Prosecutors in two counties where an illegal immigrant allegedly murdered four people are seeking the death penalty for his crimes. North Nevada was shaken by the string of murders until the alleged killer was apprehended by law enforcement in January.

Wilber Ernesto Martinez-Guzman, 20, was arrested January 19, 2019, by Washoe County Sheriff’s department and charged with multiple offenses while prosecutors and investigators worked on charging him for the four murders. They rarely invoke the death penalty but the severity and heinous nature of the crimes warrant capital punishment, according to prosecutors.

“We reserve the death penalty for the worst of the worst,” Washoe County District Attorney Chris Hicks said last Thursday. “We use it sparingly.”

The illegal immigrant from El Salvador is accused of shooting and killing Gerald David, 81, and his wife, Sharon, 80, in Reno and Connie Koontz, 56, and Sophia Renken, 74, in Gardnerville.

My Take

Just as traffic fines are doubled in construction zones, so too should penalties be increased when illegal immigrants commit crimes. His immigration status was not taken into account, but the crimes themselves were enough for prosecutors to seek the death penalty.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

Does it ever occur to the Left that depriving the people of the ability to defend themselves is exactly what the terrorists want?

Solving any type of problem begins with the proper determination of the cause of the problem. Mistakenly ascribing the wrong cause only serves to make the situation far worse because the wrong solutions are then applied.

The cause of the recent phenomena of mass murder attacks is a perverse desire for fame. This is why the miscreant in the recent tragedy in New Zealand posted a ‘manifesto’ and live streamed his horrific and cowardly actions. [Please note that we are not using his name or image]. This is also why he came out in favour of liberty [gun] control.

Rewarding behavior results in more of that behavior

Consider that the reprobates who perpetrate these attacks desperately want to make a name for themselves. Most people in this world want to do something positive to achieve fame. Some compete in athletic events, cure disease or work to solve societal problems. However, there are those who don’t have the ability or time to do this, so they decide to gain this by infamy instead. They choose to become infamous, shooting their way into the history books, with others helping them along the way by playing right into their hands with the notoriety by depriving others of their liberty.

They look at what mass murderers have done to achieve what they desperately crave. One way is to play into the hands of the Left looking to deprive the people of their right of self-defense. What better way to become infamous than to be the cause of a protracted battle over this fundamental human right?

Getting the reward of more media coverage by the cause of liberty [gun] control

The reprobate in the New Zealand attack made the entirely obvious point that many everyday items – including ordinary flour – can serve as explosives. As well as the fact that fuel mixtures can also be used for explosive or incendiary attacks, something the liberty grabber left doesn’t seem to understand is that these are also ‘weapons of war’. Alternatively there are other ordinary objects that can serve as weapons of mass murder ranging from blunt force, or edge weapons to vehicular attacks. He explicitly stated that he used firearms to attract more attention and have it be the cause of more leftist restrictions on freedom.

Even though they never discerned motive for the Las Vegas mass murder, court documents alluded to the idea that the reprobate in that crime had gun control as his cause celebre. Now in the case of the New Zealand attack, the miscreant was explicit about this in his rantings.

I chose firearms for the affect (sic) it would have on social discourse, the extra media coverage they would provide and the affect it could have on the politics of United states (sic) and thereby the political situation of the world. The US is torn into many factions by its second amendment, along state, social, cultural and, most importantly, racial lines.

[Our emphasis]
Note the words ‘the extra media coverage they would provide’ in reference to the use of firearms. It wasn’t just that he wanted the ‘media coverage’ from live streaming this horror with writing all over his weapons or posting a long screed where he claimed to be an ‘eco-fascist’ admiring Communist China. He wanted to have this abject horror show to be the cause of excessive media coverage resulting in the deprivation of everyone’s commonsense human and civil rights.

Most of these mass murderers don’t expect to survive these attacks, but they want to ‘live on’ in infamy by any means possible. Having the media cover their horrific crimes through their perennial hobbyhorse of gun confiscation means plenty of airtime trying to make the case for these freedom-ending measures.

Leftists don’t seem to understand that their much vaunted restrictions on liberty actually make it easier for these miscreants to carry out their horrific crimes. Most of these take place in ‘gun free’ zones because the victims cannot defend themselves, making everyone an easy target and upping the body count. Despite the denial of reality of the liberty grabbers, there have also been many cases of someone on the scene halting an attack, usually with a gun. Not to mention that these crimes are always stopped when armed authority arrives.

Should we encourage further attacks by giving the terrorists exactly what they want?

Studies have shown that the extensive coverage of these horrific crimes inspires further attacks. Thus, many have chosen to not publicize the crimes of these miscreants, granting them the infamy they crave. Shouldn’t we also apply the same rule to the policy agendas openly advocated by these reprobates?

Does it make any sense to punish the innocent for the horrific acts of a criminal? Punishments that encourage and even facilitate future attacks? Criminals and terrorists will always find ways to kill or get the weaponry to do so, as attacks in places of severe restrictions on Liberty prove this to be the case. In point of fact, these restrictions only serve to help these miscreants commit their crimes, does it make any sense to continue the practice?

The Takeaway

Mass murdering terrorists crave publicity for their horrific acts of cowardice. They also seek to change society by these acts. Knuckling under and playing along with what they want only serves to encourage further attacks. The innocent having the means to defend themselves is the practical and philosophical response to terror, no matter if it runs counter to the desires of the liberty grabber left.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

Conservatives know the LGBTQ community has their say in most aspects of life in America today. Their political and cultural influence is unquestionable and public organizations jump through hoops to appease the various groups. Many libraries have even embrace “Drag Queen Storytime” as a way to teach tolerance to children by allowing transvestites to read stories to children.

Houston Public Library is one such progressive public organization that has embraced the practice. Unfortunately, they didn’t do anything to protect the children that visit the library by allowing “Tatiana Mala Nina” to read for the children. The problem arose because”Tatiana” is actually Alberto Garza, a 32-year-old child sex offender.

#Tolerance https://t.co/fxzJHEIkYY

— JD Rucker (@JDRucker) March 18, 2019

My Take

Houston Public Library has apologized. Is that really enough? Mistakes happen, but there are certain situations and jobs in which extra special care must be taken. Our public libraries, which are often considered to be truly safe places and popular venues for children to learn, should be able to give a reasonable expectation to parents that registered child sex offenders are not given explicit access to children.

This is gross negligence. I may be in the minority on this one, but this is a terminable offense in my books. Someone’s head should roll.

Keep in mind I rarely call for anyone to be fired for a single offense, but this is literally the worst case scenario for a library administrator. When you give someone access to the children that come to the library, they cannot be convicted child sex offenders. That’s sort of a no-brainer.

Nothing will likely happen beyond the apology, but here’s hoping.

So many exceptions are made for “alternative lifestyles” for the sake of tolerance. But when this tolerance allows a convicted child sex offender to have access to small children, the exceptions have gone way to far. This is absolutely unacceptable.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?