December 31, 2005


Bank Robber Turned in by Sons Gets 40 Years (JOHN O'CONNOR, December 30, 2005, Associated Press)

To his family and neighbors, Alfred Ginglen was a pillar of community life. The married father and ex-Marine served in local civic groups, even working in town as an auxiliary police officer. But in his diary, he documented his other side: a life filled with prostitute visits, a secret girlfriend, a crack habit.

That life began to unfold in 2004, when his police officer son recognized his father in a surveillance image. Thursday, Ginglen was sentenced to 40 years in prison for a string of rural bank robberies after being turned in by his own sons. Authorities said he needed the money to support his double life.

U.S. District Judge Jeanne Scott called Ginglen's sons "the greatest credit of your life."

"They acted in an exemplary fashion under circumstances that must have been incredibly difficult," she said.

His son, Jared Ginglen, a Peoria police officer, said he had no regrets about turning his father in. Jared and his brothers, Clay and Garrett, have said their father always taught them to do the right thing.

"It had to be done," he said.

One of the great Leftist lies of the 20th Century -- adopted in large part because of their association with domestic Communism -- was that it can be morally proper to cover up crimes if they're committed by friends and/or family, an anti-ethos they share with the Mafia, the Klan, and the like. E. M. Forster captured it in its full vileness when he said: “If I had to choose between betraying my country and betraying my friend, I hope I should have the guts to betray my country.”

Posted by Orrin Judd at December 31, 2005 11:09 AM

I concur. If your mommy is a Commie. . ..

Posted by: Lou Gots at December 31, 2005 11:52 AM

What was his double life?

Posted by: erp at December 31, 2005 12:37 PM


There is a fairly long story at, by a local Sringfield reporter. You'll have to go back to the second page of stories since it ran yesterday.

Posted by: jdkelly at December 31, 2005 1:33 PM

Then you get into the "shades of gray" moral relativism the Left so loves: is the friend close enough that you have to cover up for them, or do you only cover up for really close friends. Do you let slide misdemeanors for colleagues but not when they commit felonies? And what about those people in your ex's family, now that you are no longer married, do you still have to cover for them, or is there a proper waiting period before extracting some revenge? Decisions, decisions...

Posted by: Raoul Ortega at December 31, 2005 1:44 PM

For Forster, "friend" was an euphemism.

Posted by: David Cohen at December 31, 2005 1:48 PM

This is so sad. I wonder if he was examined for a brain tumor or some other kind of medical condition that could cause such an abrupt change in his character?

Posted by: erp at December 31, 2005 3:25 PM

OJ, I think you are way off on this one. In fact Communist societies tended to celebrate kids who informed on their parents, e.g Pavlik Morozov.

Posted by: PapayaSF at December 31, 2005 3:41 PM


Yes, it was the Communist conspiracy in the West that the Left covered for.

Posted by: oj at December 31, 2005 5:11 PM

The Soviet Union analogy is valid only if you equate non-conforming political opinions with criminal behavior, and accepting that the holding of such opinons should be outlawed. Here you'd have to be a Sacco & Vanzetti true believer to think that the father's actions were in any way political.

Posted by: Raoul Ortega at December 31, 2005 5:15 PM

How can the family (I'll ignore the friends part) be the basic unit of society if it doesn't command primary loyalty - loyalty over and above the church or state?

Posted by: Brandon at December 31, 2005 6:00 PM

Good question, Brandon. It would have been more impressive if he has done what he did and then resigned. He may have done the necessary thing, but he is no hero.

Posted by: Peter B at December 31, 2005 8:39 PM

If the family commands not just primary but complete loyalty, then we're back to warring tribes or the Hatfields and McCoys - a conflict, by the way, that started over a single hog.

The father wasn't just cheating on his taxes or even printing counterfeit bills, he was putting the lives of innocents at risk.

For whatever reason, he'd become a monster, and if his boys had covered up for him, then they'd have been culpable too.

Their priorities were exactly correct, and I fail to see how they gain further honor if the one son resigns from law enforcement, just because his father was a drug-addicted criminal.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 31, 2005 10:13 PM

Yes; why betray just one when you can betray so many?

Posted by: Noel at December 31, 2005 10:52 PM