On Wednesday, February 24, 2010, in Littleton, Colorado, a thirty two year old man went to the parking lot of a middle school, took out a bolt action hunting rifle, and began shooting at students. He wounded two children under the age of ten before he was tackled and subdued by a math teacher.
He was jailed on $1 million bail on “suspicion” of attempted murder.
A week prior to that, in the cash-strapped city of Durham, North Carolina, Crystal Mangum was involved in a domestic dispute with her boyfriend, when her daughter became concerned for her safety and dialed 9-1-1. According to police, Ms. Mangum threw punches and objects at her friend, in addition to scratching him. The boyfriend was not taken to the hospital for medical treatment.
She was jailed on $1 million bail on a “first degree” attempted murder charge.
In the Colorado case, investigators are trying to figure out why the gunman was exhibiting “bizarre behavior.”
In the North Carolina case, meantime, the bail was reduced to a mere $250,000.00, however, the judge informed Ms. Mangum that if she did manage to make bail, that she would be placed under house arrest.
Why the disparity in the two cases with the same initial $1 million bail? Bail and the criminal charge levied in Colorado case seems to be appropriate and tied to reality. The North Carolina case, on the other hand, is draconian in comparison to its charge and bail and has no link to reason or logic.
The reasons behind the despicable treatment of the North Carolina justice system against Ms. Mangum have their core roots in the Duke Lacrosse case. Judges, police, and prosecutors in Durham, either conscientiously or sub-conscientiously are following the carpetbagger jihad call to action. This is the equivalent of an order to destroy anything or anybody sympathetic or supportive of Mike Nifong… or anyone who dared cross the privileged Duke Lacrosse defendant sons of the carpetbagger families. When I expressed this in a recent blog, one commenter asked me what proof I had that the harsh treatment of Ms. Mangum was somehow related to the Duke Lacrosse case. I cannot offer the questioner any physical forensic proof to backup my beliefs about this issue… instead I turn to logic, reason, and common sense. As I stated in rebuttal, why else would the system lower the boom on someone involved in a domestic dispute… coincidence?
I then challenged my commenter to explain to me why he/she thought Ms. Mangum should be singled out for such excessive treatment. If someone can give me an explanation that is more convincing than my “carpetbagger jihad” premise, then I will gladly accept it.