Never stomp a downed cop

Off-duty motorcycle cop hits 4-year-old girl, then shoots, kills her angry dad : Sandra Rose:
(August 13, 2012)

An off-duty Chicago motorcycle cop is under investigation after he shot and killed an angry dad after hitting the man’s daughter with his motorcycle. According to the NY Daily News, the officer “ditched” his motorcycle when he saw Taniyah Middleton run into his path. But the motorcycle slid into the 4-year-old and her 18-year-old cousin John Passley, who had rushed to help her. Taniyah’s father, Christopher Middleton, ran out of a nearby restaurant to help his daughter. Witnesses told the Chicago Sun-Times that Middleton was “visibly upset” when he saw Taniyah’s bloody face. Witnesses say that when the 34-year-old, eight-year police veteran identified himself as a cop, Middleton punched him in the face, knocking him to the ground.

"Old News", but perhaps instructional to us all.

This article doesn't tell the whole story: perhaps after reading the gamut of stories nobody can know the "Whole Story".

Here's the synopsis, from what I've gathered after reading several days versions of Chicago (and other) news sources:


Chicago Cop goes off duty and is riding home on his scooter.  Apparently (off duty, dig?) not uniformed.

A beautiful 4-year-old girl is crossing the street, in the company of her 18-year-old cousin. 

Cop sees folks in the crosswalk (?) and hits the brakes; it's too late to stop in time, so he drops the bike in hopes that it will be "the ultimate braking system".  Bike skids, slides and tumbles, knocking cute little girl down and scraping her cheek.

Cop still on the ground, Father rushes out of nearby building and (overwhelmed with outrage that his daughter has been injured) assaults downed scooter-pilot; apparently either unaware or uncaring that said scooter-pilot is a cop.  Father punches cop, cop says 'hey, I'm responsible, I'm a police officer' or words to that effect.

Some story versions (from the family of the beautiful little girl) differ in that they do not acknowledge that the scooter-pilot identified himself as a cop.  Well ... hell, who knows?  Maybe he didn't say it, maybe the family didn't hear it.

Anyway, while 26-year-old father beats up on scooter-pilot, 18-year old nephew (?) joins the party and also beats on scooter-pilot.  Scooter-pilot still on the ground when the dynamic duo start putting the boots to him.  Aware that he's getting the shit kicked out of him, the duo isn't showing signs of letting up, and said scooter-pilot is losing consciousness ... scooter-pilot draws service pistol and applies groin-shot to outraged father.

Father dies, scooter-pilot goes to hospital for treatment, pretty little girl receives treatment for scraped face, and not-all-that-helpful 18-year-old nephew (?) is no longer mentioned in the news stories.  Apparently, scooter-pilot didn't shoot him.

Now, family of pretty little 4-year-old girl is outraged.  Bad scooter-pilot!  No run over pretty little girl!  No shoot Daddy!  Bad Bad Bad scooter-pilot!  Go straight to hell, no collect $200!

Well, pretty little 4-year-old girl is apparently an orphan.  No word on where mama is, although it seems safe to assume she had one.  Family is voting unanimously to crucify scooter-pilot.  Scooter-pilot pretty well recoverd, as is nephew and girl.  (Apparently ... did I mention it was an Old Story?)

The lesson for the day, Children, is that if you come upon a police officer on the ground, and you start putting the boot to him ... it doesn't really matter how justified you feel.  Cops are experientialy trained to expect that if they are down and getting the ever-loving shit kicked out of them, if they lose consciousness they may realistically expect to wake up in a kinder, gentler world than that in which they lost consciousness.

In order to prevent that (to their personal understanding) undesirable resolution, said cop / scooter-pilot may (and probably will) resort to deadly force ... in the form of a .40 S&W round in your  groin.  You will not only not like it, you will likely not survive it.

RECAP:  No lose cool;  no stomp cop; no stop somebody who even claims he's a cop.

You don't know if he's got a .40 in his hip pocket or not, but you should know that if you bet against it and you're wrong ... your problems are over.

And if you have a pretty little 4-year-old daughter?  You've just made her an orphan, and you have nobody to blame but yourself.

(This is called "The Darwinian Theory"; if you're stupid enough to get yourself killed, chances are your un-born children will not.  If you have a child already, you should pray that she's not as butt-ugly stupid as  you are.)

Gun Free Zones: A Prevalent Delusion

Gun Free Zones: A Prevalent Delusion: Newsroom: The Independent Institute:

The Aurora, Colo., movie theatre [sic]; the Sandy Hook, Conn., kindergarten, the Columbine, Colo., high school and dozens of other sites throughout the world, have two things in common: 1) they were “gun free zones”; and 2) consequently they were the sites of massacres committed by gunmen who knew they alone would be armed. 

It has even been suggested that “gun free zones” actually attract killers who know they will meet only helpless victims rather than anyone able to effectively oppose them. Whether or not gunmen so calculate, it is true as shown by massacres that have occurred in recent years in “gun free zones” not only in the United States, but in England, France, Germany, Sweden, Australia, Korea and Japan. 
“Gun free zones” never work for they disarm only those who obey the law. 

Gunmen just laugh at “gun free zones.” When confronted by armed police, gunmen sometimes surrender though more often they kill themselves. At the risk of belaboring the obvious, what neither terrorists nor lunatics ever do is kill themselves (or surrender) when faced by unarmed victims. Those they just kill. 

Contrast an incident from the Clackamas Mall in Oregon. Having shot two unarmed victims the killer was confronted by an armed Oregon gun permit holder. Apparently fearing capture, the shooter killed himself,

Or consider the absence of school massacres in Israel. Years ago Israeli children were the first targets of the Palestinian intifada. Israel’s response was arming teachers and school bus drivers, as well as parent-volunteers, to guard the children. When a few terrorists were killed, attacks on schools and busses [sic] ended—and have never resumed.

 [Please forgive the lengthy quote.  I only include it because it lists most of the 2nd Amendment talking points which I have discussed here over the past several months.]

The thing is ... this country has been inundated in recent years with "mass shootings".   Never mind that more shootings and more fatalities have been the result of "individual shootings"; the mass shootings are the darlings of the press (I know that sounds callous, but it was the editorial choice of the editors of the MSM, not mine) and also they tend to prey upon the most vulnerable among us.

Or do they?   Consider the January, 2013 "drive by" (actually a "Walk By") shooting in a Chicago park, documented here, in which a 15 year old girl was killed ... when she wasn't even the intended target?   It doesn't get much more "innocent" than that.   This was not a mass, shooting, it was an idiot out to just shoot "anyone" .. because he could.  That is not an isolated example; it's a typical example of the shit that goes down EVERY DAY on our city streets.   Actually, the Mass Murders are the "Isolated Examples"; yet they are the incidents which garner such extreme attention from the MSM.

And why is that?

No, we know why the mall and church and kindergarten shootings get so much attention.  What we do not know is why the day-by-day "walk by" shootings don't get as much attention, since they account for more victims.

The answer is that America is essentially one gigantic Gun Free Zone.  Perhaps not to the degree of England, for example, but still ...  I have a Concealed Handgun License, and I am rarely allowed to take advantage of it because even in the small college town in which I live most of the place has laws  restricting my right to carry a firearm on the premises.

Do I feel safer in these places?  Decidedly not!  I feel like a target there, and I am a target there.  I am not permitted to defend myself in a Gun Free Zone, and (as the leading article suggests), that is precisely the "target rich environment" which crazy people so love.

Take for example the local college campus, where I worked every day for 15 years.  I was legally permitted (by virtue of my CHL) to carry a concealed firearm there.  However. the college had its own rules, and they included as a matter of policy that anyone who carried a firearm on campus was subject to termination (if an employee) or dismissal (if a student).  Even if I legally had a  firearm in my vehicle, unloaded and locked away, the university policy made me subject to termination.


Since I've been retired for a couple of years now, I can safely reveal that I carried a pistol on campus every damn day.    It wasn't because I expected to be attacked (if I did, I would have carried a rifle!)

It was because it was a declared and dedicated Gun Free Zone!

Remember Virginia Tech?

The Virginia Tech massacre was a school shooting that took place on April 16, 2007, on the campus of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksburg, Virginia, United States. Seung-Hui Cho, a senior at Virginia Tech, shot and killed 32 people and wounded 17 others in two separate attacks, approximately two hours apart, before committing suicide (another six people were injured escaping from classroom windows).^[1][2] The massacre is the deadliest shooting incident by a single gunman in U.S. history.^[3] It was the worst act of mass murder of college students since Syracuse University lost 35 students in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103,^[4] and the second-deadliest act of mass murder at a U.S. school campus, behind the Bath School disaster of 1927.

Virginia Tech was a "Gun Free Zone", too.  That didn't protect anybody, any more than did Columbine.

So ... yeah.  I carried.  Nobody ever knew, nobody every got freaked out when I showed up at the office.  In fact, everybody in my office knew I was a "Gun Nut", but nobody seemed all that concerned;  if anything. I suspect that they found some comfort there.  Hell, I hadn't shot anybody in the15 years I was on campus;  that's a pretty good record of "NOT going postal"!
 _______________________________________________________________________

Researchers have found that the homicide rates at postal facilities were lower than at other workplaces. In major industries, the highest rate of 2.1 homicides per 100,000 workers was in retail. The next highest rate of 1.66 was in public administration, which includes police officers. The homicide rate for postal workers was 1.48 per 100,000.^[14]
However, not all murders on the job are directly comparable to "going postal". Taxi drivers, for example, are much more likely to be murdered by passengers than by their peers. Working in retail means one is exposed to store robberies. In 1993, the United States Congress conducted a joint hearing to review the violence in the U.S. Postal Service. In the hearing, it was noted that despite the postal service accounting for less than 1% of the full-time civilian labor force, 13% of workplace homicides were committed at postal facilities by current or former employees.

 (I know .. not really very reassuring.  Did you note that all post offices are "Gun Free Zones"?)\

______________________________________________________________________

No, I'm not patting myself on the back for declining to descent into workplace rage.  It's awkward to feel proud of oneself for not being a lunatic, or an evil person.

The point is that most people aren't evil.

The point is also that some people ARE evil.  And those of us who are 'on the scene' have the best chance to protect ourselves, our children and others against those whack-jobs who are evil.  Hence, my support for the concept that armed guards are NOT an unacceptable a sufficient method of protecting people in Gun Free Zones.   Look what England has done to protect children's playgrounds, for example (even though I freely satirized it because ... hey, they're The Brits and by definition they are hypocritical!)

I think Great Britain is on the right track, at long last.  Sure, I think they should give up the whole "gun control" thingie, but they are at least recognizing that "Gun Free Zones" equate to "Target Rich Environments".   That's a step that our own U.S. Federal Government has not yet had the testicular fortitude to acknowledge, which puts The Brits one giant step ahead of The Amies.

Perhaps it's time to look at the "Money Quote" from the original argument, and not merely dismiss it out of hand:

Gunmen just laugh at “gun free zones.” When confronted by armed police, gunmen sometimes surrender though more often they kill themselves. At the risk of belaboring the obvious, what neither terrorists nor lunatics ever do is kill themselves (or surrender) when faced by unarmed victims. Those they just kill.

I think they might just have something there.

'Will you apologize to Muslims you've killed?': Obama's speech heckled - YouTube

'Will you apologize to Muslims you've killed?': Obama's speech heckled - YouTube:

Published on May 24, 2013 Obama's ironclad way of battling terrorists sparked heated debate during his speech in Washington. At one point the president was stopped in his tracks by an angry audience member. RT's Ivor Crotty outlined what made the woman break Obama's script.

 I do have a couple of things to say about this.

(1) "... Obama's ironclad way of battling terrorists ..." ?   Really?   This is a Russian describing Obama's method of dealing with anything other than his own Obama-socialist programs as "Ironclad"?  One wonders what he thought of Margaret Thatcher, or Ronald Reagan.

(2) The woman (audience member protester/heckler) asks if Obama is going to apologize for the Muslims he has killed.   Consider the worldwide distribution of videos of Muslims dancing in the streets in hysteric joy on 9/11 ... when Muslims killed thousands of Americans.  If this is what they consider an "apology", I for one am certainly willing to do the Wooley-Bully in the main street of my small town to show my own contrition.


(Not to say that there weren't sufficient American "Useful Idiots" fully willing to support that point of view)

Oh, and as for the question of "compensation"?  I'm amazed that Obama didn't offer "Forty Acres And A Mule".    This is one of those occasions when supreme irony would have been supremely satisfying.

PS:  it's not as if we're without emotion on this issue:



.... lest we forget ...

Benghazi Who?

Whoa: Devastating CBS News Benghazi Report Slams Obama Administration - Guy Benson:

There were so many critical elements of this CBS News report on Libya, I wasn't sure which one to highlight in a juicy headline. Just watch:

 There have been so many lies conflicting statements about Benghazi in the past month that I completely avoided attempting to address the subject here.

I just ran across a September 20, 2012 TOWNHALL commentary which at least gives me a less-confused (albeit certainly not CLEAR) understanding of the initial controversy.

This doesn't answer many questions .. actually, it presents the earliest questions to the White House original statement(s).  It may not help much, and I'm not prepared to offer any comments myself.

I'm just grateful I have some perspective on the subject.

This England

British Soldier Beheaded Outside London Barracks:

A man believed to be a British soldier was beheaded and hacked up with a meat cleaver by two men, who were then shot by police in London Wednesday afternoon, authorities say. The victim was cut up "like a piece of meat," said one eyewitness to the slaughter, which occurred in broad daylight near an Army barracks. The shocking slaughter in the Woolwich area of southeast London was being treated as a possible terrorist attack. 

 The Times of London reported that one of the attackers screamed "Allahu Akhbar," Arabic for "God is Great," as he and an accomplice hacked away at the defenseless victim.

England, you must cleave to your literature:

This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
This nurse, this teeming womb of royal kings,
Fear’d by their breed and famous by their birth,
Renowned for their deeds as far from home,
For Christian service and true chivalry,
As is the sepulchre in stubborn Jewry,
Of the world’s ransom, blessed Mary’s Son,
This land of such dear souls, this dear dear land,
Dear for her reputation through the world,
Is now leased out, I die pronouncing it,
Like to a tenement or pelting farm:
England, bound in with the triumphant sea
Whose rocky shore beats back the envious siege
Of watery Neptune, is now bound in with shame,
With inky blots and rotten parchment bonds:
That England, that was wont to conquer others,
Hath made a shameful conquest of itself.
Ah, would the scandal vanish with my life,
How happy then were my ensuing death!

(John of Gaunt's speech, from Act II of Richard II)

England, have you forsaken your heritage?  Do you no longer listen to The Great Bard?

You suffer now in ignominy, for you have taken unto your bosom a nest of vipers.

Your forefathers curse you from their graves, they take some small comfort that they are not here to witness your descent.   They weep from shame for your weakness.

You have suffered the advent of the vile upon your homeland.  You accept known evil, your enemies delight in your suffering, they glory in their martyrdom, for you have welcomed them to your shores and provide them sustenance while they slaughter your innocents and dance upon the shattered bodies of your subjects ... who are no longer your citizens; you have forsaken them.

Have you no shame?  Have you no pride?

Your only value today is to serve as an example to the world, how the mighty have fallen when they so worship "the good" to the point where they accept evil men of no value into your society.

Because you seem to have forgotten your heritage, here is what England once exemplified:




UPDATE: May 25, 2013
The soldier killed in Wednesday's brutal attack in London's Woolwich neighborhood has been identified by the U.K. Ministry of Defense as Drummer Lee Rigby, Sky News reports.
According to the outlet, the 25-year-old from Manchester was part of the 2nd Batallion the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers. He is leaving behind a 2-year-old son, Jack.
In a profile released on Thursday, the British Ministry of Defense noted that Rigby or 'Riggers' was born in July 1987 and had joined the army in 2006.
Rigby served in Cyprus, Germany and Afghanistan's Helmand province and had taken up a recruiting post in London in 2011.

Accused Fort Hood Shooter Paid $278,000 While Awaiting Trial

Accused Fort Hood Shooter Paid $278,000 While Awaiting Trial:

Accused Fort Hood shooter Maj. Nidal Hasan is receiving full pay while he awaits trail, but some of the shooting victims struggle to pay their bills because the Army will not classify the attack as terrorism.

Hasan has received $278,000 in pay since the Nov. 5, 2009 incident that killed 13 and wounded 32 on the Texas Army base, NBC5 in Dallas/Fort Worth reports. The station obtained the data under the Freedom of Information Act.

The Army said the Military Code of Justice prevents it from suspending Hasan's pay unless he is convicted.

If Hasan, a psychiatrist, had been a civilian Defense Department employee his pay could have been suspended after seven days, NBC5 reports.

While Hasan continues drawing his salary, many of the wounded still face medical bills they have trouble paying. Soldiers wounded in combat get pay and medical benefits, but the Fort Hood shooting has been labeled "workplace violence" by the Army rather than a "terrorist attack."

Well, isn't that Special?

I'm all for defending the rights of our brave men in uniform; but this goes beyond the pale of "common sense legislation".

(Oh .. sorry; I'm confusing 2nd Amendment rights with the Federal Government's determination to defend the rights of self-confessed terrorists, as opposed to providing defense of our Military members.)

In case you don't remember, Military personnel on CONUS bases are not permitted to have access to firearms on military bases.  That's how Hasan managed to kill and injure so many warriors.  He broke the law by carrying a weapon; his fellow soldiers observed the law, and they died because they were denied the right to defend themselves.

How is it reasonable to declare military bases a "Gun Free Zone"?  Easy ... it's the Golden Rule.

Those who have the gold, get to make the rules.

Note that this restriction is not uncommon.  In Viet Nam, when grunts came back to their Division Base Camp for a "Stand Down" after walking in danger through the jungles for a week or two .. they were invariably dis-armed.  They were required to turn in all weapons, which were locked in CONEX containers until they armed themselves moments before they began their next mission.

I know; I was a platoon sgt in Vietnam, and it didn't make much sense to me then, except that we (the "grunts") were expected to get drunk and 'let off a little steam'.   I note in passing that none of the military personnel at Fort Hood were drunk when they were busily being murdered by the evil Major Hasan.

So now, Hasan is being paid for being a traitor to his nation, and his victims ... the innocent unarmed soldiers he killed and wounded?

Sorry, Folks.  You're on your own.  Can't defend  yourself against your erstwhile comrades? 

Tough Shit; Man up!

Can't pay your bills while you recuperate from wounds you received on active duty?

Tough Shit; Man Up!

______________________


In the 1932 "Bonus Army Strike",  veterans of WWI gathered at a park in Washington D.C. to demand their bonuses due them from their combat experience.  The Federal Government gathered mounted Calvary troops (including fledgling officers George S. Patton and Dwight David Eisenhower) to drive out the veterans, existing in tents in a D.C. park.  The results of that rout was that two veterans were shot, and later died of their wounds.

This was, at the time, the Federal Government's response to soldiers' demand that they be compensated for their service to their country.   Combat pay?  Never Happen.

Now, today, this same government (different president, same arrogant attitude) refuses to compensate American Soldiers for injuries received while on active duty.  Well, they were in uniform, on the grounds of a domestic Army base, and being paid for their time .. although, admittedly, they weren't being "awarded" Combat Pay at their current station.

Nobody expected Fort Hood to become a combat zone .. perhaps because the troops expected their government to protect them in lieu of providing the means to protect themselves?

Oh, hell.  You can do the rest of the argument in your sleep.  American troops were on-station, on-duty, and forbidden to protect themselves.  Their Commander-In-Chief refuses to intervene to insure that wounded veterans are not compensated for their wounds?

Only a Commander who has no respect for the soldier he leads would fail to insure that they are not supported in their hour of great need.

Did you vote for Obama?  Are you satisfied with his "war record:"?

I didn't, and I am not.  You can expect his lackeys, the MSM, to make as small an issue of this egregious failure to assume responsibility as Commander in Chief as possible.

Your President doesn't respect the men and women who are willing to lay down their lives for their country.

But he expects the respect which they ... not he .. has earned.  Because, after all, he IS "The President".

He has no respect for his office,or for his responsibilities.  As a veteran, I wonder why he continues to be allowed the respect of his high office.

Another Fishing Scam

Hello,

I'm writing this with great grievance, My family and I came down here to Manila, Philippines on a short vacation to visit  resort. unfortunately we were mugged at the park of the hotel where we stayed,all cash and  credit card including cell phone were stolen away but luckily for us we still have our passports with us. My credit card can't be charged by the hotel as I already reported it as a stolen card and the card company had  canceled it, so I can only get a new one when we make it back home safely.

   We’ve been to the Embassy and the Police here but they’re not helping issues at all and our return flight leaves soonest but we’re having problems settling the hotel bills and the hotel manager  won’t let us leave until we settle the bills.Now am freaked out, I will really need your financial assistance I promise to pay back as soon as we get back. Please let me know what you can do so i can proceed to give you all the details on how to get the funds to me here.

Thanks.

xxx

This is the context of another email I have received, obviously an attempt to either get me to send case to a bogus address (yet to be named), or to offer personal information.

Please, don't respond to these kind of emails.  In this case, there are certain details which are not consistent with my friend's personal life.   It's easy for me to ignore this ... we all want to help our friends and family when they are trouble; these people rely on our humanity to bilk us out of billions of dollars a year.

I just want you to be aware that the email address from which you receive similar emails may be valid (as this was), but the person sending the email is not your friend, not your family.

If you receive a similar email, be very careful about how you respond.  Above all, do not reveal personal information which may lead to you being robbed.  You're not helping anyone, other than the people who are too greedy to appreciate how they victimize nice people.