The myth of the hero cop

The myth of the hero cop: Police unions have spread a dangerous message about America’s law enforcement officers.:

It’s hard to prosecute cops. There are two main reasons for this: The first is the special deference that jurors, judges, and prosecutors show officers thanks to the widespread perception that they are heroic public figures valiantly trying to protect us. The second is the bevy of special laws around the country that are designed to shield police officers from the very tactics the police regularly use on ordinary suspects.

Thank you, David Feige of Slate, for your in-depth review of all the reasons why (in your mind) police are not subject to the same scrutiny as 'common citizens' are ... because of "special laws .. to shield police ... "

One thing:  yes, there are "Bad Cops", and as we are all human I'm pretty sure that most cops are flawed.

So .. three questions:

One:  Do you have a gun to protect yourself?  Or do you rely on 911 in case you are assaulted?
Two: Have you ever been mugged?
Three: have you ever been arrested?

The thing is, you appear to reside in New York City.
And .. the bromide is:

A Liberal is someone who has been arrested.
A Conservative is someone who has been mugged.

So, although you have not offered any "full disclosure", we're assuming that you were arrested for drug charges?  Marijuana?  Or a more mind-altering substance?  (I'm guessing something more powerful than Weed .. cops generally trend to ignore Grass arrests, because there are too many of them among the Liberal Community to do anything more constructive than issue a 'ticket', which can incur nothing more onerous than a fine.  Which would explain the grudge you obviously have against police officers.)

Getting back to Question 1:  I'm guessing that you rely on the police to protect you.  Which they cannot do, of course, because those "highly paid" public servants have too many clueless citizens to
"Protect and Serve".

So, you don't have a gun.  Well, of course you don't.  You live in New York City, the town that FORCES you to rely on local police to protect you.  But you don't appreciate that, because you know that there are 10,000  (plus)  police who are paid FAR too much money for giving you very limited protection.

Please note that the reason why you cannot have a gun to protect yourself is because your liberal friends made it illegal.  Not the cops; your Liberal Friends.

Clue-bat notice:  The police aren't there to protect you.  They are there to solve crimes, and arrest miscreants.  Perhaps you are uncomfortable with that situation.  I don't blame you.  If I relied on the cops to protect me, I would be similarly disappointed that they are NOT liable for failure to protect you from assault.  Or robbery, or anything else.  Is that the reason you're so down on cops, Binky?

Given the restraints on cops, it's no wonder that you are disillusioned.  That's okay .. it's not their fault.  Your Liberal Representatives have made sure that you can't sue cops when they can't protect you.   Someone seems to think that personal protection is YOUR job, not the cops.

Let's get to the part where you claim that the police are corrupt and .. what was your term?

Unfairly protected

Oh, yeah; we just covered that.  You think they are "unfairly protected"; but the fact is that if you are mugged, the cops don't much care.  The same if someone steals the radio out of your car (which you don't OWN, because you know it's too dangerous and too expensive to own a car in NYC because .. theft) the cops have no way to deal with minor thievery.  Beat Cops take reports, and pass them on.  Beat Cops are also the first responders, and when it's the murder of an infant in her crib (for example), they have to go home and tell their wife that it was 'just another  day on The Job", and hope they don't keep her awake when they can't sleep that night because of the images that they can't wipe out of their memory .. which lasts for decades.

Yep.  It's an easy job, and they are certainly overpaid.

You complain that:  " ...  the average beat cop costs the taxpayers more than $150,000 per year."
Sounds like pretty good bread.  So, why didn't you apply to the police department, go through the training regimen, and become a cop?  By your perception, it's an easy job with little or no risk, and the pay is great!

Could it be because you just don't have the guts to put your life on the line for your fellow New Yorkers? Or you don't care to deal with the 'seamy underside of New York" on a daily basis?

Strange .. you don't seem to consider that it's a risky business, underpaid and under-financed, and the only way cops can make a decent living it to volunteer for overtime hours.  Often this is just standing in the rain for hours on end, directing traffic.  But sometimes that's actually facing people who are violent, insane, vengeful and .. oh, did we discuss that POLICE ARE TARGETS FOR BAD MEN?

But you're pretty well focused on that $150,000 per year paycheck ....
... even though you don't seem to have considered the horrible working conditions they regularly endure to feed their family.  And BTW .. $150,000 year is pretty much what sanitation workers in major cities draw.  They all get The Big Bucks because nobody would take that nasty-ass job if they didn't get compensated in proportion to the unsavory nature of the job they accept.

The reason for the one hundred fifty dollar paycheck (which requires a TON of overtime in the cesspool which is a major city) is that it's a crappy world, and these folks are on the front line .. they see the disincorporated body of the 29-year-old executive who just jumped from the 80th floor of his executive condominium, and they go scour the block to pick up the pieces.  

Then the detectives wander by, take reports, and go back to talk to the Captain.

And then some asshole like you writes an article complaining about cops who are not heroic at all.

You are SUCH a jerk.  If you spent one day doing what these stolid men and women do EVERY DAY, you would puke your guts out and spend the next week in bed.  With the covers over your head.

And you would hate yourself.   Rightfully.

Baltimore’s streets are quiet again. Baltimore’s state’s attorney Marilyn J. Mosby moved quickly in securing indictments against six police officers in the death of Freddie Gray, and her decisive action has calmed the city for now. But getting a grand jury to indict police officers is a lot easier than getting convictions at trial. That’s because like any prosecutor trying to hold cops accountable, Mosby will be working on an uneven playing field. To prove her case, she won’t just need sufficient evidence. She will also have to overcome a number of deep-seated structural impediments to convicting police officers of crimes—no matter how guilty they are. 

No matter how guilty they are.  Do you hear yourself?  No trial, and you have already proclaimed them GUILTY, because .. because you can.

Asshole.

Cops and Black Protests

 After reading a 34-page summary of the case, the judge made it clear he disagreed, saying that "Brelo's entire use of deadly force was a constitutionally reasonable response to an objectively reasonably perceived threat of great bodily harm from the occupants of the Malibu, Russell and Wiliams."

I wrote about this some time ago.  At the time, I wondered if this would not initiate another "Death By Cop Protest".

Apparently, the local 'community' (which was unable to disuade the two felons in the car that Brelo stopped in a barrage of bullets from the hood of their car) has chosen to rise in righteous indignation.

We're not pleased here at Geek Central to learn that the prognostication was confirmed.  One would prefer not to be so 100% able to forecast ghetto indignation.

On the other hand, when one identifies with a community which has historically been plagued by oppression, it's difficult to resist the urge to riot.

Would the Jews in 1938 Berlin embraced the same approach, they might have lost a few million of their families.  I know, that sounds cold.  But those peoples were faced with a truly oppressive armed police force, one which had the publicly espoused goal of 'resolving the Jewish Question".

I don't think we're at that point yet, now, here.  But when Black citizens protest the death of their brothers and sisters at the hand of the police, they do have a point.  Even if the black deceased was a criminal, engaged in violent crime, it's not a situation which they can ignore; the death of one diminishes all.

(Wish they could get past the criminal behavior which draws the attention of the police, but only the community can deal with that.  Maybe they will, maybe they will not.  Their choice.)

The thing is, the Jews faced racial extinction; the blacks face what they perceive to be an institutional drive on the part of the folks with the power (you know, the guys who have the guns?) to keep them down and out.  Not quite on a par with racial extinction, but from the point of our black bretheren ... the distinction is vague.  Who can blame them for over-reacting when the lesson of the Jews is to stomp on this oppression before it becomes "institutional"?

I don't believe that the police in major cities are consciously (or 'deliberately') trying to put down the black community.  I do think that the attempt by the black community to be as high-profile as possible is their "Come To Jesus" Moment.   Or at least, a way to make sure that America is not comfortable with accepting their plight.

What I DO believe is that Black People in America are determined to keep their issues right in the bitch-slapped face of What America, if only so that people of conscience will not be 'comfortable' with ignoring their issues.  Do I think their situation is, today, as dire as they portray it?  

No.

But their best game plan is to over-state every situation, to keep those of us (including me) on the edge of our Strat-o-Lounger Easy Chairs wondering if maybe we might be part of the problem; because it's quite clear that our comfort is no part of The Solution.

SO:

Was Michael Brelo justified in jumping on the hood of Tim Russell's Mailbu and emptying his Glock into the bodies of  Russell and his friend Malissa Williams?

I don't know.  I wan't there.  All I know is what I read in the newspapers.\

I'm pretty sure there was some crime involved, and that Russell and Williams did not meekly surrender to police.

And the "African-American Community" (I HATE the hyphenated American terminology) is not happy.  Don't much blame them; if it was me I'd be pissed, too.


(If you're looking for some wisdom, and solution to a vaguely stated problem, or something more than questions ... hey!  Don't look at me; I'm as confused as everyone else is.)

I LIKE Gamers!

 A semi pro competitor by name of Rick Birdsall recently shot this 3 Gun stage where he slid underneath the stage wall and completed the course of fire. Pretty neat and a great use of time. Before people start ringing bells about safety, he cleared his actions with the RO before the match and if you look carefully, he completes his action with a magazine inserted, but no round in the chamber, and loads it on the other side of the wall. There was some criticism voiced on his page but overall it was conducted in a safe manner.

This has been written up on a couple of other gun blogs.    For those of you who have already seen the video I won't bother including it (go to the FIREARM blog link for the video ... they need the traffic).
  But as an IPSC competitor for thirty years, I have something to say.

This is about competition.  USPSA competition.

And I like that this guy chose to shoot the stage his own way; that's what IPSC is all about.
Whether he gained any actual competitive advantage from his approach is immaterial.  He shot the stage the way his way, and this bullshit about whether the score should be protested ... it's just bullshit.  Screw 'em if they can't take a joke; it's legal!

Gun Nuts Are Safer

When you look at mass shootings, one thing is clear: the people who are shooting people are folks that buy guns to shoot people.

Statistics show that people who might be described as "Gun Nuts" are less likely to be involved in Mass Shootings than people who only want to be executioners.

In fact, almost ALL "Mass Shootings" are caused by people who have (relatively) NEVER used a firearm for hunting, or for competition, or for any other "Legitimate Gun Use",

Most frequently, they (a) just bought the gun, or (b) they just stole the gun, or (c) they just murdered a family member so they could steal the gun out of their gun safe.  Which doesn't say much for the "Safe Gun Retention" laws we're seeing a lot of, recently.

Indiana Wants me

Allow concealed carry across state lines:

The House and Senate may soon take up outstanding legislation that would help return the existing, constitutionally recognized and protected right of Americans across the country to keep and bear arms. The proposal, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act (S.498), also referred to as mandatory concealed carry, was introduced in the Senate by John Cornyn, R-Texas. Under this legislation, it would eliminate a state's ability to infringe upon constitutionally protected gun rights of individuals from another state who can carry guns within its own borders. 

.... Making good people helpless will not make bad people harmless, and I encourage you to contact Sens. Joe Donnelly and Dan Coats and urge them to honor their constitutional oath to protect our individual rights.
(Indiana State Rep. Jim Lucas - R-Seymour on May 23, 2015)

What he said.

Excuse me .. AMNESTY INC accuses Hamas???

Amnesty International accuses Hamas of torturing, killing Palestinians in new report on Gaza conflict | Fox News: 

Amnesty International accused Hamas militants Wednesday of abducting, torturing, and carrying out summary executions of Palestinians during last year's conflict in the Gaza Strip.

We have never before seen AMNESTY point the finger at anyone but Israeli's in the Mid-East Conflict.   Those  "Hamas Militants" must have done some seriously Bad Shit to be cited by A.I.

Or is there some dissension in the TransNational Progressive Love-Fest?

 (Enquiring People want to know.  *_I_* want to know!)

It's extremely rare for the Transnational Liberal Progressive Community (hey, they chose the label, not me!) to target people who actually choose to unibomb buses and schools and places of worship in non-combat moments to be The Bad Guys.  Usually, AMNESTY INC points the fingers at the Israeli's because they are mean to Palestinians.

(You know, the Israeli's allow Palestinians to become citizens, and vote, and not get their women whipped because their burkas are too short, and all that oppressive shit?  Unlike HAMAS Dudes.)

So when Amnesty, Inc. accuses Hamas of the same stuff that Amnesty, Inc. has been accusing the Israeli's of for decades, it's like .....
.. uh ...

I don't know.  My mind is too boggled to present cogent thoughts.

You think it through.  Let me know if you can figure it out, okay?

A case for totally unrestricted firearms access

True ‘common sense’ from an Indiana lawmaker - Seattle gun rights | Examiner.com:

Reflecting what appears to be a national trend — it certainly is here in Washington State and literally anywhere else one keeps track of concealed pistol licenses — Lucas notes, “Applications for concealed carry permits in Indiana continue to explode as hundreds of thousands of Hoosier men and women realize that they are the first line of defense in protecting themselves and loved ones.”

Just off the top of my head .... why are there any restrictions at ALL of citizen access and carry of firearms?

It just makes the ATF folks look bad in the press; wouldn't it be a whole lot easier to ignore those silly laws?   The only ones who pay any attention to them are the "Honest Citizens".

Wanna-Be Heroes

Borepatch: Heroes Part II:

When someone says, "Yea, I was in the service. I was a clerk typist.", and tells you funny stories of boot camp and maybe the stuff he and his buddies did in Japan in 1975, you can believe that. We've all heard of Stolen Valor and there are groups of veterans that dedicate a lot of time exposing guys who claim to have been super combat vets, SpecOps operators, Navy SEALs, wearing uniforms with rows of ribbons they bought on-line. What isn't as obvious is the guy who was in the service and just embellishes what he did. Now he can talk the talk, knows the units, lingo and details. Maybe he was on the base in a non-combat role but in a support unit that fixed the boats. It might start out no more than saying, "Yea, I served with the SEALS. No, I don't want to talk about it.", to his ...

And I don't much care, really.

I've read a lot about the "Stolen Valor" movement, lately, and frankly it seems like a tempest in a teapot.  Sure, some guys are envious of people who "get the glory or War" but were unable to acquire the experiences.  And probably, it's because they were unwilling to volunteer because HEY .. a guy could get HURT in a Combat Zone!

So, for their vanity, they *(these wanna-be guys)* portray themselves as war heroes.

And real war heroes resent that, so there is this movement to 'out' the charlatans.   Why?  Because they demean .. they STEAL .. the VALOR of the people who actually served in a combat situation.

Look, these guys are pathetic wanna-be's.

But if you were a warrior, you weren't there for the recognition.  You were there either because (a) you were drafted (as I was), or (b) you were enlisted.

If you were in a combat zone, and if you were involved in combat, you know who and what you are.

 You would probably like it if folks recognized that you chose NOT to move to Canada to avoid the draft.  (For me, it was something I thought about; but I couldn't face the promise of having to spend the rest of my life knowing that I was a LOSER!)

So. I'm uncertain about why some people are so (forgive the expression) so MILITANT about exposing losers?

I remember the story from my home-town, in the 1970's, about an acne-faced 17-year old who was found in the local Greyhound Bus Station wearing a full Class-A uniform.  He had Master Sgt Chevrons on his arm, and gold oak-leaves on his collar.  He claimed to be a "Sergeant Major"!

(Okay, it's an apocryphal story, but it's typical of the desperation these people are for respect .. albeit un-earned.)

Frankly, I was as embarrassed for him (even though I only heard the story 3rd-hand) as if he had been found masturbating in public.

But like the song about "the girl who just couldn't say 'no'", he was more to be pitied than censured.

Look.  If you have been around the world and seen the elephant, you know what you have contributed.  And if you did it so that other people would admire you ... you did it for the wrong reason.  Which you did not.

So why in the world do you care if someone who couldn't get an erection at the urging of the most talented Saigon Hooker decides he wants to get a little imaginary penal twitch?

Please, explain it to me.  Do so without using the words "Stolen" or "valor" or "Wannabe".

And please, don't talk about your 'fallen comrades".  I've got a few of my own, and I don't find these pitiful pop-in-jays to be any threat at all to their memory.  I'm thinking .. they would laugh, and buy the next round.

"STOLEN VALOR"?  You were not there for the accolades.  You were not trying to establish yourself as a "valorous warrior".  You were just there to do a job, one that nobody else would do.

When you treat these wanna-be's with contempt, you're drawing attention to them.  And they like it.

Fuck 'em.  It don't mean nothin'.

No Name Noticed

Police search for motive after US airman shoots Wal-Mart workers, self in North Dakota | Fox News:

Police in Grand Forks, North Dakota, are trying to find out what prompted a U.S. airman to walk into a Wal-Mart Supercenter and kill one worker, injure another and then fatally shoot himself.

It's tempting to be facetious here, but people died and others were hurt.  So maybe we should take a closer look at the motivation for this kind of  "senseless, random attack".

So here are my first two thoughts:

1. Because he wanted to do it.
2. Because he could.

You and I know nothing about  this specific attack, but we've seen this shit before. Some depressed 'poor soul' has no life, decides to end his, but desperately craves to find 'meaning' in what's left before he destroys himself.

And the only alternative to 'nothing' is to ruin the lives of others ... because somebody might remember his name.   We cannot forget the innocents he took with him, but we can refuse to acknowledge him.

Because that "acknowledgement" seems to be his sole reason for cold, calouse murder.

So, I don't want to know the name of this desperate soul, and I hope it is never published.

  I don't care why he decided on this route to infamy ... depression, drugs, bad karma, his Mister Coffee machine broke down, he can't get a date, or he got fired from his job.  It doesn't matter; if he can't deal with the same hazards of daily living that the rest of us seem to be able to cope with, he's a total loser, and we're better off without him.

The only way to discourage this sort of thing is to deny these people the notoriety they crave.

I'm going to call these .. depraved creatures ... NNNs ... No Name Noticed.

If the best use you can find for your wasted life is to be Noticed, then we shall turn a blind eye on you.

You will not be "Noticed"; merely mentioned in passing, like a broken mongrel dog we see lying beside the freeway on our way to work in the morning.  (Too bad .. hope the highway people scoop it up before it starts to smell.)

Pity that you might have taken someone with you who was worth more than the waste of air YOU turned out to be.

NYC: Why should you need a firearm?

Judge nixes New York City gun permit for firearms dealer | Fox News:
(May 24, 2015)

A judge won’t let a traveling firearms dealer carry a concealed weapon in New York City to protect himself and his wares from “criminals and terrorists.” Cavalier Knight applied for a gun permit from the New York City Police Department in 2014. He went to court when the application was denied. He claimed the NYPD violated his Second Amendment rights. But in a decision posted Friday, a judge rejected that claim while upholding New York’s tough gun control law, the New York Daily News reported Saturday.

The judge's decision was based on the premise that it was "pure speculation" that he might be subject to attack, and;

1. why should he be any more at risk than others in his business, who haven't asked for similar 'rights', and;
2. he has been selling guns for years and he has not been attacked yet, so why should he now be concerned?

Am I missing something here?

The Attack on Self-Defense

Front Page Magazine offers a counter to the argument that  if you use a gun to protect yourself, you expose yourself to even worst tragedy; or as stated in the story: "... a gun is “not a particularly good defense strategy.”


(H/T to Clayton Cramer)

The Attack on Self-Defense:
(Front Page Magazine; May 22, 2015)

 Some years back, a public service TV ad depicted patients being told by a doctor that they had a tobacco-related illness: lung cancer, heart disease, emphysema, etc. It asked, “If you’re not planning to quit smoking, then what are you planning?” So let me ask: If you’re not planning to use a firearm to defend your home against invasion, what are you planning to do? Modern liberalism has long mocked even the possibility of citizen self-defense:

A woman who  experienced a 'home invasion', and who abandoned two of her sleeping children to save the two she COULD rescue, is convinced that standing her ground to protect her entire family would be a scenario fraught with risk.   Why?  Because if you point a gun at the bad guys, it may only serve to escalate an already bad situation.   They may take your gun away from you.

What if you have a gun, and they don't?  Then the bad guys are in a bad situation, not them.

And if they already have guns?  What choice have you except for making their "Boys' Night Out" more dangerous for them?

Home invasions DO happen.

How has our civilization degraded to the point that Rudyard Kiplings "The Female Of The Species" is no longer applicable in America?

WHEN the Himalayan peasant meets the he-bear in his pride,     He shouts to scare the monster, who will often turn aside.     But the she-bear thus accosted rends the peasant tooth and nail.     For the female of the species is more deadly than the male.

"Social Justice Org" accused of Exploitation ... of blacks hired to protest in Ferguson

Ferguson Rent-A-Mobs Exposed:

ACORN’s successor group in Missouri has been paying protesters $5,000 a month to generate civil unrest in Ferguson, the troubled St. Louis suburb where black youth Michael Brown was killed by a white police officer last August. We know this because some of the protesters haven’t been paid and, now, they are demanding what they were promised. They held a sit-in at the offices of Missourians Organizing for Reform and Empowerment (MORE) and posted a demand letter online.

Apparently, the 'rioters' were motivated more by a promised paycheck than "justice".

But then MORE paid them LESS.  Or more exactly, they stiffed a bunch of protesters who had been hired to put the face of "race" into "Racial Injustice".

We're not all that surprised to learn that the protesters were hired to create an incident (riot?).  But that the liberal organization would then stiff their under-the-counter hired goons  agitators adds injury to insult.

Still, this is America,    If an Honest Politician is "one who stays bought", then an Honest Liberal is "one who pays his goons".

No Honest Liberals here.    (I guess it's really not that surprising, when you think about it.)

So now, the Protesters are Protesting THEM:
 From Gateway Pundit:  "We're Gonna Just F*CK YOU UP!"

Is this a great country, or what?