Professor Pleads Guilty to Vandalism of Chris Cox’s House

I remember reading about the Cox residence getting vandalized, and reading this professor saying “People need to stop treating these predatory, sick people like they’re just a neighbor.” while also state she never did anything illegal. Well, I guess not. From the Cox’s attorney:

“We are pleased that today Ms. Hill was criminally convicted of vandalism for her January attack on the Cox’s home, that she was charged with a second count of vandalism for an attack on the Cox family home in October 2017, and that a restraining order was entered against her. The Cox family is grateful to the Commonwealth Attorney’s office and the Alexandria Police Department for their role in holding Ms. Hill accountable for her criminal conduct. We look forward a second conviction for Ms. Hill at her next criminal trial.”

What a loon. I think that “red gel-like substance” has gone to her brain.

10 Responses to “Professor Pleads Guilty to Vandalism of Chris Cox’s House”

  1. Brad says:

    Behold a perfect example, of the face and twisted mind which comprise the core constituency of the gun-control movement. A white, upper-class, middle-aged woman, who is also a batsh*t crazy extremist.

    I forget who did it, but an analysis of the D.C. participants of the March For Our Lives protest, reported that same demographic was the largest category at the march.

    • Ian Argent says:

      Don’t underestimate that demographic. They exercise political power well above what you might expect. Think about how we got Prohibition.

      • Sebastian says:

        Carrie Nation had a hatchet. This women has a red gel-like substance :)

        • Ian Argent says:

          And more initiative and brass than any anti-gun protester, since they’re not busting into gun ranges and smashing counters…

          Though I suspect that sort of mob action would not end at all the same today…

      • Brad says:

        Of course. The enemy is small in numbers (much smaller than us) but disproportionately influential. Wealth and power can do that.

        It is always good to have a clear picture of the nature of the enemy. It’s one reason why enemy success over the years was very limited, despite all their wealth and power. Their understanding of us is exceedingly poor.

  2. RAH says:

    Good glad she got convicted,

  3. H says:

    From other sources, hold your horses: she was found guilty in a bench trial and fined $500. She’s going to appeal, and since it was a bench trial she gets a de novo brand new trial at the higher level, I assume with a jury.

  4. H says:

    Turns out she’s no stranger to courtrooms. As the commentator notes:

    So, who is more dangerous with the potential to kill you – a NRA member with a firearm or [a drunken] Patricia Ann Wonch-Hill at the wheel of a motor vehicle?

  5. Alpheus says:

    I’d like someone to put a red gelatinous substance on her porch, and see how *she* would react to it. Would she just accept it as freedom of speech, or would she scream out loud about the threats the NRA are making against her, and calling for an investigation?

    I somehow suspect it would be the latter.

    Her actions reminds me of a Jack Handy quote:

    When I’m angry at someone, I carve out a pumpkin, stick a knife it it, and put a note on it that says “You”, and leave it on the front porch of that person’s house. My anger is vented, and hey, no harm done!

    Is she really as clueless that as Jack Handy here, about the implications of the message she sends? I suspect not: it’s ok for her to send that message, because her message is just, but how dare the NRA believe in the justice of their message?

  6. mikee says:

    How long until she violates the restraining order and learns an unpleasant lesson about reasonable people and what they think of self defense? Someone should ask Mr. Cox if he has thought through the scenarios of self defense this woman and those like her might force him to face.