminals?” and “What was their description?”
    As any real reporter knows, a good news story should provide answers to “What and Why and When And How And Where and Who.” But real reporting is dead, unfortunately. And we are left with only various forms of fake news, incomplete news, misleading news, lying news, and biased news.

    However, as an experienced reader who knows all the tricks of the trade, I can readily determine who the criminals were through ratiocination: they were young black criminals. How can I “jump” to that conclusion?

    Nearly all media today is leftist, so anti-news “political correctness” prevails. That means that had the criminals been White or Asian, that would have indeed been part of the story. Now, there also could logically be the possibility that the criminals were Muslims, as if that were true, such information would also be withheld. But we can safely rule out Muslims in this case by the nature of the attacks and the lack of weapons, such as guns or knives. So that tells us that black youths must have committed the crimes.

    Now, some may ask, “Why is it important to reveal the race or other characteristics of the criminals?” So I will tell you why. It’s important because if you fear to discuss the characteristics of the criminals, you cannot even begin to stop those criminals from carrying out crimes.

    To harken back to an era long ago when there was actually such a thing as real reporting, please enjoy this clip from the 1958 movie “Teacher’s Pet.” Just to set up the clip, I will tell you that Clark Cable is actually an experienced news editor, but, for various reasons, is posing as a journalism student at a class taught by Doris Day. It’s a fine movie, has a smart screenplay, and Gable and Day are terrific in it. I saw the entire movie on Netflix a couple of months ago, but I don’t know if it’s still available:

    1. PS, Doris Day was actually correct. The quotation is from Kipling, not Emerson.

  3. Following up on comments I made above, about the alleged declining murder rate per capita, whether we are actually safer, and whether or not the rate is actually going down because other factors are involved, here is something interesting:

    “The level of violence from assaults in America has risen dramatically over the past 40 to 50 years at the same time that guns have become more lethal and available,” Harris says. “But because of the vast improvements in the nation’s access to and quality of emergency medical care – particularly since the Vietnam War – the outcome of these assaults is far less likely to be lethal.”

    “People who would have ended up in morgues 20 years ago, are now simply treated and released by a hospital, often in a matter of a few days,” Harris says. “And people who would have faced the death penalty 20 years ago are now simply guilty of felonious assault, treated and released by prisons, often in a matter of a few years.”

    The research finds that overall lethality from criminal assault went down almost 70 percent from 1960-99, with annual declines of between 2.5 percent and 3 percent for firearm and knife assaults, and 3.5 percent and 4 percent a year for bodily and other assaults (such as poisoning or arson). The primary reason for the dropping lethality rate is a set of medical variables, the study says, including the development of 911 services, the rapid stabilization and transport of trauma victims by skilled EMTs, the nationwide proliferation of hospitals into non-urban areas, the development of specialized trauma centers, and county-wide membership within coordinated regional trauma systems.

    “Against a baseline of 1960, we estimate that without this technology, the U.S. would presently be experiencing 45,000 to 70,000 homicides a year instead of an actual 15,000 to 20,000,” say the researchers in the report.

    The research has implications for matters of national policy, Harris says. For example, when we study the impact of gun control legislation, the research suggests that what we really need to look at is how such legislation affects levels of gun violence, not simply changes in homicide rates. For another example, in debating the use of the death penalty in general, or perhaps even with respect to a particular case, the research suggests one should consider the availability and quality of emergency medical care – or its absence – as a critical factor in determining whether murder has occurred, he says.

    Harrisand the other researchers used data from several sources, including the FBI’s national Uniform Crime Report (UCR) which contains statistics dating from 1931. The data shows that in 1931, the murder rate was 8.2 per 100,000 people, but in 1998, that rate was 6.3 per 100,000 people, a drop of 25 percent. By comparison, the UCR data shows that the rate of aggravated assault was 700 percent higher than it was in 1931.

    https://www.umass.edu/newsoffice/article/research-finds-us-murder-rate-suppressed-improved-emergency-medical-response

    This is a 2002 article, and there is a pretty big difference between 45,000 and 70,000, sooo who knows how correct this is. But, it is interesting nonetheless.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. ” “But because of the vast improvements in the nation’s access to and quality of emergency medical care – particularly since the Vietnam War – the outcome of these assaults is far less likely to be lethal.””

      That is why looking at the stats for violent crimes is helpful. The incidents of violence that do not result in death (hence no crime report of homicide) do result in crime reports of assault and other violent crimes.

      The FBI stats on violent crime show clear decline in violent crime since (approximately) the early 1990’s after a long upward clime starting (again roughly) in the late 1960’s.

      Since the evidence tells us that violent crime has declined significantly since the 1990’s, it is hard to imagine how we are not in some sense of the word ‘safer’.

      Even the quoted statistics suggest we are safer. The quoted report states that without improved medical technology there might be as many as 70,000 homicides instead of 20,000. That is a ratio of 3.5 for projected deaths to actual deaths.

      Let me use NYC as an example. In the peak year of 1992, homicides in NYC were approximately 2200. By approximately 2012 homicides in NYC had decline to approximately 400 a ration of 5.5. Yet the stated medical improvements can only account for a ratio of 3.5 – clearly there has been a decline in attempts – at least in NYC.

      Now these are just ball park numbers. If we really wanted to use the data from the quoted article to estimate the numbers of potential homicides that were saved by medical technology we would have to try to adjust for factors such as population growth.

      But still, I think the numbers of homicides from NYC raise significant questions for the claim that medical technology mostly accounts huge decline in homicides.

      Simply state, the decline in homicides has been greater than can be accounted for my improvements in medical technology saving lives.

      1. You might be right. But I am not sure. Because the numbers don’t tell the whole story.

        Assume for a minute that we are Baltimore, in 2014. There are about 211 murders this year, and in 1993 there were over 350 murders. Sooo, we presume that we are “safer.” Then, one year passes and it is 2015, and we are back to 344 murders, or the highest per capita on record. The year 2016 comes in at 301, the second highest on record per capita. 2017 is starting out with a bang, and the city is calling for Federal help.

        Now did anything change? Yes. The Baltimore Police backed off aggressive policing after everybody started b*tching when the miscreant Freddie Gray died. Why should the cops be aggressive? They risk being prosecuted when one of the savages gets killed by them, or dies.

        So, if we were thinking we were safer in 2014, were we really safer, or was it is only because the cops were aggressively policing the criminals. You see, the underlying criminality was never gone. It was just sleeping, and as soon as the brakes were off, it roared back to life.

        That is why I don’t really feel “safer.” If we are “safer”, it is only in the context of better medicine, better police tactics, more incarceration, and better police strategies, etc.. And all those factors can change in a minute. It is like “safety” is kind of a veneer, but the underlying criminal savagery is growing worse, and when it busts thru the veneer, it will be Katie Bar The Door.

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

        *http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/crime/bal-baltimore-homicides-by-year-20161202-htmlstory.html

        1. “So, if we were thinking we were safer in 2014, were we really safer, or was it is only because the cops were aggressively policing the criminals. ”

          The statement seems confused to me. We are safer for many reasons that drive the crime rate down including officers aggressively policing the criminals.

          Your question seems to assume that safer means that in some way the risks and causes of crime have disappeared. If all the criminals were magically transformed to priests then, yes, we would be safer.

          But I think that meaning of ‘safer’ is too restrictive. We make ourselves safer by taking steps to minimize the incidents of crime – including, but not limited to, door locks, burglar alarms, security patrols, aggressive policing, better education, more jobs, etc etc.

          It seems to me the plain meaning of ‘safer’ is that for some reason there are fewer incidents of crime in a given time period.

          But yes, in the past few years there have been increases in many cities. However we are no where the number of crimes committed in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s.

          In a particular city are we safer than in 2013 – maybe not. But in almost every jurisdiction in the country we are much safer now than in the early 1990’s.

          1. I have maybe thought of a better way to express my thoughts. Let’s take people and lions and tigers and bears. OK, sooo I don’t feel safe around lions and tigers and bears. They will kill me and eat me.

            But what if I am in a zoo. Do I feel safer? Yes. Because the lions and tigers and bears are behind bars. But does that mean that lions and tigers and bears are no longer a danger, and that they will not kill me and eat me?

            No. I might say that I am safer in a zoo, and statistics might prove less humans are eaten in a zoo, than in a jungle. But it doesn’t really mean that lions and tigers and bears are now “safe” to be around. This situation could change in an instant if I fall into a cage, or if the critters escape.

            The apparent “safety” is only a real safety as long as the zoo environment is maintained. If I just look at the statistics, then I may fall into a false sense of security. gee, only ten people got eaten by carnivores last year! But the underlying dynamic of large carnivores and people isn’t changed.

            The same with the criminal element. And even more so, because there the constraints are less secure than a zoo enclosure. And, any “safety” is contingent upon those other factors. Plus, I think some of these people are becoming more savage with time, not less savage.

            Plus, we have people now who are calling for less incarceration, and less policing of criminals.

            Sooo, with that in mind, do my concerns about “safety” make more sense?

            Squeeky Fromm
            Girl Reporter

            1. ” And, any “safety” is contingent upon those other factors. ”

              Thanks for your remarks.

              I think you remarks fit pretty well with my previous comment that there are really two questions.

              The first has to do with are we safer in the sense that crime rates are lower – for what ever reason.

              The second, that you seem to be addressing, is whether safety is due to better protection, the walls and bars of the zoo, or is the safety doe to social changes, the lions lying down with the lambs.

              Again, just for clarification, I think that many forces are at work including smarter policing and social changes. There must be more than a dozen hypotheses why the crime rate has declined including (my recollection) abortion, reduced lead in the environment, increased job opportunity, the waning crack epidemic.

              But, you have hit on a point. As much as the streets have improved in most cities, we can all be grateful for the efforts of Law Enforcement – even if we do question some incidents each year. Certainly most communities would be much less safe without their efforts.

        2. It seems to me that our discussion is really about two very different questions.

          The first has to do with safety. I claim that since the late 1980’s most jurisdictions are much safer.

          The question you seem to be addressing has to do with why that change occurred – are we safer because there are fewer people resorting to criminal activity, or are we safer because of more or smarter policing.

          That seems to be a much more difficult question to answer. I suspect but do not know that both smarter policing and changes on social conditions have played a role in reducing the incidence of violent crime.

    2. Again, Squeaky, the frequency of aggravated assault has declined nationally by 45% and in DC by 50% in the last 25 years. This is not a function of improvements in emergency medical care.

      1. Let me try putting it this way. The “we’re safer” thing is usually put forth as “OVER TIME the assault rate has decreased” or “OVER TIME the murder rate per capita has decreased” THEREFORE we are safer.

        I think that sort of puts the operative factor as TIME. Like some form of radioactive half-life. But I don’t think that is what it is at all. I think it is many factors, that pretty much have zippo to do with time, with perhaps the sole exception being the aging of the population. Factors that can change in a short period.

        I don’t think we are “safer” just because time has passed, and the numbers have gone down. There is something more there that a simple analysis of crime rates on one axis and time on the other axis. Sooo much, that I don’t particularly feel any safer, in spite of the numbers.

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

    1. Thanks.

      A truly chilling scene that, if anything, is even more memorable than Gene Kelly.

  7. Major kudos to this courageous young man! Chinatown has always been a bit sketchy area – but 6:00 PM?? Scary indeed!

  8. Finally! We have a role model instead of more people either standing by taking video or jeering.

    What a brave man who did the right thing, whose actions spoke louder than his words. This is what a good man is supposed to look like, and those teens are examples of what’s wrong with our society today.

    His family, friends, and the university must be very proud of him.

    1. Instead it goes like this…

      Hey….hey you…hey you boys. Stop that right now! Leave that man alone.

      ….Or what?

      You leave him alone…or..or… I …I will spay you.

      ….Whit what white boy?

      With my gallon spray jug of
      “Juice de Azure”.

      …..huh….wut dat is?

      ROUNDUP! Self defense spray. It’s bad stuff too.

  10. From the accompanying article: ““Nobody stopped,” Rowley said. “Nobody except one person stopped, and that’s this guy right here.”
    *****************************
    Nice to be reminded sometimes that ours is an honorable profession most of the time.

  11. Let the market handle this problem. Disband the police forces and encourage everyone purchase private security details. Those who can’t afford it can travel together. Next problem?

    1. The world is shot through with liberals who think only on the level of caricature along with a small population of Murray Rothbard acolytes who are caricatures. I take it you’re the former.

  12. Kudos to the young man and to JT for giving us a positive story.

      1. Steve, I’ve always liked to see and read about school mascots. Besides being hot in those outfits, it’s usually an easy job. An exception is the St. Joseph University Hawk. I used to go to Big 5 b-ball games @ the Palestra on the Penn campus. I learned, and saw, the St Joe Hawk must flap his wings w/o stopping for the entire game. I’m sure he hates OT.

        1. Nick – the Sun Devils Sparky does push-ups after every score. In the Frank Kush days they would roll up scores in the 60s. Sparky really got a workout. 🙂

          1. Paul, And I bet Kush would get on the mascot if the pushups were not done properly.

    1. Dingdingdingding!!!

      And here’s this morning’s winner!!!

      All together now… ‘Da Libruls! Da Libruls! Da Libruls!’

      Someone hand the microphone to Elise… she went first, although a couple of comments upthread could qualify…

      Okay, Elise… you get to set the tempo…

      ‘Da Libruls! Da Libruls! Da Libruls! Da Libruls! Da Libruls! Da Libruls! Da Libruls! Da Libruls! Da Libruls!’

      And will someone PLEASE open. a. window… the smell in here’s enough to gag a maggot…

    2. The demographics of greater Washington being what they are, it’s a reasonable wager that somewhat north of 80% of all perpetrators are black or Central American. The thing is, their victims are likely to be…black or Central American. This is especially so with regard to homicide. About half the land area of DC is occupied by a zone wherein the homicide rate is 1/10th the other half. Alexandria, Va., just outside the district has 2 or 3 homicides a year in a population of 150,000. Further work towards restoring a measure of order will have to be dedicated to quelling violence in slums and sketchy neighborhoods adjacent. Cleo Jefferson, 56 year old postal worker, is a much more likely recipient of this sort of treatment than a white lawyer.

  14. Subways and buses: We need video camera which will cover each car and all the waiting areas. We need cops on the beat– ready to beat. Assailants need to be thrown on the tracks in front of oncoming trains. Bums need to be thrown off the trains at the next stop. No ticky no washy.

  15. Miller is a man’s man, and acted without hesitation when many turned a blind eye, not knowing if the assailants were armed and vastly outnumbered.Does metro not have the funding for better surveillance and security? Perhaps they’ve blown the budget on catching up on maintenance given the train crashes etc

      1. The personal income per capita in DC is 152% of national means. They don’t need federal funding of local public works. What they need is a disciplined municipal workforce.

      1. The homicide rate in DC in the last 7 years has bounced around a set point of 17 per 100,000, about what it was in 1966. During the period which post-dated the ‘Long Hot Summers’ but antedated crack cocaine (1970-85), the homicide rate in a given year was typically 30 per 100,000. During the crack epidemic and the last years of the misbegotten era of Marion Barry (1986-98), it bounced around 70 per 100,000. DC is dramatically safer than it was 25 years ago and Prince George’s County is safer as well. There’s more work to be done, to be sure. (Given the demographics of DC and Prince George’s County, homicide rates of 8 or 9 per 100,000 are a realistic goal; they’re not there yet).

        1. Do you have any statistics for gang attacks? That’s the topic here, not homicides. “Safety” does not mean being safe from murder only.

          1. The robbery rate over the period running from 1986 to 1998 bounced around 1,215 per 100,000; aggravated assault, 1,160 per 100,000; forcible rape, 41 per 100,000. The rates over the period 2009-15 were 640 per 100,000, 565 per 100,000, and 37 per 100,000, respectively.

            Social media makes it simple to put together flash-mobs, so you see more of that. However, the District as a whole is still safer.

            1. No. It isn’t necessarily safer. You can make any case with statistics, and a lot depends on how you spin the results. For example, with reference to this chart, I could say Murders have Doubled in DC, 2015 over 2013!

              http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm

              What statistics can say, is that there are less murder DEATHS per capita, but that isn’t the same thing as saying something is necessarily “safer.” For example, we might only be seeing what APPEARS to be “safer” because Emergency Rooms and Trauma Centers are better at saving gunshot victims, or stabbing victims, or baseball bat victims than they used to be. Now, big cities are geared up to respond to the various victims of these attacks.

              It would be like saying war is safer, because less soldiers die as a percentage, but the truth might be that we just have better medical responses on the battlefield, and can use helicopters to get the wounded to a hospital faster.

              I think that is an important distinction to make.

              Squeeky Fromm
              Girl Reporter

              1. What about “The Knockout Game,” or “Polar Bearing,” or the same thing by any other name, where blacks consider it a game to viciously assault whites, including the elderly, simply because they are white? The fact is, D.C. crime is high because of the demographics, and also because there are little to no consequences for the assailants. An extremely liberal court system means that these feral thugs are facing no more than “counseling,” and have undoubtedly already been released to their crack head mothers.

                1. What about it? Aggravated assault is less common than it was 25 years nationally and less common in DC. The situation could be better, but it has been worse. This is what several remarking on this subthread simply refuse to acknowledge.

                  Violent crime rates in DC are about normal for a core city. It’s mostly intramural within the black population.

                2. TIN is exactly right. It is also called a “wolfpack attack’. I’ve lived in DC and been riding the Metro without incident for 20 years, but it is not the same today with the rise in these kinds of random attacks taking place during peak rush hour in crowded Metro stations. This guy is a true hero. The people who put their heads down and keep moving better hope there is someone like Mr. Miller around if they ever find themselves in need of help from a stranger.

              2. No. It isn’t necessarily safer. You can make any case with statistics, and a lot depends on how you spin the results.

                Yes, it is safer. I’m presenting perfectly ordinary descriptive statistics on the frequency of violent crime. That the data contradict your worldview is your problem. The reality is what it is.

            2. Credit where credit is due. Interesting stats. I am going to guess you got them form the FBI’s uniform crime statistics.

              Help me remember? Doesn’t the FBI summarize violent crime reports. So if we wanted a proxy to give us an idea whether the streets were safer we could look at the summary for all violent crimes reported.

              My recollection is that the trends for homicide and violent crime track each other pretty well.

              Speaking broadly, we could use the homicide rate to give us an idea of what is going on with violent crime, and the incidence of violent crime is an indicator of street safety.

              There has been an uptick in the past couple of years in may cities. But it is hard (for me at least) to argue that there has not been a significant reduction in homicide and violent crime since the early1990’s.

              On a tangent and unrelated to this thresd, that reduction in violent crime is one reason why I question the efficacy of ‘stop and frisk’ policies. ‘Stop and frisk’ occurred in only a few cities. Yet the decline in violent crime occurred all across the nation large metropolitan areas and small towns. That ought to raise the question what, exactly, did ‘stop and frisk’ accomplish.

              In any case, a nice and interesting set of numbers.

              1. The Uniform Crime Reports and the social survey research by the Bureau of Justice Statistics tell the same story regarding the trajectory of violent crime over the last generation.

          1. Two different communities, two different situations. Your point is what?

      2. Just to point out that in 2 of the 36 homicides recorded in DC since the beginning of the year were the victims white anglo. Regarding a third, the race was unspecified in news reports and not manifest from location. One of these three was a vagrant beaten to death at a transit station and another was a man who got into a fist fight with a construction worker on a road crew. Homicide victims who resemble this professor are pretty unusual in this day and age in metropolitan Washington.

        1. Again, maybe it is not that it is “safer”, but that more white people are now smarter, and know enough to stay out of the dangerous black areas. Or, maybe things are “safer” because of “mass incarceration”, and that will change if there is “mass un-carceration.” Or, maybe that the police are better at guarding the civilized areas from the uncivilized black hordes.

          I agree that it is very tempting to say, “safer” – – – but I am not at all sure that we are “safer” nowadays. And I would caution against people letting their guards down. Get a gun. get a concealed permit if necessary. Learn to use the gun. Get an assault rifle with a 30 round magazine, and plenty of ammo. I recommend an AK-47!

          Because if we falsely think we are safer, and then we end up in another Great Depression, I do not think that things are going to be “nicer” than what happened in the 1930’s. If the blacks, as a group, are as savagely violent as they are when they have food stamps and housing vouchers, then what the heck are they going to be like without those things?

          Squeeky Fromm
          Girl Reporter

          1. Again, maybe it is not that it is “safer”, but that more white people are now smarter, and know enough to stay out of the dangerous black areas.

            If you fancy suburban residents were sashaying down the main drag of slum neighborhoods in 1970, you’re stupid.

            The peak homicide rate in 1992 was 80 per 100,000. It has fallen nearly 80% since then. The District is safer. You’re not understanding that due to innumeracy.

  19. Bless this young man and prayers for the injured attorney. This violence needs to STOP! It’s becoming the norm which makes me sick!

  20. I wish him a swift recovery and thanks for looking out for someone else. 🙂

Comments are closed.