Wu is a special case, the modern incarnation of Putney Swope (Google it), imported from Chicago and elected strictly because the Irish-Italian and Black-Hispanic-Woke monoliths fought each other to a draw. The thread she’s hanging by won’t last forever.
It boggles the mind why anybody would offer thoughts and prayers for a criminal that murders. Over the years, I have seen many news stories of offenders getting too light a sentence or just probation for offences listed in the article. Then there are those people that ramble on about their rights when they are in the wrong, and others that have no respect for a police officer when they are pulled over for something. Since most of us have smartphones, we see and hear a person argue with a cop or refuse to cooperate as seen from his camera. It's somewhat amusing to see a driver "escape" by looking at their phone while they are being addressed.
Democrats seem to love touting criminals as heroes recently, from George Floyd's martyrdom to Hamas paragliding freedom fighters. Toxic compassion and disdain for the rule of law don't lead anywhere I want to go.
It was more nuanced than that. Essentially you're giving the Faux News version of it. I notice they're the primary source of the outrage reporting on the incident. Unless the family was involved, they still lost a family member. Apparently they're not allowed to grieve. She didn't condemn the police. She also thanked the first responders.
I would bet that there was a concern about potential litigation -- part of the American DNA --- so they are trying to offset that in part. Pretty coordinated statements
Many years ago I very much enjoyed reading your book about the Kennedy assassination. It was very well-research and it really cleared the air; it was great to see such a masterful defense of the conventional truth. My wife and I still have your book on our shelves at home and I have mentioned it to other people a number of times over the years.
On that note, I think that you could really do better than this incendiary criticism of Boston Mayor Michelle Wu. Homicide is both one of the most important and one of the most reliable crime measures. With nearly any other type of crime, there can be wide differences in reporting and recording practices. But a dead body is nearly always noticed, and it is counted in nearly the same way across the United States. The main remaining wiggle room is justifiable homicide as well as unclear cases where death may or may not have been accidental --- but none of that changes the statistics much.
It's not just that Wu or anyone "boasts" that Boston's homicide rate fell. Boston has one of the lowest homicide rates in any city in the United States. From an already favorable level in 2023, it fell by more than a third in 2024. Boston, population 673,000, reported 24 homicides in 2024, while (for example) Memphis, population 611,000, reported 287.
Memphis, not Boston, is a genuine and scary example of what it really means to be soft of on crime. Boston may sometimes be soft on criminals, but that's not the same thing. Many jurisdictions in the US are tough on criminals and soft on crime: They have fearsome law enforcement powers which they do use, but not in the ways that matter most. They are lax about gun control, and they let people literally get away with murder by simply not catching them. They may be brutal towards suspects when they catch suspects, but a lot of gunfire in the streets is simply background noise.
Part of your argument was to point to other crimes like rape. First of all, rape also fell sharply from 2023 to 2024 --- from 215 to 167 according to the Boston police. If rape in Boston had a "sharp spike", when was that? More importantly, standards for recording rape vary widely, but it's hardly plausible for Boston to have so few murders and yet let rape run rampant. No, by American standards, Boston is a very safe city.
Michelle Wu is not Chesa Boudin, simply because she is not a DA, she is a mayor. Even if she sometimes has a bleeding heart style, that's just style. Her real record and Boston's real record on crime are very good.
Wu either has a mental illness or is insane or both. It’s up to the voters of Boston to: 1) Vote her in again 2) Vote her out 3) Start a recall to remove her. From reading this it’s clearly apparent she has an agenda for helping these really bad people over regular citizens. Has anyone sat down with her to find out why she thinks this way? It’s illogical to me.
Hey Gerald, In your piece you say "The mayors of Chicago, Denver and New York will join her representing cities that reflect an “abject failure to comply with federal law.”
Which specific Federal law in regard to are these Cities are you referring to?
It’s a quote from the Oversight Committee, the idea is that they are violating the law in some instances by obstructing ICE from finding and detaining illegal immigrants charged with serious crimes
I'm at a loss for words. These are character defining moments for these elected officials regardless of which party they affiliate themselves with.
Absolutely absurd.
As a Bostonian I am forever grateful for all of our first responders. Maybe Jon Kraft an announced candidate for mayor could speak up
Great article, thanks Gerald. Two questions come up on this:
1) I wonder if Democrat leaders would change their minds if a member of their family was a victim of a violent crime and
2) why would voters put people in office who loathe the law abiding, while siding with the law breaking?
I've always wondered the first question myself - not sure, but one would think it would change the bleeding heart perspective
As for #2, Boston voters are increasingly a mystery to me
These morons keep voting for these brain dead fools. I guess they get what they deserve
Wu is a special case, the modern incarnation of Putney Swope (Google it), imported from Chicago and elected strictly because the Irish-Italian and Black-Hispanic-Woke monoliths fought each other to a draw. The thread she’s hanging by won’t last forever.
It boggles the mind why anybody would offer thoughts and prayers for a criminal that murders. Over the years, I have seen many news stories of offenders getting too light a sentence or just probation for offences listed in the article. Then there are those people that ramble on about their rights when they are in the wrong, and others that have no respect for a police officer when they are pulled over for something. Since most of us have smartphones, we see and hear a person argue with a cop or refuse to cooperate as seen from his camera. It's somewhat amusing to see a driver "escape" by looking at their phone while they are being addressed.
Wow
Democrats seem to love touting criminals as heroes recently, from George Floyd's martyrdom to Hamas paragliding freedom fighters. Toxic compassion and disdain for the rule of law don't lead anywhere I want to go.
Hopefully she will lose in a landslide, as she deserves to.
It was more nuanced than that. Essentially you're giving the Faux News version of it. I notice they're the primary source of the outrage reporting on the incident. Unless the family was involved, they still lost a family member. Apparently they're not allowed to grieve. She didn't condemn the police. She also thanked the first responders.
I would bet that there was a concern about potential litigation -- part of the American DNA --- so they are trying to offset that in part. Pretty coordinated statements
Dear Mr. Posner,
Many years ago I very much enjoyed reading your book about the Kennedy assassination. It was very well-research and it really cleared the air; it was great to see such a masterful defense of the conventional truth. My wife and I still have your book on our shelves at home and I have mentioned it to other people a number of times over the years.
On that note, I think that you could really do better than this incendiary criticism of Boston Mayor Michelle Wu. Homicide is both one of the most important and one of the most reliable crime measures. With nearly any other type of crime, there can be wide differences in reporting and recording practices. But a dead body is nearly always noticed, and it is counted in nearly the same way across the United States. The main remaining wiggle room is justifiable homicide as well as unclear cases where death may or may not have been accidental --- but none of that changes the statistics much.
It's not just that Wu or anyone "boasts" that Boston's homicide rate fell. Boston has one of the lowest homicide rates in any city in the United States. From an already favorable level in 2023, it fell by more than a third in 2024. Boston, population 673,000, reported 24 homicides in 2024, while (for example) Memphis, population 611,000, reported 287.
Memphis, not Boston, is a genuine and scary example of what it really means to be soft of on crime. Boston may sometimes be soft on criminals, but that's not the same thing. Many jurisdictions in the US are tough on criminals and soft on crime: They have fearsome law enforcement powers which they do use, but not in the ways that matter most. They are lax about gun control, and they let people literally get away with murder by simply not catching them. They may be brutal towards suspects when they catch suspects, but a lot of gunfire in the streets is simply background noise.
Part of your argument was to point to other crimes like rape. First of all, rape also fell sharply from 2023 to 2024 --- from 215 to 167 according to the Boston police. If rape in Boston had a "sharp spike", when was that? More importantly, standards for recording rape vary widely, but it's hardly plausible for Boston to have so few murders and yet let rape run rampant. No, by American standards, Boston is a very safe city.
Michelle Wu is not Chesa Boudin, simply because she is not a DA, she is a mayor. Even if she sometimes has a bleeding heart style, that's just style. Her real record and Boston's real record on crime are very good.
Liberal cities don’t live in or refuse to see reality. They get what they vote for. Most big cities are run by democrats and most are going broke.
Wu either has a mental illness or is insane or both. It’s up to the voters of Boston to: 1) Vote her in again 2) Vote her out 3) Start a recall to remove her. From reading this it’s clearly apparent she has an agenda for helping these really bad people over regular citizens. Has anyone sat down with her to find out why she thinks this way? It’s illogical to me.
Hey Gerald, In your piece you say "The mayors of Chicago, Denver and New York will join her representing cities that reflect an “abject failure to comply with federal law.”
Which specific Federal law in regard to are these Cities are you referring to?
It’s a quote from the Oversight Committee, the idea is that they are violating the law in some instances by obstructing ICE from finding and detaining illegal immigrants charged with serious crimes
That's conjecture on your part. I recommend you actually read the law.