Vet Gave Exact Location of Vegas Shooter – Says Police Took Over an Hour to Respond

/0 Comments/in , , /by

The response time of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department during a recent mass shooting has been called into question by an Iraq War Veteran who claims he told police exactly where the suspect, Stephen Paddock, was firing on concertgoers, which was above his room in the Mandalay Bay casino.

Chris Bethel told reporters he was staying in a room just a few floors below Paddock and notified police to the mass murderer’s precise location. Now, Bethel is demanding an answer to the question as to why it took the LVMPD Swat team 1 hour and 12 minutes to penetrate Paddock’s room to neutralize the threat.

According to a timeline produced by the Daily Mail, the first reports of gunfire at the Route 91 Harvest Festival came in at 10:08 p.m. Bethel claimed he called the police to let them know from which floor and room the shooter was firing from. He is now miffed with incredulity that it took police 72 minutes to enter the room, only to find that Paddock had reportedly taken his life.

“It felt like it took them too long to get over there, to take him out…to get him. And it’s actually eating me up inside,” Bethel said.

Recognizing the types of weapons being used, and the presence of explosives, Bethel described what he heard:

I could just hear gunshots, continuously. Just full automatic,” Bethel said. “There were explosions going off. It was like a bomb just went off man. And then there were more gunshots.”

Bethel said he called the front desk to tell them where the shooter was firing from but no one answered the phone. All the while, he could hear the shooter changing calibers and weapons as well.

“Seconds are going by, minutes are going by, the rounds are continuously going,” Bethel said. “Changing weapons, changing calibers, you can hear the difference in the gunshots.”

He told reporters as he watched the police attempt to locate the shooter’s room, he noticed they were going in the wrong direction. Eventually, he was able to get someone on the phone to tell them, “He’s not over there. He’s over here!”

The first look into the officers’ view during the shooting was revealed after Body Camera footage was released on Tuesday, showing the sheer chaos and terror at the scene as they searched for the shooter.

According to the Daily Mail’s timeline, LVMPD admitted they knew of Paddock’s exact location at 10:24 p.m., but they delayed in storming the room and taking out the suspect. It was not until 11:21 p.m. that the SWAT team used explosives to blow their way into the room, only to find Paddock reportedly deceased from self-inflicted gunshot wounds. Bethel said he is filled with regret about the fact that it took LVMPD over an hour to get inside the room.

“I feel like I didn’t do enough,” he told CBS DFW. “I feel like I couldn’t get a hold of somebody quick enough to let them know. And it felt like it took them too long to get over there, to take him out.”

In all, 59 people were killed and 527 injured in the attack now known as the deadliest mass shooting in modern American history. But LVMPD has not always been so slow to respond to reports of armed and dangerous individuals.

In 2010, LVMPD officers were called to the Costco in Sumerlin because concealed carry permit holder and West Point graduate Erik Scott had been seen carrying a concealed handgun in his waistband. It took LVMPD less than 15 minutes from when they received the call from Costco security until they arrived on scene.

After they confronted Scott at the entrance to the Costco, they shot and killed the man many said was attempting to comply with their commands. Not only was he not brandishing a weapon and not firing upon innocent shoppers, but he had his arms raised above his head when he was struck by officers’ bullets with one piercing his heart.

The fact that the LVMPD was so quick to respond to the call to a local warehouse club where a man was threatening no one and yet, were so slow to take action while an active shooter was mowing down hundreds of partygoers, has not gone unnoticed.

While the gun grabbers are quick to push their unconstitutional initiatives to take away the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms, some criticism should be reserved for a police department that arguably dragged its feet. According to Bethel, they could have truly saved lives by responding much sooner and taking action immediately after they were given the location where Paddock was firing from.

(For more from the author of “Vet Gave Exact Location of Vegas Shooter – Says Police Took Over an Hour to Respond” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Antifa’s Next Target? America’s Police

/0 Comments/in , /by

The left-wing extremist group known as antifa is gearing up for insurrection. And the primary target may be America’s already beleaguered police force.

A special report from WND reveals a number of antifa groups have begun explicitly targeting police departments on the grounds the thin blue line is composed of “oppressors.”

Among the most militant is the Revolutionary Abolitionist Movement, or RAM, a new group whose activities have been widely covered by the antifa information hub It’s Going Down.

RAM most recently drew headlines when it announced plans to deface and destroy more historical monuments on Oct. 9 as part of an upcoming “Deface Columbus Day.” However, a closer look at the group reveals a far more ambitious and radical agenda.

The group’s program draws inspiration from convicted cop-killer Mumia Abu Jamal, who murdered Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner in December 1981. RAM claims “essentially, the Civil War never ended” and suggests slavery still exists. (Read more from “Antifa’s Next Target? America’s Police” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

San Juan Mayor Feuding With Trump Turned Her Back When Asked to Swear to Uphold the Constitution

/0 Comments/in , , /by

A 2013 video shows the mayor of San Juan, Puerto Rico, turning her back when asked to swear to uphold the Constitution.

On Saturday, President Donald Trump called out Carmen Yulín Cruz, the mayor, for her “poor leadership ability” in a tweet. The day prior, Cruz had been critical, saying, “If anybody out there is listening to us, we are dying, and you are killing us with the inefficiency.”

Cruz first became mayor of San Juan, the capital of Puerto Rico, in 2013. When taking the oath of office, Cruz delayed repeating the words that she would “uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States,” turning her back to the woman administering the oath for a long moment.

The English and Spanish versions of the oath read as follows:

I, Carmen Yulin Cruz Soto, as mayor of San Juan, solemnly swear that I shall uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution and Laws of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico against any domestic or foreign enemy; that I will render fidelity and adherence to them; and that I assume this obligation freely and without mental reserve or purpose to evade it; and that I will perform well and faithfully the duties of the position or employment that I am about to exercise. So help me God.

Yo, Carmen Yulin Cruz Soto, como alcaldesa de San Juan juro solemnemente que mantendré y defenderé la Constitución de los Estados Unidos y la Constitución y las Leyes del Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico contra todo enemigo interior o exterior; que prestaré fidelidad y adhesión a las mismas; y que asumo esta obligación libremente y sin reserva mental ni propósito de evadirla; y que desempeñaré bien y fielmente los deberes del cargo o empleo que estoy próximo a ejercer. Así me ayude Dios.

Article VI, Section 16 of Puerto Rico’s Constitution states, “All public officials and employees of the Commonwealth, its agencies, instrumentalities and political subdivisions, before entering upon their respective duties, shall take an oath to support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution and laws of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.”

After turning her back and pausing, Cruz does swear to defend the Constitution, and then enthusiastically repeats to uphold the Puerto Rican Constitution.

“During June of this year, when the leading newspaper in Puerto Rico polled people on the island about her performance as mayor, she had an abysmal 24 percent approval rating,” says Ken Oliver-Méndez, former assistant secretary of state of Puerto Rico.

“She is known for maligning and stoking sentiment against the United States, and people know that if it were up to her, Puerto Rico would not even be part of the United States. She has said on record that in her party, there is no room for people who believe in the permanent union of Puerto Rico and the United States,” Oliver-Méndez, director of Media Research Center Latino, added. Oliver-Méndez, who previously headed the speechwriting team of former Puerto Rico Gov. Luis Fortuño, unearthed the 2013 video.

Cruz called Trump’s visit to Puerto Rico to survey the damage of Hurricane Maria “insulting,” Politico reported.

“This was a PR, 17-minute meeting,” Cruz said. “There was no exchange with anybody, with none of the mayors. And in fact, this terrible and abominable view of him throwing paper towels and throwing provisions at people, it really—it does not embody the spirit of the American nation, you know?”

On Twitter, Trump defended his stance of the visit to Puerto Rico.

The Daily Signal requested comment from the San Juan City Hall and the office of Rep. Jenniffer González-Colón of the New Progressive Party. González-Colón is Puerto Rico’s only representative in Congress. (For more from the author of “San Juan Mayor Feuding With Trump Turned Her Back When Asked to Swear to Uphold the Constitution” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Failure to Adequately Fund Our Military Puts America at Risk

/0 Comments/in , /by

Arguably the federal government’s first obligation to Americans is to keep us safe from foreign attack and to defend our vital national interests wherever they are threatened.

Alarmingly, our government is on the verge of failing in this core responsibility. Our military is minimally ready, rapidly aging, and has so shrunk in size that even senior military leaders question its ability to adequately meet its national security obligations.

This is a disservice to Americans in general and, most especially, to those who are tasked with carrying out the duty of protecting our nation.

Two weeks ago, voicing his concerns about the military’s condition and the impact that restricted funding is having on America’s security, Secretary of Defense James Mattis was quite blunt:

[N]othing has done more damage to the readiness of our armed forces than the continuing resolutions that stop us from taking initiative, than the lack of budgetary predictability. … I bring this up because if we don’t get budgetary predictability, if we don’t remove the defense caps, then we’re questioning whether or not America has the ability to survive. It’s that simple.

Gen. Daniel B. Allyn, until recently the vice chief of staff of the Army, has testified that only “one-third of our BCTs [brigade combat teams], one-fourth of our combat aviation brigades, and half of our division headquarters” are considered ready.

Currently, of the Army’s 31 brigade combat teams only three would be available to immediately deploy to a conflict.

The Air Force is 24 percent short of the fighters it needs, and is short 1,000 pilots and over 3,000 maintainers. Only four of its 32 combat-coded squadrons are ready to execute all wartime missions.

Prior to 1991, the Air Force purchased more than 500 aircraft a year to offset platforms aging out of its inventory. Since then, it has averaged fewer than 100 per year.

The Marine Corps “is insufficiently manned, trained, and equipped across the depth of the force to operate in an ever-evolving operational environment,” according to Gen. Glenn Walters, assistant commandant of the Marine Corps. This past December, the Corps reported that less than half of its aviation platforms were considered flyable.

As for our Navy, well, it has two-thirds the ships it did near the end of the Cold War, its battle fleet being the smallest since before World War I. The recent set of ship collisions in the Western Pacific imply severe problems in basic ship-handling skills.

How is it possible that the military that won World War II and successfully kept World War III from happening—achieving peace through strength—has decayed to such a point, even while it has sustained operations for 16 years in distant theaters?

Notably, because our government has failed to recognize the difference between its obligation to “provide for the common defense” and its desire to squander taxpayer dollars on “projects of choice” rather than of necessity or responsibility.

The government has failed, and continues to fail in allocating resources commensurate with America’s security interests.

Through our Index of U.S. Military Strength, The Heritage Foundation has committed to informing our citizenry and government about the status of threats to America and the ability of our military to successfully defend our country when called upon to do so.

Threats are growing at the same time that our military is in decline. Unless this imbalance is corrected, and soon, Mattis’ fear may be realized. (For more from the author of “Failure to Adequately Fund Our Military Puts America at Risk” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Hey, Jimmy Kimmel: Here’s What the Founders Really Thought About Guns

/0 Comments/in , /by

With Jon Stewart off the air, it seems the left has found a new progressive comedian it can look to for all the big cultural and public policy debates.

After spending September lobbying on air to keep Obamacare, Jimmy Kimmel went on a rant this week on the “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” TV show about the horrific mass shooting that took place in Las Vegas on Sunday. He made a fairly sweeping attack on widespread gun ownership in America and generally suggested that gun control will fix the problem of gun violence.

Statistics show gun control has little impact on decreasing crime and violence, but Kimmel chose to make his case by making jokes, saying “our forefathers wanted us to have AK-47s is the argument, I assume.”

Kimmel is suggesting that the Founders didn’t understand modern technology, and therefore, arguments about why they set out to defend gun rights in the Bill of Rights don’t apply to today.

That is, of course, a straw man argument.

The Founders did not design the Constitution so that it would only be applicable in their own day. The rights they aimed to protect weren’t tied to a specific time or era, but were timeless and universal.

A ‘Primary Law of Nature’

The Second Amendment was not made up out of thin air. The Founders saw it as a legal expression of a citizen’s natural right to self-defense and preservation, and his ability to resist governmental tyranny.

William Blackstone, a legal theorist who had an enormous influence on the Founders, wrote, “Self-defense … as it is justly called the primary law of nature, so it is not, neither can it be in fact, taken away by the law of society.”

Self-defense is among the “God-given rights” that the Declaration of Independence refers to.

These principles are grounded in Western tradition and are at the cornerstone of our civilization—though they are increasingly dismissed as radical and “fundamentalist” by some in the modern media.

If one believes “rights” come from government, not God or nature, it is easy to see why those like Kimmel believe this ever-evolving set of rights simply needs to be legally updated from time to time.

But this is not how the Founders thought, nor is it what they conceived when they decided to protect the blessings of liberty for themselves or their posterity.

While the right to self-defense and the Second Amendment were eroded in the 20th century, new scholarship has recovered the Founders’ ideas. As George Mason University professor Nelson Lund wrote for The Heritage Foundation:

… Commentators sought to establish that the Constitution does protect an individual right to have weapons for self-defense, including defense against criminal violence that the government cannot or will not prevent.

This logic of self-defense has been at the heart of recent Supreme Court rulings that have sided with the right to bear arms.

Though many Americans believe these rights are inviolable, the challenge still remains: Should we ignore the Founders, or perhaps even the idea of natural rights, simply because technology has changed so radically?

The Founders and AK-47s

In Federalist 46, Alexander Hamilton explained why the right to bear arms was so fundamental to preserving American liberty.

In Europe, governments typically didn’t “trust the people with arms.” However, their history was filled with examples of leaders and governments trampling on the rights of the people with impunity.

This is what the Founders desperately wanted to avoid.

An armed populace, the “militia” that the Second Amendment refers to, is an additional check on the power of government—a last resort for those who may be oppressed.

Hamilton made this argument in an era when the kind of weaponry available to citizens was in even closer parity to what was available to militaries and governments.

As National Review’s David French perfectly wrote:

The musket was the principal weapon of armed conflict in the 18th century. An American leaving his home with a musket was on par with a member of the Continental Line. Not so with an American who possesses any number of AR-15s or AK-47s. The contemporary gap between civilians and the military is vast and growing.

The advancement of weapon technology would not likely have surprised the Founders, who after all lived in an era of remarkable innovation. What would shock them is that government would have become so powerful and capable of depriving people of their liberty in the blink of an eye.

This is exactly what gun rights advocates fear and what they believe is behind the gun control movement.

Neither Safe, Nor Free

The facts of the Las Vegas massacre are still muddy, but it’s clear the shooter was not stopped by current gun laws heavily restricting automatic weapons—which he may have used—nor would proposed “common sense” laws like cracking down on suppressors have made a difference.

While gun control activists jump on every shooting incident to push their agenda, the facts and opinions of the American people remain hardened against them.

When the American people, for instance, heard former President Barack Obama praise Australia’s gun control laws, this led to the logical conclusion that the real end goal is confiscation.

After a mass shooting in 1996, Australia implemented widespread gun control and confiscation measures. The number of guns taken in these mandatory “buyback” programs is estimated to be around 650,000 to a million.

To create a similar policy to Australia, the U.S. government would have to pluck over 100 million firearms from American citizens.

In some ways, Australia-style confiscation is the only logical place for the gun control argument to end if the idea is to make sure nobody ever dies from firearm usage. That goal is folly.

It must be noted that in order to sweep in and confiscate weapons en masse, the government would be taking on precisely the kind of power the Founders feared and wanted to protect themselves and future generations against.

Statistics on guns and gun crime have demonstrated very little to show for gun control laws. And Americans are simply unwilling to surrender their God-given rights based on dubious claims that the government can make us perfectly safe from evil-doers.

In the end, large numbers of Americans believe increasingly stringent gun laws will make us neither safe nor free.

So while those on the left, like Kimmel, make passionate pleas for this country to “do something,” like pass gun control to stop violence, few besides the already-converted are going to buy it. (For more from the author of “Hey, Jimmy Kimmel: Here’s What the Founders Really Thought About Guns” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Airline Allegedly Fires Employee for Sharing ‘Offensive’ Pro-Life Message

/0 Comments/in , /by

A pro-life flight attendant is suing the airline she worked for and the union she belonged to after she was fired for raising concerns about their support for abortion.

Veteran stewardess Charlene Carter of Colorado is suing Dallas-based Southwest Airlines and her local Transport Workers Union of America for religious discrimination.

She has also filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

Carter had decried on Facebook her union’s “fees for its political, ideological, and other non-bargaining spending.” She used the social media platform as well as email in February to contact union president Audrey Stone, asking her to speak out against using dues for an all-expenses-paid trip of two dozen union leaders to the January pro-abortion Women’s March in Washington, D.C.

“As a result of my Facebook posts and messages that opposed abortion, and without prior warning that such activities violated its work rules, my employer fired me on March 14, 2017,” wrote Carter in a legal statement about her case. (Read more from “Airline Allegedly Fires Employee for Sharing ‘Offensive’ Pro-Life Message” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

‘Pro-life’ Congressman Allegedly Urges Mistress to Have Abortion – Messages Reveal He ‘Winced’ at His Former Pro-life Statements

/0 Comments/in , /by

The mistress of a Congressman who has previously identified as “pro-life” is claiming that he urged her to abort the child of their affair. The mistress claims that the Congressman related to her how he “winced” when staff sent out pro-life social media posts on his behalf.

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette revealed in an October 3 article that text messages between Rep. Tim Murphy, R-PA, and the woman with whom had an affair indicate that Murphy doesn’t privately agree with his public “pro-life” views.

“And you have zero issue posting your pro-life stance all over the place when you had no issue asking me to abort our unborn child just last week when we thought that was one of the options,” Murphy’s mistress, Shannon Edwards, wrote to him via text message on January 25, just days before the annual March for Life.

Apparently, Edwards had thought she was pregnant. It does not seem that she actually was.

“I get what you say about my March for life messages,” a text message response from Murphy’s phone, written by the Congressman, said. “I’ve never written them. Staff does them. I read them and winced. I told staff don’t write any more. I will.” (Read more from “‘Pro-life’ Congressman Allegedly Urges Mistress to Have Abortion – Messages Reveal He ‘Winced’ at His Former Pro-life Statements” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Las Vegas Survivor Calls Rush Limbaugh, Reveals What People Are Missing

/0 Comments/in , , /by

On his show Tuesday, conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh took a call from a man who said he attended the concert in Las Vegas that became the scene of the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history. The caller pointed out something many people have missed when discussing the tragedy.

The caller, who was identified as “Tim in Orange County, California,” said he attended the Route 91 Harvest Festival and witnessed good people coming together, not arguing over politics.

“Hey, I just want to let you know that I was at the concert over the weekend. I was there Friday, Saturday, and on Sunday. I was on ground close to Jason Aldean near a barrier, and I saw, you know, and felt the terrifying event. I’m shaken as I talk right now,” he said, according to Limbaugh’s website.

He continued: “But what I really wanted to say was, you know, to me it was good people that were there — black, white, Hispanic, Asian, you name it, good people enjoying a great time, great music. Not one time did I see somebody wearing a Trump hat. Not one time did I see anybody wearing a Trump shirt. We were just there having a good time.”

On Sunday night, suspected gunman Stephen Paddock, 64, opened fire from his hotel window on attendees of the country music festival.

The attack resulted in at least 59 deaths and more than 500 injuries.

“You said you were there when the shooting began, and you didn’t see any Make America Great hats, there’s nobody talking about Trump, nobody talking about politics. It’s just a bunch of people enjoying the event, the music, whatever was going on. Is that pretty much right?” Limbaugh asked.

After Tim said he didn’t see any hats or shirts that said “Make America Great Again,” Limbaugh argued that not everything in life has to be political.

Tim explained that people were simply having a good time up until the tragic shooting.

“These are husbands and wives and sons and daughters and little kids at this concert that were being, you know, victimized by this maniac, but it’s not about politics,” he said.

According to Tim, the brave police officers who ran toward the gunfire without any protective gear to save innocent people were a good example of what men and women in law enforcement are really like.

“You know who was running in? Four police officers without tactical gear with their handguns and their rifles. They were running towards it. They didn’t know where the threat was, they could have been anywhere,” Tim said. “So I think people should rethink their stance, those that are anti-law enforcement.”

“And these guys were there to give their lives, and a lot of people at that concert did the same thing,” he added. “They’re just good-hearted people.”

Limbaugh asked Tim what prompted his call, and why he felt it was important to tell people that politics weren’t involved in the moments leading up to and during the tragic shooting.

“You know, the last two days have been kind of a blur, you know, and lack of sleep and just dealing with what I witnessed. But I did read a couple of articles — I don’t remember exactly where, where I had heard somebody referencing country fans, I think it was a comedian or two referencing the country fans as being Trump supporters, so in a way it wasn’t that big of a deal or we deserved it,” Tim replied.

He was possibly referring to Hayley Geftman-Gold, a CBS vice president and top senior counsel, who was fired on Monday after commenting on Facebook that she was “not even sympathetic” to the victims of the shooting because country music fans are often Republicans.

“Something to that effect. And it really, really bothered me. You know, I happen to be a Trump fan, but you know what? I love America first. It has nothing to do with politics for me, man,” Tim added.

“These are good people who did not deserve to get shot or terrorized and killed,” he added. “Simple as that.” (For more from the author of “Las Vegas Survivor Calls Rush Limbaugh, Reveals What People Are Missing” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Democrats Unveil Legislation in Response to Las Vegas Shooting

/0 Comments/in , /by

With the nation still coming to grips with the emotional impact of the Las Vegas shooting, for which a motive has not yet been established, Senate Democrats have already begun filing legislation.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., introduced a bill on Wednesday that would ban bump stocks.

Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms special agent Jill Snyder said Tuesday night that gunman Stephen Paddock had 12 bump stocks in his room.

Bump stocks allow a gun owner to convert a semi-automatic weapon into a fully automatic one.

“There’s no better way to honor the 59 people who were slaughtered than to take action,” Feinstein said, according to The Daily Beast.

“There is no legitimate reason or excuse in recreation or hunting for a bump-stock device,” added Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn.

But Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., made it clear that instant legislating was not on his mind.

“I think it’s particularly inappropriate to politicize an event like this,” McConnell said Tuesday, according to ABC News. “The investigation’s not even been completed. And I think it’s premature to be discussing legislative solutions if there are any.”

“In the meantime, our priority is on tax reform, as my colleagues have indicated,” McConnell said.

Republicans did say, however, that the issue was worth discussing, because a bump stock allows for a legal end run of the ban on fully automatic weapons.

“I think it’d be a good time to have a hearing,” Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told NBC News. “Just find out, ‘How does the technology work?’ and is there a legislative solution?”

Sen. Dean Heller, R-Nev., said he wanted to talk to gun manufacturers about making legal weapons incapable of being modified to become automatic weapons.

“One of the concerns that I have is the ability to manipulate a semi-automatic rifle and turn it into a fully automatic rifle,” Heller said. “There has to be a way to be able to stop this.” (For more from the author of “Democrats Unveil Legislation in Response to Las Vegas Shooting” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Lifelong Criminal Who Assaulted Disabled Man Finally Brought to Justice

/0 Comments/in , /by

A lifelong Delaware criminal made headlines in May after surveillance footage from a Pennsylvania convenience store depicted him mocking and then assaulting a disabled man, went viral.

The incident reportedly reportedly occurred on May 10, when Barry R. Baker of Georgetown, Delaware, mocked a man with cerebral palsy outside a 7-Eleven store in West Chester.

Baker then proceeded to sucker punch the man.

The surveillance footage can be viewed here:

“This defendant is a bully,” Chester County District Attorney Tom Hogan reportedly said following Baker’s arrest. “Every decent citizen should be outraged by the defendant’s conduct. The victim is to be commended for keeping his cool and notifying the police.”

“The defendant’s actions in this case are appalling,” added West Chester police chief Scott Bohn. “You wonder what would make an individual treat somebody like that.”

Baker managed to obtain his freedom — for a while, anyway — by paying 10 percent of a $25,000 surety bond.

In the days following his release, however, additional warrants were issued for “violation of his probation on theft charges” and “failure to pay back child support,” according to Chester County’s Daily Local News.

Local authorities eventually captured him at a Chester County hotel in early June, though during a court hearing afterward he claimed he had voluntarily returned to the county to turn himself in.

“I came back last night,” he told Senior Judge Ronald Nagle. “I wanted to turn myself in today.”

As noted by the Local News, however, he “had no explanation as to why he had not registered under his own name at the hotel where he was found,” and as to why he “had a number of untraceable ‘burner’ phones in the room with him.”

Two months later Baker again made headlines when he claimed a corrections officer at the Chester County Prison had assaulted him.

“Here is some more news for you,” he wrote in a handwritten letter to the Daily Local News. “Sunday night around 11:30 p.m. I was attacked by a CO while housed on PC.”

Baker then disappeared from the limelight again until late September, when he finally pleaded guilty to the charges stemming from his encounter with the disabled man months earlier.

His attorney claimed at the time that he was sorry for his actions and simply wanted to move on with his life. (For more from the author of “Lifelong Criminal Who Assaulted Disabled Man Finally Brought to Justice” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.