Political Violence
The WSJ has this report on the break-in of Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s home and attack on her husband, Paul Pelosi. It appears at this time that the attack was politically motivated. “The intruder shouted, ‘Where is Nancy?’ before attacking her husband, one of the officials said.”
Reports about the attacker vary at this early stage. The WSJ article says:
Police identified the suspect in the Pelosi attack as David DePape …
* * *
Mr. DePape has espoused extreme right-wing views on social media, including conspiracy theories about topics such as Covid-19 and the 2020 election, law-enforcement officials briefed on the investigation said.
However, an AP story says:
An address listed for DePape in the Bay Area college town of Berkeley led to a post box at a UPS Store.
He was known locally as a pro-nudity activist who had picketed naked at protests against laws requiring people to be clothed in public.
Regardless of motive, though, this is a major crime of violence, and society should punish the perpetrator with appropriate severity. It calls for a long prison sentence, and the perpetrator should actually serve most of that sentence. A California statute limits violent felons to a maximum of 15% good time credit off the sentence. The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation claims that Proposition 57 gives it the power to override statutes by its own regulations, and it has greatly expanded the credits available to violent felons. CJLF is challenging those regulations in court.
I think the reference to the 66-year-old shooter must have been to the person involved in the 2017 shooting of Rep. Steve Scalise. The suspect here is “David DePape, who is 42 years old, [and] has espoused extreme right-wing views on social media, including conspiracy theories about Covid-19, according to one of the law-enforcement officials briefed on the investigation.”
You’re right, thanks. I have corrected that portion of the post.
The article has been updated since I read it this morning. I don’t think the DePape information was there initially. But no matter. The “regardless of motive” point is unchanged.