SSCC #193 – Campbell

This is a first of the 4 legged variety.

An off-duty Campbell police officer was walking Storm and allowed the dog to go to the bathroom in a fenced-in area. But the dog saw the boy and ran after him, apparently mistaking a running boy for a suspect.

Remember though, had it been your or my dog, there would be a very strong and justified push to put down the dog as a dangerous animal.  There is no justification for attacking a 8 year old boy who was playing.  Why was the dog not trained to follow verbal commands.  The dog should not have attacked anyone without being instructed to do so.  At a minimum why in the name of Sam Hell was that dog anywhere off of a leash if that is it’s behavioral model.  It’s not as if the dog was defending it’s property or owner from a direct threat.  The property wasn’t even the owners.

“Anything running, they’re trained … could be a potential threat. And all he’s doing is reacting and doing what he was trained to do,” Rusnak told WFMJ.

Wait, your department did what!?  You trained your dogs to go after potential threats.  Who thought that it would be necessary to have a dog attack potential threats.  Where I’m from, your dog attacks my kid, if you don’t take it out to the woods and do it, I will.  Police dog or not, attacking a child, unprovoked, is completely unacceptable and shows severe training issues with the dog as well as handling issues with the officer responsible for the dog.

In this instance I’m going to blame the officer attempting to justify it since I am unsure of the name of the handler.

State Sponsored Criminal Count 193: Sgt. John Rusnak

Because a police dog is different than your dog because the state views him as a police officer.  So when he runs off and attacks and innocent child, that’s just like a cop shooting a boy hiding in a shed.

Not Sorry for the Prolonged Break

Wife has has the majority of the past three days off, with the exception of a minor shift late Friday night for all of about 3 hours.  So instead of sitting in front of my computer I’ve been spending time with her since our schedules no longer line up our free time that well.  We got our Christmas decorations up, and now it’s time to watch the little terror pull them all down.

She’s got a long shift tomorrow and I plan on getting some blogging in coupled with some other work in the shop.  Computer work is definitely in the schedule though.

SSCC #192 – Blue Ash

A Blue Ash police officer, charged by Milford police in April with
operating a vehicle while intoxicated and reckless operation, pleaded
guilty to the latter misdemeanor charge on Monday.

Everyone makes mistakes though, maybe this was his first time and he should get a deal.

The offense occurred while William Fritts, 42, of Miami Township, was
off duty, and was his second reckless operation offense within a year, a
Clermont County Municipal Court worker said. He was sentenced to three
days in jail to be served at a residential intervention program, a
one-year driver’s license suspension (with certain privileges), 80 hours
of community service and $492 in fines and court costs.

Oh so obviously this wasn’t the guys first rodeo.  I’m so glad he’s out there making the streets safer from drunk drivers.

State Sponsored Criminal Count 192: William Fritts

Because someone in law enforcement should hold themselves to decent standards.  Especially with the long speeches of the dangers of drinking and driving.

Quote of the Day – Robb Allen (11/23/2011)

At what point does ‘being a complete and utter dick
go beyond peaceful assembly? Blocking a sidewalk on campus that
requires non-participating students to be forced to travel well out of
their way to get to where they need to go is one thing, but what happens
when these infants decide that blocking traffic on a major thoroughfare
is a ‘valid form of protest’? What happens when I cannot get to work or
home to take care of my family or when an emergency vehicle is impeded?
At some point, you have to say “Enough” and use force to remove the
blockade.

Even the blockade thing I have a hard time believing
is ‘peaceful’. When a country blockades another country’s supply line,
it’s understood to be an act of war. Doesn’t matter which country is in
the right. Getting in my way and saying “I will not let you pass because
I believe what you are doing is wrong” is a form of violence; it’s
restraining someone against their will.
The issue is that most people
don’t see it as violence and thus when someone has to use force to make
it to work / class / church / whatever they’re called the aggressors
when that is truly not the case.

Robb Allen A cornucopia of thoughts, complaints, and rants

Bold is my emphasis.


[Last night I went on a similar rant describing exactly why I cannot and will not support the Occupy movement.  My closing statements actually came down to this exact issue above and Robb made a comparison I wish I had thought of when I wrote it.  That is exactly right, blockading traffic is a form of violence and internationally is construed as an act of war.  An act of war is not something that should be taken lightly and it is quite serious.  While it may be possible to do without inflicting injuries, it is still forcing your will upon another human being.  In doing so you are violating that persons rights.

Occupy is a bunch of spoiled rotten children who think that obstructing and preventing people from free travel and free trade.  What they are doing is NOT peaceable and to claim such is to ignore the facts of what they are doing as well as it’s effect on those who are uninvolved.  As I said last night, your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose.  -B]

Ear Worm Wednesday – 11/23/2011

With where I live this is a wonderful song.  When I feel like it I can commute to and from work for the most part on nothing but gravel.  Though most people would consider the highways out here back roads too.

I am trying to keep this up beat and happy, though I thought about this one but it has a nasty habit of getting dust in the air.

I don’t know why that song pops in my head every once in a while.

SSCC #190 – #191 – Seatle PD

Video and audio from the scene indicates the officers opened their car
doors briefly and shouted, “Hey. Stop moving.  Hey,” as Jefferson
started to  park his car. The officers shut their doors and drove
forward a few feet, while one officer told the other inside the case
“Just yank ‘em, right out.”

Without even fully assessing the situation they made the determination to use physical force.  Now before you say, “Well maybe it was necessary, he was hiding something.”

After finding no weapons or drugs in Jefferson’s car, SPD arrested him for “obstruction.”

Prosecutors later dropped that charge.

So let me get this straight the officers decided before even really making contact with the suspect to execute a use of physical force.  They then beat this man after pulling him from his car.  After beating him and searching his vehicle and finding nothing they trump a charge to justify the use of force.  Then the department comes and puts the icing on the cake.

“Had they shot him or something of that nature, I think we’d all be
saying that was excessive, but what they did was they took him into
custody, using physical force, no question about that, and he was
injured in the process. I think that’s unfortunate, but it’s not
unreasonable under the circumstances.”

This coming from the same department that did this little incident!?  How in the name of god is that even remotely justifiable.  They had no reasonable expectation to require the use of force at all.  No orders, no commands, just beat the hell out of the guy and we’ll fix it all in post.

State Sponsored Criminal Count:

190: Officer John Doe*

191: Officer John Doe*

Because in this day in age, go to full contact force first without reason or cause.  You can always make up something else later and the Seattle PD will back it up.

*As usual if you get a name please contact me.  I don’t care if they’re undercover cops, it’s getting posted.

Why I Cannot and Will Not Support Occupy

Earlier yesterday I heard about the following incident at UC Berkeley.

A man allegedly threw an aluminum water bottle at a UC Berkeley student Thursday evening on campus, causing minor injuries to the victim’s face.

Why did this man throw the water bottle at the woman?  Because she wasn’t going to attend and support the local occupy rally.  I promptly tweeted it and from doing so it was placed on Facebook.  A friend of mine replied with a comment and there was a small exchange.

facebook_occupy_bf

I began to write up a response on Facebook and it grew to the point where it became a post in and of itself.  It became a clear cut definition of why I can not and will not support the movement.

The first and most principled issue is that while I agree that there is a problem, I have a strong disagreement with the proposed solution coming out of those involved in occupy. Their solution to the corruption is more government power and expansion. Completely disregarding the fact that large government provided the power to create this problem in the first place, much less grow it to its current size.  Give the more power to the government to regulate industry, never mind that government interference in the market is what allowed the bailouts.

So between that and the type of behavior I see out of occupy, it limits the support I’m willing to give.  Instead of fellow protesters acting to remove or turn in those committing crimes, they are acting to shield them from the police.  This makes them as guilty as the criminals.  See aiding and abetting.

Janelle’s example of the video out of Portland provides another window considering their camp as a whole issued that statement as a representative of occupy. 

Janelle’s statement is right, they have no respect for women, and their actions prove it.  Not only do they recommend not reporting the rape, but are actively discriminating against women.  I am not the only one with that type of view, and it was a woman who brought it to my attention complaining about the discrimination.  Add that to the initial incident I posted about being a woman assaulted by a man it becomes quite relevant.

If they acted like adults instead of spoiled children throwing a temper tantrum I might actually care and converse.  Sitting around occupying an area while attempting to prevent others from using the space to draw attention to your plight is like a kid rolling around on the floor of the supermarket screaming because they didn’t get what they want.  Not all are like this, some I actually have had a decent conversation with.  Those however have not been the majority experience for me.  Then add that up with the violent crime as well as general theft and it’s obvious they have a serious deficiency with their views of private property as well as personal rights.

This childish behavior has also been quite visible to me without doing much effort on my part.  More often than not my experiences have been similar to this:

fun trick: give #iamthe53 people an injury that will force them into a hospital stay. suddenly the system doesn’t work anymore

Even more than the quote promoting violence against those with differing opinions read through the comments too.  One guy, who’s post was censored, did nothing but spew profanity and call names instead of discussing the topic. 

From my position the difference between occupy and the tea party is best put with this image:

TeaParty-vs-Occupy

So it can be surmised as this, every time I see something like in the original post, it further cements my feelings for two reasons.

1) No one polices themselves as stated above.

2) No one attempts to remove themselves from the group to separate themselves from the behavior and instill the point of disagreement, but instead remains in place there by condoning it.  (Find me a counter presentation to Janelle’s video that tells occupiers to saying to report crimes instead of the message provided above to prove me wrong).

My integrity and my word is unbelievably important to me.  I will not loan my credibility or integrity to a group of individuals with such low morals who do not stand for the same beliefs and principals as myself.  My support for occupy is limited to allowing them to exercise their right to speech and peaceful assembly.  However their actions towards private property as seen in Oakland have indicated their move in a different direction.  Couple that with the damage and costs being accrued to be covered by the taxpayer, who may not support their cause, and we arrive back at my original position.  I cannot in good conscience support them.

It is said that your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose.  The same goes with your right to assemble and speak.  When you inhibit and prevent other members of the public from travel on public roads, when you damage public property sending tax payers the bill, and then go and damage private property in the end, you no longer have a right.  You no longer have a right because you are taking property and inflicting your will upon others there by inhibiting their rights.  If the protesters want to take over a park for an extended time a couple things need to happen:

  1. They need to take over maintenance of the park.  This includes cleaning it and operating it since they have now taken over principal use from the general public.  I.E. pick up your trash and clean up after yourselves.  Camping like that is extremely high impact on the area.
  2. They need to find an efficient way to share the space and ensure others can use the space who are not a part of their protest.  Being harassed while trying to go for a walk in the park isn’t acceptable.  The likelihood of harassment increases if you do not agree with the sentiment of the protestors.  The longer the protest, the more you prevent the rest of the public from using the park.

Neither of these matter in the case where someone has actually donated private land for them to use.  That’s fine and they have every right to be there for as long as they want without police harassment until such time as the owner of the land feels they should leave.  You absolutely have a right to protest and peaceably assemble and I support that right.  The question is what right do you have to, infringe on the rights of others to conduct business, have the government take their money to pay for your protest, and prevent others from the free use of public space and facilities for extended periods of time.

So given the fundamental beliefs, their attitudes towards crime, and their actions towards the rights of those who are neutral or against their stance I can not and will not support them.

About the Light Posting

I’ve been doubly busy at work, helped out with a bunch of stuff over the weekend and just have had about 0 time to spend on blogging.  When I have had time I just want to go and spend it on something else other than being in front of my computer.

I’m not dead, I’ve got a notepad of post ideas and a pile of articles to sift through it’s just going to take time.  Blogging might be back down to the single post a day until this weekend though.  I’ve also discovered something else:  When I write something big up, Save it and then post it at the beginning of the week.