Authorities have arrested the man suspected of killing of Baltimore tech entrepreneur Pava LaPere, a U.S. Marshal confirmed, as police announced plans to reveal details of the capture following a major manhunt.
Baltimore police said they planned to announce the “arrest of murder suspect Jason Billingsley” in a news conference at 11 a.m. ET Thursday. No further details were released and police did not immediately respond to requests for comment from NBC News early Thursday.
Deputy U.S. Marshal Albert Maresca Jr. confirmed Billingsley’s arrest to Baltimore-based NBC affiliate WBAL-TV. He said the suspect, who is 32, was apprehended at a train station in Bowie, Maryland.
We need to be far more harsh on crime. Most good natured people aren’t accidentally finding themselves the subject of police intervention.
Unfortunately we have strong laws on this already, this is a root cause problem.
Letting people out/off early is a problem. From what I understand, Illinois has eliminated cash bail, which has made crime way worse.
Edit: This site has a huge problem with people being loud about things they know nothing about. I know people who live in Chicago who are an active part of their community and crime has gone up insanely. There are a bunch of emergency meetings about the significant increase in armed robbery and carjackings. Apparently to people on this site, the comfort and feelings of criminals matter more than innocent people who are just trying to get by in their own community.
This obsession with being soft on criminals is so backwards and fucked up. Anyone who defends this is delusional and a threat to a safe society.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/chicagos-crime-problem-is-about-to-get-worse
Oh for Christ’s sake. You need to educate yourself. The Illinois law took effect 10 days ago. Crime metrics for that period aren’t even available yet. You’re just making shit up, and not even convincingly. You can be better than this.
https://www.aclu.org/news/criminal-law-reform/the-illinois-supreme-court-cash-bail-ruling-explained
Educate people who live there and are affected by it? They are living it everyday, sir.
You saw an uptick in crime from people being released without bail last week? Shenanigans. I call shenanigans.
Yes. There are what the citizens are referring to as “armed caravans” driving around and assaulting pedestrians. Police officers have since stopped trying as hard since there are people filing lawsuits against the police, and it’s also dangerous for them to be putting violent criminals away who will be out on the street within hours.
If you were a police officer tasked with chasing down and arresting violent criminals, would you risk your life for someone who was going to be released in several hours?
You mean the ones that started in January?
https://www.fox32chicago.com/news/group-canvassing-chicago-caravan-stolen-vehicles-armed-robberies-carjackings
Show me where it’s worse this week.
Buddy, my friends and family live in Chicago. Statistics aren’t going to convince them one way or another.
Are you basing this on actual statistics, or Fox News speculation? Because there’s so much wrong in that statement I don’t know where to start
Fox News is a logical falacy scapegoat for people who wants to disqualify someone else’s opinion bc it doesn’t align with yours. Everyone tunes out “fascist” and “Fox news” when they hear it. Saying it doesn’t silence the opinions or make people’s whose opinions do not align with yours go away. Quite the opposite.
I think that qualifies as a “yes I drank it straight from the fake news pipe and didn’t do any independent research to figure out whether it was actually true”
DEMONRAT CITIES HAVE PROSECUTORS LINING UP TO FREE MURDERERS AND EVERYONE ON THE STREET IS BEING MUGGED AND DRUGGED ITS TIME FOR ALL PATRIOTS TO MOVE TO RED STATES AND ELECT FREEDOM LOVING TRUMP AND HIS HAMBERDER WALL
is how I read your comment
THEYR GONNA MAKE IT ILLEGAL TO LOVE JESUS AND BE STRAIGHT SOON AND THEN THEYRE GONNA PAY PEOPLE TO SHOOT STRIWFJT CHRISTIANS
This but unironically
Do you honestly think spending an extra 15 years surrounded by other violent criminals is going to reduce the chance of him re-offending?
Do you even know why people are being let out on parole early in the first place? It’s because we’ve been tougher on crime than any other wealthy nation in the world for the last 50 years, and now we have more prisoners than prison space.
Someone who tortures (including rape) or kills other people should not be allowed back into society, in my opinion. We can’t just continue to tell all the victims “Ah well, shit happens!”
That is a more specific stance than “all violent criminal” that op claimed. And if we had a perfect Justice system that could accurately determine guilt with absolute certainty, I would be more likely to agree with you.
However, our penal system has been utilized as weapon to oppression minority and political oppression for around 150 years now, and an indefinite sentence is simply a a worse slower execution.
I don’t care about them being rehabilitated. I care about keeping dangerous criminals off the streets.
If that’s you’re reasoning, why even bother locking them up? Why not argue to execute all criminals, if your only desire is too keep all those dangerous convicts out of society for as long as possible?
What is your plan on how to protect victims?
People disapprove of the death penalty because of the chance innocent men get killed. You can’t unkill someone. Thus the most logical solution is to contain them in a place where they can’t hurt anybody. You’re not calling out a contradiction, not everyone is a utilitarian. The purpose is to keep people on the street safe, how you deal with the criminal is secondary.
Might’ve taken this in good faith had I not checked your comment history to see you insisting all drag queens are a danger to children, so let’s just dress you down and block you real quick, mkay?
The point has been made in another reply to the initial comment that rehabilitation would still yield better results than incarceration for keeping the “people on the street” safe, as the only way incarceration is able to lower the number of “dangerous convicts” is by putting them in a cell for life. When rehabilitation is successful, the number of “dangerous criminals” can actually go down in a way that does not deprive those individuals from seeing trees for the rest of their lives.
Additionally, convicts absolutely can and do hurt people in prison, the people hurt just happen to be other convicts, not to mention the violence they often face from the people who run the place, who have a tendency to enter the field of incarceration with authoritarian personality types and the intent of mistreating or exploiting prisoners. All this disregarded, despite the fact that you acknowledge the possibility that some of those who end up in these facilities are innocents - the only category of person you are supposedly interested in protecting is not protected in these institutions as they currently exist.
There’s much more I could say about prisons to make this point, but what I’m saying is that prisons do not provide a neutral experience, they are not just people sitting in empty rooms experiencing nothing - they are places that generally leave people more damaged than when they came in, and often inflict that damage for years, in some cases for something as victimless as a marijuana charge. Thus, while rehabilitation has the potential to concretely improve society and the lives of people (y’know, the thing convicts are), incarceration as it currently exists can only hurt people and send them back out into society worse off than they were before. The only argument for it is to insist it is justified for doing so, by inventing a dynamic where “they,” strangers placed into prison, ALL present a danger to “us,” the “people on the street,” that they either cannot be fixed or we should not bother, and that whatever they get, they deserve. Maybe you can convince someone that’s true for a convicted rapist, but I think you’d have a harder time when it comes to victims of addiction, poverty, and/or an imperfect justice system.
What are your thoughts on how to actually prevent crime? What is your plan for the victims? What should happen with the people who have been tortured, raped or killed by the criminals you care so much about? What about the children, parents, friends, loved ones of the victims?
This is a lot of words that doesn’t say much to me tbh. It’s straight up dishonest to pretend like “rehabilitation” will somehow keep people on the street safer than, ya know, locking up violent criminals where there literally isn’t a chance of them getting anyone. I’m talking about violent criminals and you go off on “what about people who got arrested for weed”
Can you please point to me where I said that? I said no such thing.
Going through someone’s post history is admitting defeat. No one is going to read a paragraph of illogical nonsense about defending criminals.
Get a job.
The best way to keep dangerous criminals off the street is to rehabilitate the criminals… Or better yet, remove the economic environmental conditions that drive people to crime in the first place.
What’s your alternative? Are we just throwing anybody who gets in a bar fight in prison for the rest of their lives?
If your idea of “justice” worked America would already be the safest place on earth. Despite America only making up around 4% of the population we house 20% of the global prison population . If you’re ideology actually made us safe, don’t you think it would have worked by now?
Which “economic environmental conditions” lead to rape?
Social instability, economic instability, lack of mental and physical healthcare, and a historic lack of agency for women.
No, but how about we don’t let the violent rapist, who diddn’t even serve 2/3 of his sentence and who clearly hasn’t been reformed out into society?
Okay so you don’t want all violent criminals to go to jail for long periods… just this one? How do you tell a bad guy, from a real bad guy…?
I do want violent criminals to go to jail for a long time.
Can you point out where I stated otherwise?
The fact that they rape and assault people usually helps in identifying them.
Dumbest comment I’ve read today.
It doesn’t follow your narrative, of course you’re butthurt by it. Dunno why it’s so popular to defend criminals nowadays but definitely shows the flawed mentality that’s so pervasive
What narrative? The entire idea of a rehabilitation based penal system has been native to the American justice system since we built our first prison.
Your narrative is a modern neocon revision of historical fact. It doesn’t follow a logic, it’s just an attempt to utilize the power of the state against anyone you hold prejudice against.
No one is defending individual criminals, were defending the American people. When you strip the rights away from fellow americans, you are stripping away your own rights.
Let’s say hypothetically you pass a bill that throws dangerous criminals away forever. What stops you from being labeled a dangerous criminal?
Says the boy who thinks that keeping people in prison longer makes them less dangerous…
Bro, you’re defending criminals. I’m not having a discussion with you because there’s none to be had. Just by defending criminals you tell me all I need to know about your opinions.
Lol, and you’re promoting endless incarceration… something unequivocally worse then defending criminal.
Your not having a discussion because you don’t have any original thoughts on the subject. You’re just regurgitating fascist propaganda.
I’m defending being a citizen who does not engage in violence, theft or crime in general. I absolutely think prioritizing those people’s needs should be prioritized over those who engage in those acts. Why is defending that class of citizen so bad?
Sorry man, defending the perpetrators of violent crimes is clearly more important the defending the victims. /s
Because a lot of the people here never were the victim of a crime and think they never will be. Crime is something that happens “to others”. Especially sex crimes like rape is something people here feel especially apologetic for. Those poor rapists… I wonder why that is.
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Cite literally anything that says that stricter penalties lead to a decrease in crime. Your intuition is not a valid source.
Nations with the strictest drug laws have the fewest users.
Same with nations that have laws against homosexuality. Fewer people are openly gay in them.
I know you want to live in your fantasy world where nobody is deterred by punishment, but that’s just not the world we live in.
It’s sad this needs to be explained to so many of you, but that’s what makes this a microcosm. The majority opinion here is not representative of the world as a whole, and in many times shouldn’t be.
Those nations may have people who are better at hiding their drug use or homosexuality, or more people repressing it, but that’s NOT a good thing.
They’re are crimes worth being more strict about, and crimes that shouldn’t even be crimes.
I’ll also note that being more strict about a given crime doesn’t necessarily mean just throwing them in a cell and throwing away the key. If the only response you have for someone doing something wrong is punishment, you aren’t actually going to make anything better for anyone.
Proper, and actually effective policies to deter most crimes (that are actually worth being crimes ) MUST include supporting education, public health, (both physical and mental), economic strength and balance, as well as supporting and rehabilitating those convicted of crimes, and researching the REAL factors that drive crime whether they be economic, environmental, or otherwise. For example, in the years since we stopped using leaded gas in cars, there has been a significant decrease in certain types of violent crime because we’re no longer poisoning our brains with lead. Countries with good sex education and safe, legal abortions also tend to see statistically noticable reductions in crime.
For example, after Portugal decriminalized drug use, side from the obvious reduction in drug related prison population, drug overdose deaths went down, and remain below EU average. And to this day Portugal has one of the lowest rates of drug use in the EU. So what’s the point of being’strict’ on the crime of drug use???
Money spent fighting the inequalities and injustices that lead to crimes is far more effective than money spent in punishment.
deleted by creator
Sorry, didn’t realize you’re unable to process any opposing viewpoint more complex than “Nuh-uh”.
Yep, just like Florida had the lowest covid rates in the country.
Oh, but that was because they stopped testing… hmm, but people not openly using drugs in countries that heavily criminalize them surely aren’t just doing them in secret.
Right?
Uhh, no. You’re trying to use an analogy to distract from the topic at hand. It’s not a 1:1 representation of the situation we’re talking about, but serves as a good tool to debate the accuracy of the analogy instead of the actual subject.
Do you disagree that: “Nations with the strictest drug laws have the fewest users” or “nations that have laws against homosexuality. Fewer people are openly gay in them.”
No need to bring florida into this, unless you’re relying on mental gymnastics. Hence my comment about fantasy worlds.
There’s every reason to bring the Florida example into this, Mr. Debatelord.
Covid rates went down in Florida because they stopped testing, not because they didn’t have covid.
Very relevant when trying to suggest that punitive action towards gay people/ drug users result in less of both. The answer is, no they don’t, they just hide. That does not make the punishment “effective”. What you’re saying is like saying that they’re punished so they just magically aren’t gay anymore lmao.
Sure buddy, whatever you say.
There was a Target that reported every theft in SF for a month. It doubled the crime stats for the city, so the city told them to stop reporting theft.
This is real life, not statistics. Eye witness and community member complaints.
By the time you get here with it, it’s just hearsay. Not sure why you’re expecting it to be compelling.