Baltimore man wanted for murdering a tech CEO

[Anonymous]

OMG, he went BACK to the apartment building on Sunday night and tried to get a woman to let him in. She did not.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OokOvOt9qn0

[Anonymous]

SUCH a cautionary tale re: apartment or dorm living. Only as safe as the most random weak link when it comes to door control.

^ vid above has pics of building and of roof

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:SUCH a cautionary tale re: apartment or dorm living. Only as safe as the most random weak link when it comes to door control.

^ vid above has pics of building and of roof

I'm clearly not made for city living. Can't imagine standing there on the outside of the building at night using a keypad when anyone could run up the steps and grab you or follow you inside.

[Anonymous]

Or watch what you key in!

Remember the shooter on Brandywine had an electronic key to The Saratoga, despite not being a resident. Bet there are women like the deceased still drawn by the photos and applying for units there too. Does Baltimore put "returning citizens/convicts" in middle class buildings with taxpayer funded vouchers too? Where all sorts of unsavory "associates" may come and visit?

The building in Baltimore already had a dozen vacancies and reviews that talked about security concerns.

Cameras document but they don't actually keep us safer it seems.

He did not have a smooth story on Sunday night. I wonder if P was so blinded by her vocal support for ideology that she overrode the instincts that kept the other woman safe?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just be honest liberals, if the man were filming a video of him not being let into the building as a white woman walked by you'd blast her for being a racist Karen. Yet look at what she should have done. Not let in a strange man who happened to have brown skin into the building. She would have still been alive.

But in this day in age, being progressive takes over all common sense for self preservation and safety.

You don't let anybody in without their own key. What "liberals" get mad about is when a black person has a key, gets in with a key but people call the cops on him because they think he stole the key.

You never let someone in just because.

People visiting other apartments certainly do act offended when I decline to let them into our building. Women are socialized to prevent this reaction and remain pleasing to all people at all times. We are not supposed to say no to anyone, because that can draw censure. Young women care about approval a whole lot more than older ones... that's why you feel you have cause to try to "karen" us into submission.

We need to get back to normalizing the idea that no one gets in without a key/fob/escort and women aren't bad or rude or racist when they very rightly say no.

I agree, women are socialized to be polite.

I just disagree that there are viral videos of "Karens" not letting someone in who DOES NOT HAVE A KEY. It doesn't exist.

There may not be a video but at the moment of denial of entry, there's a grimace or an offended protest. I just turned 50 so I don't care anymore, but our daughters crumple and vow never to say no to anyone ever again.

[Anonymous]

Since DC Council limited landlord's ability to "look back" for only 7 years re: criminal convictions, are men like this (in DC parlance, "returning citizens") being given housing vouchers for middle class buildings on Connecticut, Wisconsin and elsewhere? I don't see a carve out for those on the sex offender registry?

https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/laws/21-259

How many other jurisdictions do the same? Or house potentially violent and dangerous people in hotels?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just be honest liberals, if the man were filming a video of him not being let into the building as a white woman walked by you'd blast her for being a racist Karen. Yet look at what she should have done. Not let in a strange man who happened to have brown skin into the building. She would have still been alive.

But in this day in age, being progressive takes over all common sense for self preservation and safety.

You don't let anybody in without their own key. What "liberals" get mad about is when a black person has a key, gets in with a key but people call the cops on him because they think he stole the key.

You never let someone in just because.

People visiting other apartments certainly do act offended when I decline to let them into our building. Women are socialized to prevent this reaction and remain pleasing to all people at all times. We are not supposed to say no to anyone, because that can draw censure. Young women care about approval a whole lot more than older ones... that's why you feel you have cause to try to "karen" us into submission.

We need to get back to normalizing the idea that no one gets in without a key/fob/escort and women aren't bad or rude or racist when they very rightly say no.

I agree, women are socialized to be polite.

I just disagree that there are viral videos of "Karens" not letting someone in who DOES NOT HAVE A KEY. It doesn't exist.

There may not be a video but at the moment of denial of entry, there's a grimace or an offended protest. I just turned 50 so I don't care anymore, but our daughters crumple and vow never to say no to anyone ever again.

Not my daughters

[Anonymous]

I remember Cheh talking about the 7 year look back for crimes, maybe this is something Pinto needs to add to legislation? Those on the sex offender registry for life are a different consideration. Activists will say they have to live somewhere. So scary someone so dangerous could be placed in a building with families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OMG, he went BACK to the apartment building on Sunday night and tried to get a woman to let him in. She did not.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OokOvOt9qn0

They are also implying she went up to the roof with him because you have to climb a ladder. Seeing the roof and how you can get to it, it's just crazy they didn't keep it locked from everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OMG, he went BACK to the apartment building on Sunday night and tried to get a woman to let him in. She did not.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OokOvOt9qn0

They are also implying she went up to the roof with him because you have to climb a ladder. Seeing the roof and how you can get to it, it's just crazy they didn't keep it locked from everyone.

According to his mother, who he visited after the body was discovered on Monday, he had a gun. So, not willingly. Since no one went up there wonder how the body was discovered? Makes sense that it took a few days? Maybe maintenance worker or something?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: The man worked in her apartment building. That’s how he got in, why there is no forced entry.

Where did you see that? I'm not doubting you; just wondering.

I think the PP is confused. I believe he worked in the apartment on Edmondson Ave where the first victims lived. Apparently he and the 9/19 victims knew each other, so the police did not immediately think he was a danger to the public. Apparently they thought they understood the motive for that rape/torture/arson.

I saw that too in one article, but the WaPo article says he worked at LaPeres apartment and that he knew her. Who knows.

I read he worked in maintenance. Why in the world would this apartment hire a violent felon and give him access to a building full of innocent people. I see some liability in their future for negligent hiring if this is true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is so unbelievably tragic.

I wish every woman were required to read THE GIFT OF FEAR by Gavin de Becker before they went away to school. (I wish I had read it.) He so persuasively shows how predators exploit their victims' best qualities -- their kindness, compassion, idealism.

A woman could offer no greater cooperation to her soon-to-be attacker than to spend her time telling herself, “But he seems like such a nice man.” Yet this is exactly what many people do. A woman is waiting for an elevator, and when the doors open she sees a man inside who causes her apprehension. Since she is not usually afraid, it may be the late hour, his size, the way he looks at her, the rate of attacks in the neighborhood, an article she read a year ago—it doesn’t matter why. The point is, she gets a feeling of fear. How does she respond to nature’s strongest survival signal? She suppresses it, telling herself: “I’m not going to live like that, I’m not going to insult this guy by letting the door close in his face.” When the fear doesn’t go away, she tells herself not to be so silly, and she gets into the elevator. Now, which is sillier: waiting a moment for the next elevator, or getting into a soundproofed steel chamber with a stranger she is afraid of? The inner voice is wise, and part of my purpose in writing this book is to give people permission to listen to it.

Link

Caveat: she did NOTHING wrong. You should be able to open the door to a stranger and survive. It is heartbreaking that the world includes monsters like this guy.

It's not about right or wrong. It's about commonsense and not being naive about strangers.

She did post a lot of rhetoric on SM, and I wonder if those views overrode instincts to be wary, or to influence her to want to appear a certain way that was naive and which led her to put herself in danger. Not wanting to be like "those people" who would see this scary, huge violent criminal as a "criminal" etc. Predators know how to prey on good intentions and this guy had a "story" leading into a lot of his crimes.

I agree with you on this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: The man worked in her apartment building. That’s how he got in, why there is no forced entry.

Where did you see that? I'm not doubting you; just wondering.

I think the PP is confused. I believe he worked in the apartment on Edmondson Ave where the first victims lived. Apparently he and the 9/19 victims knew each other, so the police did not immediately think he was a danger to the public. Apparently they thought they understood the motive for that rape/torture/arson.

I saw that too in one article, but the WaPo article says he worked at LaPeres apartment and that he knew her. Who knows.

I read he worked in maintenance. Why in the world would this apartment hire a violent felon and give him access to a building full of innocent people. I see some liability in their future for negligent hiring if this is true.

He was not employed by this building and had never done maintenance for them. He was a random dude who asked to be let in (possibly SAYING he was a maintenance worker bht who knows). Stop spreading lies

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I swear there is a subset of the population that just loves it when a tragedy like this happens because it just affirms their racist and hateful worldviews. Like literally you all seem to get off on it. How disgusting.

Maybe it affirms their knowledge of how the world really is. Being street smart is very much that. Denying the world as it is is a pathway to self destruction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: The man worked in her apartment building. That’s how he got in, why there is no forced entry.

Where did you see that? I'm not doubting you; just wondering.

I think the PP is confused. I believe he worked in the apartment on Edmondson Ave where the first victims lived. Apparently he and the 9/19 victims knew each other, so the police did not immediately think he was a danger to the public. Apparently they thought they understood the motive for that rape/torture/arson.

I saw that too in one article, but the WaPo article says he worked at LaPeres apartment and that he knew her. Who knows.

I read he worked in maintenance. Why in the world would this apartment hire a violent felon and give him access to a building full of innocent people. I see some liability in their future for negligent hiring if this is true.

That was true of the prior victim. LE is investigating any connection with Lapere. He did NOT work in her building. This is discussed upthread. The WP seems to have conflated details of 2 crimes a week apart. That is NOT what the charging documents say.