Sure you do. Her name is Crystal Mangum; four years ago she falsely accused three Duke University lacrosse players of raping her. How’s she doing? Glad you ask:

Durham police late Wednesday arrested the woman who four years ago falsely accused three Duke University lacrosse players of raping her.

Crystal Mangum assaulted her boyfriend, set his clothes on fire in a bathtub and threatened to stab him, investigators said.

Police charged her with attempted first-degree murder, five counts of arson, assault and battery, communicating threats, three counts of misdemeanor child abuse, injury to personal property, identity theft and resisting a public officer.

Shortly after 11:30 p.m., police received a 911 call about a domestic dispute at 2220 Lincoln St. Authorities said they believe the call came from one of the three children inside the house.

When officers arrived, they found Mangum and her boyfriend, Milton Walker, 33, fighting. According to police documents, Mangum scratched, punched and threw objects at Walker and told him, “I’m going to stab you, (expletive)!”

She then went into a bathroom and set his clothes on fire in the bathtub, police said. Officers called the fire department to put out the flames. No one was injured.

Milton was not charged, police said. The three children inside the house, ages 3, 9 and 10, were not injured.

Officers said Mangum gave them a fake name, “Marella Mangum,” and age, prompting the identity theft charge. She also resisted the officers who responded to the scene, according to police documents. She has been ordered to have no contact with Walker.

Now that Crystal Magnum has successfully destroyed the lives of three young men by falsely accusing them of rape and hate crimes; and now that she has been charged with attempted murder and arson as well as a litany of other crimes, that can only mean one thing: she is now a shoe-in for the next regional director job of ACORN when it becomes available.

Remember – she’s the victim

Charter of Rights & Freedoms be damned, Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair wants all guns off the streets (and homes), and he’s starting by confiscating them from, as he puts it, “Legal handgun owners”:

Toronto police have seized almost 400 firearms from registered owners in a six-month push aimed at reducing the number of guns on the city’s streets.

In March, officers began soliciting registered firearm owners across the city as part of what they call the Safe City Project. Many of those who had to surrender their firearms had either let their registrations lapse, or had stashed their guns improperly under beds or in closets.

How on earth would the police know if a legal handgun owner was storing their guns illegally “under beds or in closets?” Maybe they are being stored in gun safes, like the law says.

I suppose if you want to seize legal weapons from its citizenry, the first thing the government/police must do is come up with a pithy title, hence, “Safe City Project”. Who on earth wants to live in an unsafe city? Not me, that’s for sure. And as we all know, legal gun owners and collectors are committing the majority of gun crimes on Toronto streets, so let’s hassle them and take away their weapons.

If the police are taking guns away from people who have let their registration lapse, wouldn’t be just as easy to ask that person to re-register their gun instead of taking the weapon away from them? I mean, the gun collector/terrorists’ information is the same, they live in the same house, they have the same name, what’s has changed other than a “lapse?”

Targeting people who had registered their guns is a preventative measure, said Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair.

“Legal handgun owners are not dangerous individuals,” Blair told reporters at a Tuesday news conference. “But we know from experience that their firearms can become extremely dangerous when they get into the hands of criminals. And so we have undertaken a number of initiatives to reduce the availability of those handguns.”

And one of the “initiatives” to reduce the availability of those handguns is to trample on the rights of gun owners by confiscating their weapon(s).

Since confiscating the guns of registered owners is a ”preventative measure”, what are they preventing? Seems to me the police are saying these guns that are being stored “under beds or in closets” are being stolen and used in the commission of crimes. I wonder how many crimes? What are the stats on something like that? Do guns stolen from homes where people are storing them improperly count for 20% of all gun crimes on Toronto streets? 30% 95%? Don’t tell me the police don’t have stats on something like that, they seem to be able to pull out stats to fit their purpose on a whim.

If the police (and when I say police, I’m also referring to Toronto Mayor David “yellow” Miller) are so worried that guns are being stolen from homes, perhaps the coppers should concentrate on patrolling Toronto neighbourhoods more thoroughly. I’m sure the 20 or so officers that are confiscating the guns from the registered users, and pushing paper at a desk, could be put on patrol and sent out into some of those *at risk* neighbourhoods we often hear about. Of course, that implies that the people stealing weapons are from *at risk* neighbourhoods, which makes me a bigot, a racist, and perhaps worse that Hitler, but I’m just throwing that out there for your general consumption.

Considering that Toronto just went through Summer of the Gun II™, I can see why this initiative is now in full force: They’re trying to take your attention away from the people who actually commit gun crimes.

It’s funny in a way that Police Bill Blair admits that the people they are targeting – the registered gun owners – are “not dangerous individuals”, yet guns are “extremely dangerous when they get in the hands of criminals”, but yet they punish the registered gun owner. Hmmm. Perhaps they are targeting the wrong people then? Buehler?

The Safe City Project is a load of horseshit , but completely expected considering it originated from David “Yellow” Miller, Police Chief Bill “Yes David Miller, three bags full sir” Blair, and the rest of the dinkwad socialist tools on Toronto City Council. Registered gun owners are of NO threat, they are NOT the *root cause* of gun crime in Toronto. I’ll give you hint who is an actual threat though: Go to Jane and Finch and open your eyes.

The Vancouver Police Department can’t keep the graffiti off of downtown buildings, to the point where they have to cave and give the vandals their own walls, but they can wipe out your intricate gang tattoo for free! Or in taxpayer parlance, for “free.”

The inky-dinky-do will happen only if the police are able to get some serious information out of you. It’s like Guns For Toys, really. Maybe more of a Rat For Tat:

Only gang markings would be eligible for removal.

“It could be anything, really, that indicates you are part and parcel or a member of a criminal organization or a gang,” [Sgt. Shinder Kirk] said. “It may be words coupled with a pictogram of some sort. It may just be a pictogram or initials.”

So only gang markings that could be anything. That clears it up for me. The cost might be as much as $10,000 each for the larger back and neck tattoos.

Kirk is the Media Relations Officer of the Integrated Gang Task Force, a wing of the RCMP dedicated to fighting gang activity in BC. He was definitely right about the proliferation of such programs in the United States, such as in Dallas and Phoenix and Modesto, California, among other places.

Meanwhile, consider the burden placed on bartenders to report drunk drivers:

The city’s Main Street bar has always been strict about calling cabs for clientele who need a safe ride home, she said. But after a regular customer was killed in a car crash two months ago after having a few drinks, bartenders have put a “death grip” on customers they suspect are impaired.

Why don’t tattoo artists have the same responsibility to report obvious United Nations or Red Scorpions tattoos? Wouldn’t that be a quick way of finding out who the gang members are? I have no sympathy for the tattoo artist, now that the public has to pick up the tab for their handiwork.

If the police are serious about curbing gang violence, it might be better off by pre-empting the need that young, fatherless males have for that sense of unity and the pack mentality. Assemble a youth group similar to the Boy Scouts, but call it something less inflammatory. (All that talk of God the Supreme Being might upset the tender BC flakes here.) Call it the “Youth Police Community Strategy” or something sufficiently confounding and hire the young boys for the summer to do police work. They can pick up trash in the neighbourhood, straighten up police offices, and paint over graffiti. (What better way to get them to hate it?) If they get a small amount of money out of it, get an idea of how the justice system works, asume a certain amount of responsibility, and get more in touch with their community, it might make the lure of joining a gang lessen.

It might be perverted into a boondoggle like Obama’s “volunteer” program, but it might also keep the kids off the street and out of gangs. Giving a young man enough pride in himself not to want to get a tattoo in the first place is a better step than remedial carrots for informants risking gang retribution to the gang member and those around them.

A horrible story out of Vancouver:

Police are hunting for man who forced a 13-year-old girl off a city bus and sexually assaulted her in an East Vancouver back alley early Tuesday morning.

Const. Jana McGuinness said the girl was riding home on a bus at 2:30 a.m. when the man got on and sat down beside her.

What was a 13-year-old girl doing riding a bus in the Downtown Eastside at that time of night all alone? This is a stunning display of criminal neglect if I ever saw one. I wouldn’t ride the bus that late at night.

The media are as usual not being as helpful:

Police described the suspect as 20 to 25 years old, clean-shaven with light- or medium-coloured skin, short black hair and wearing a white tank top and blue jeans.

Police took DNA samples to try to determine the identity of the attacker, but McGuinness said it’s too early to link the attack to a suspect in the sexual assault of a six-year-old girl in Surrey on July 3.

The Surrey assault has been linked by DNA, the suspect description and other evidence to similar attacks on two 14-year-old girls in Delta in 2007 and an attack on a 13-year-old girl in Vancouver in 1995.

I might just write this off as filler if it wasn’t misleading the general population into thinking that a 20- to 25-year-old man can be somehow linked to a rape that occurred in 1995, when he could have at most been 11 years old. It’s a bit of a long shot, but they’re saying that this might be related to the July 3 attack, which is now linked to the one in 1995, and you get the picture. Which is it? Is the assault here linkable to July 3, or is July 3 linable to the one in 1995? Because it can’t be both.

Girls at 13 years of age are the most likely age to be victims of these kinds of assaults. Allowing them to cruise around the most dangerous parts of a major Canadian city at the darkest of night is an evil act of child abuse.