Now evidently he was out of parole, but overall this whole incident speaks of excessive. None of the officers tried to express any restraint on their fellow officers. Each was more than willing and complicit in their own actions and that of their fellow officers.
While officer safety is a concern, most certainly a man lying on the ground naked in the snow is not a threat worthy of beating and tasing, especially if you’re the individual responsible for stripping him.
The fact that 3 officers were all involved and all three mutually worked to abuse this individual instead of thinking the problem through given their superior numbers earns all 3 a place on the count.
State Sponsored Criminal Count: 10
Just because a cop has the ability doesn’t mean he should, just like the rest of the civilian populace.
Often we hear the anti-rights cultists tout how you should just give an attacker what they want. We hear them claim, “Nothing is worth taking someone’s life over.” While most could sympathize with that statement it ignores a couple very basic fundamental things with regard to someone attacking someone else.
Let’s dissect the assumptions made by the anti-rights cultists shall we?
The attacker is looking to steal only property.
Property has a monetary value and you can easily make that comparison except for one serious flaw. The attacker has ruled your life worth less than the monetary value of the object they’re stealing. You have worked a portion of your life to purchase that object and they are stealing that part of your life. Not only are they stealing your life, but in attacking you they are willing to take the rest of your life to obtain it. What if the attacker stealing your property also has a rule of leaving no witnesses.
The attacker is only seeking monetary gain for his personal benefit.
If this were true the following stories would have never occurred.
This woman reacted in defense of her children. The man wanted not just something of monetary value, but the woman’s child as well. What would the anti-rights cultists suggest she do? Let her child be kidnapped by someone of such high and impeccable moral character as a man who would rob a convenient store and steal a child? Odds would greatly weigh against the safe recovery of the child at that point, but I guess the criminal’s life is worth more than the child right!? Just let the cops do their job and your child will be fine.
Or this story, where again the subject of the attack was nothing of monetary value but that of a woman’s virtue.
There’s the numerous methods from the antis about how a woman can defend herself against rape. My personal favorite was telling women to vomit on themselves. There is a much better solution and it results in a safety improvement for women everywhere. Shoot the bastard. A cops response averages about 88fps(60 MPH) at best from a distance measure in miles. A .45 ACP will be there at 850fps from a distance measured in yards at most. Guess which will reach the attacker first. It will also make for damn sure he can never do it to another woman ever again. Many times though the mere presence of force will cause the attacker to seek a new victim. Attackers want easy prey that is safe for them, the are out to inflict pain on others, not to have their victim fight back.
Which brings me to my third story that seems right out of Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange.
These kids went out and assaulted and beat an old man because they knew him to be an easy victim, unable to defend himself unarmed against people a 1/4 his age. Their victim selection in this case was lucky because when the elderly man is armed, all the sudden the field is leveled
.
All three of those cases there was nothing to give the attacker but the life of their child, their virtue, or lastly their own life. When one attempts to execute harm to another unprovoked, the attacker has stated that their victim’s worth is 0. They have no value on your life, so why are you attempting to provide a value to theirs? The lives of your family, your virtue, and your life should be weighted as priceless. A person attacking you is not worth more than your own life.
These cases illustrate the absurdity of the assumptions and their complete lack of understanding. They are attempting to take a very large complex subject and provide a black and white lens to view it through. Not only that though they are trying to state there is no black in their world, only white.
In all three of those incidents our criminal occupational hazard reduction organizations would wish that the attacker succeeded with their attacks. The victim has less rights than the criminal in their world view. The problem is, a criminal has surrendered all his rights in attempting to violate the sovereignty of another human being. A citizen has the right to defend themselves from attack using any means of force possible. If the criminal would rather remain unventilated, I invite him to stay his ass home and leave people alone. If he continues to prey upon the citizenry, may he one day make a victim selection failure and pay the permanent irrevocable costs for his sins and transgressions against his fellow man.
The myth that giving an attacker what they want will be safe for you is totally false as people have died doing just that. The myth that it’s not just worth killing someone over is false, your attacker feels you’re worth killing for it. So remember, when someone tells you to just give them what they want and you’ll be fine, they’re lying. Not only are they lying, but the care more about the criminal than they do you. That’s a really friendly thing to do right there, side with the person who wishes you and your family harm.
No place could that be considered reasonable force. It is doubly despicable the actions the department took to protect their officer. Including throwing out other witness testimony that was unfavorable to the officer. There is no question that the officer is guilty of at minimum negligent homicide. His actions were taken without a thought or care to the rights of the victim. His actions immediately after the assault guaranteed his death. Even if this man was guilty the actions taken after illustrate the belief he was judge jury and executioner.
While he his now facing a trial, it was brought about by a federal investigation since local law enforcement refused to act and punish him. For that, he’s still a state sponsored criminal.
State Sponsored Criminal Count: #135 – Karl F. Thompson
Because after assaulting someone they should be restrained in such a way as to guarantee their death.
I spent this morning updating my spreadsheets to the 2010 UCS data. Here’s the overall result:
While R2 has increased, it is still inconsequential and shows absolutely zero correlation over the entire data set. It is worth nothing though the overall score vs. crime trend has gone from being slightly negative to positive. By looking at the plot, you can see that different scores are scattered across the entire field of crime rates. So let’s look at just states who scored above 50.
Correlation decreased for all scores above 50, however it still shows a positive trend towards an increase in violent crime. This trend though, like the overall chart is extremely weak due to the low R2 value.
Again a low correlation, however again it’s a positive trend for a higher score. Still only three states, 15%, with a score above 20 had a crime rate below 300. Those still were sitting toward the higher crime rates. Again I normalized the data and examined the distribution confidence.
For this graph I took everything around the peak normalized value for 25% of each side. In other words everything between the 25th percentile and 75th percentile is included. Notice how it looks like a shot gun blast, though what is interesting is the cluster of points with low Brady scores. That region includes 24 data points, of which only 8 have scores above 20. The highest scores amazingly appear with that confidence range, along with every other score.
Seeing Linoge’s graphs, as well as mine has given me an idea for a couple more graphs that I want to create to help view trends in context with other data. There’s another project for me to work on.
*You are free to repost these graphs, however I must request that you provide a direct link back to these posts. Some individuals seem to think that providing credit to those who put forth the effort to create these doesn’t really matter. Please, don’t be that dick. It takes a lot of time to organize the data and graph it. If you don’t feel it takes that much time, do it yourself. So if you want to use these graphs, feel free, please just provide proper credit.
While yes, cybersecurity should be taken seriously, Sandy is not an example of how dangerous a cyber attack could be.
What do I mean I hear you cry? Sandy is a prime example of what someone could do to physicallyinterrupt the power system. While you could find a way to get a breaker to open or close unintentionally, the easier method of disrupting utilities is to find critical points and physically knock them out.
First, let me do a quick explanation of what’s going on in the NYC area. Most power distribution in the NYC area is below ground. This makes it below sea level. This is one of the reasons they shut down many areas early, in an effort to protect equipment so that it can return to service more quickly. Still, that equipment has to be cleaned, transformers for example have to be washed, insulation checked, and refilled with cooling oil. This takes time, though much less time than having to fly in a replacement transformer, removing the old one, and installing and commissioning the new one.
So what we have is a bunch of distribution points that were/are full of water, need to be drained, the equipment cleaned, checked, maintained, and replaced possibly in some instances. All of this must be done before re-energizing that circuit.
So why did I take the time to explain all that? Well because it illustrates that if done properly, a physical attack, can easily do more damage than any cyber attack, and even more than that you have decreased the potential recovery time. But that’s not all. Say you execute an attack on physical infrastructure and take out 2 transmission level transformers on a main artery.
You have now done triple digit damage in the millions if not more. Plus it will take 2-3 years, at a minimum, to replace the transformers. Any stock they have for those transformers is in very limited supply. This means if you hit a couple of places at once, you could very well permanently cripple the ability for a region to get the power necessary to operate.
Seriously, think about this, cyber-security to protect assets worth millions of dollars and provide hundreds of millions in revenue are going to be left unguarded by their owners and operators? Get real. The bigger and harder problem is physical security. How do you stop someone from running a truck into a transmission tower?
Why do I bring all this up? Because our overlords often start screaming about “necessity” in an effort to create new regulations and requirements which honestly are unnecessary. They’re unnecessary because do you think a utility company doesn’t want to protect its equipment? For every minute a transmission line is down they’re loosing millions of dollars in lost revenue.
We’ve seen these cries before and yet again it is to drum up “FUD” among people who don’t really understand how the system works. FUD is how you make a bunch of people clamor to do something when nothing really needs to be done. That’s what Janet’s doing with her latest ramblings.
Do you use gloves when shooting guns? If so, what kind?
And, more specifically, do you use gloves when cleaning your guns? If so, what kind?
For me the answers flow like this. While shooting I normally do not wear any gloves. Worrying about soot and lead residue is the last thing on my mind while shooting. My rule is no drinks and food unless I wash/wipe my hands. What I do use religiously is D-Lead wipes. I have a package in my range bag as well as a second in the tool box of my truck.
They’re honestly worth their weight in gold. The few times I do wear gloves it is unbelievably cold out here, read that as single digits or teens at most. Then I am wearing military style flight gloves.
While cleaning, yes, yes, and yes. Here’s the trick through, buy two different types, seriously. Vinyl, Latex/Nitrile all react differently to the different solvents and other things used to clean firearms. If all you’re using is standard Hoppe’s No. 9 as a solvent you can get away with just using Latex/Nitrile.
In my experience though Barnes CR-10 chews up Latex and Nitrile but the Vinyl handles it well. Butch’s Bore Shine eats up the Vinyl making it brittle. Further if you use things like brake cleaner to strip the oils and grease it will go through the vinyl. I recommend using a wire to hold the object and avoid your hand in general in that case. The active ingredient in Brake Kleen for example will absorb through the skin and take anything with it it’s stripped off. Gloves will help prevent or slow it but that little bugger of an ingredient as it likes to go through your skin.
Wearing gloves while cleaning is important. While growing up I mainly just cleaned with No. 9 and didn’t really bother with the gloves. Again you can probably get away with it but I look back on it now and it was stupid. Your skin is porous and absorbs whatever is on it. Honestly I don’t want it absorbing any of that crap.
Butch’s Bore Shine I think is the biggest lesson in, “Wear Gloves!” There is a warning label telling you not to use it bare handed, use of it bare handed can allow the chemicals to be absorbed and they have been known to cause liver failure.
Gloves are cheap, your body is not, when cleaning your guns at least wear latex or nitrile and expect to change them often as they break and die from the solvents.
As for cleaning my rifles I use a mix of No. 9, CR-10, and Butch’s. CR-10 and Butch’s both get used on the barrel. The CR-10 is much better at getting out heavy copper fouling, the Butch’s does a fantastic job at getting any lead and powder out and leaving the barrel in a pristine state. Butch’s takes out the copper too, it just takes forever if you have a lot of it.
The No. 9 I use on my pistols and actions to clean out the gunk and other crap that has collected up. Oil and lube it all back up and put it back together.
So yes, wear gloves when cleaning, don’t worry so much about shooting. Just make sure to wipe down and wash your hands after and you’ll be fine.
So already I’ve seen comments and even got an email from a friend about a particular comment that was left, below is what the comment said (emphasis mine, spelling his).
We all here want to feel safe and do what we can to protect our families & loved ones: we are parents to our children, wives to our husbands, true friends to our friends. More than this we are neighbors and members of our community, in church, club, workplace and park.
I honor the Bill Of Rights and welcome the freedom the Second Ammendment gives me. I also recognize that this was written 221 years ago against the backdrop of our emerging nation. At this sad time and remembering past atrocities I will now seek a complete ban on assault rifles – I will continue to proudly keep and carry my little Ruger. While I dont know many of you here I know that you are no different to my own neighbors; good people living in difficult times. We all need to do the right thing and show leadership.
Here’s the thing folks, you either have a right to arms or you don’t. There is no negotiating on this, we did that in 1994 and look what happened. Further the current atrocity pulling at everyone’s heart strings happened within a state with an assault weapons ban!
If the ban didn’t stop him there what makes you think it would somehow work in the future? Please inform me how “just one more law” would have altered the course of events given the litany of laws he broke before he even started shooting children. Explain to me how the law-abiding gun owners are at fault and the sacrifice of their rights will somehow make the world a safer place. Even law-makers admit that an assault weapons ban wouldn’t have changed anything, you must know something the rest of us don’t.
But lets destroy your BS regarding 221 years ago shall we? At the time people owned cannon, artillery, and during the American Revolution the Kentucky Long Rifle was the AR-15 of the era. Read that again, the Kentucky Long Rifle was the AR-15 of the era. It was a military arm that was quite excellent at striking targets at long distances. By todays standard our bolt-action rifles could be compared with muskets. Muskets, lacking rifling, were less accurate but quicker to reload. So there’s a trade-off yes, overall the technology was quite similar, however there was a considerable difference between the two.
Lets move forward not even 100 years to the civil war and the advent of the henry repeating rifle as well as the percussion-cap revolver. Both of which greatly increased the available firepower of a single individual, yet by your argument we should have nothing more than what we had 221 years ago when it was written. So no revolvers, no repeating rifles, this destroys cartridge firearms, thus kiss your bolt-action rifles and shotguns good-bye seeing as they couldn’t have conceived of this 221 years ago.
Because they couldn’t conceive of the advances in technology 221 years ago, because they didn’t see the immediate benefit of the printing press, you argue for a complete ban on an inanimate object, that you don’t use, thinking that will somehow stop evil. You are however more than happy to continue carrying your “little Ruger” which, by your argument, should be outlawed since we should only take into account what they had at the time.
So if you want to carry a defensive pistol and you want to carry on this argument, you will carry nothing more than a single shot flint-lock pistol. For you see, you should only ever need one round! If you need more than one, obviously you need to practice your aim more! No one needs a 10 shot magazine, the size of the Ruger LCP, or even a six shot revolver, for our fore-fathers survived on 1 shot flint locks and that is what they had in mind when they wrote the 2nd Amendment, at least that’s what you claim. You cannot have it both ways, you cannot just embrace technology you like and throw away that you dislike.
Our opponents would be happy to take away every semi-automatic pistol, who needs them right? You can carry a revolver, it has six rounds, more than enough for anything you might encounter! Then one day someone goes on a spree, reloading while the response takes 20 minutes and you hear cries that we need blanket revolver ban. It’s a slippery slope my friend and the first assault weapons ban proved that along with another important fact.
Now you could say I’m over stepping and taking this too far to which I would reply, how do you set the bar then? George Washington didn’t cross the Delaware to get to his duck blind and by god the Second Amendment was not written with the aspect of hunting in mind. No, at the time the American public maintained it’s own supply of military arms and while some would say that is no longer necessary, I would point out that to this day the United States has an unorganized militia that can be called upon to defend her. As well as the fact that our government has committed atrocities against her own people and you wish to give that same government a sole monopoly on force. Merely ensuring that her own citizens cannot resist if they feel it necessary to do so.
Lastly your argument for an assault weapons ban also completely ignores the fact that the majority of the features banned are purely cosmetic and safety related. Tell me, what good does it do to ban a collapsible stock? You know that thing that allows you to adjust the length of pull for different sized shooters. That thing you adjust to make sure the shooter doesn’t get scoped, or otherwise suffer injury. The pistol grip, which is quite beneficial for disabled shooters allowing for a more natural grip angle and thus preventing further damage to the wrist because of recoil. Also my personal favorite, banning a barrel shroud. Really!? Banning an object who’s sole purpose is to prevent the user from burning themselves. That’s like banning suppressors, because we all like hearing damage!
Your statement above is nothing but pure hypocrisy no matter how you cut it. You either support the individual right of self-defense, including their right to choose what they think is the best arm for them, or you don’t. You cannot just say, well I don’t like evil black rifles so their bad but leave my pistols alone. What happens to the disabled woman who cannot easily deploy a pistol but can a rifle? Must she be stuck with a bolt-action rifle that she cannot effectively operate the bolt on? Ok, so you’ve left semi-auto rifles now with the necessary features to aid in ease of use. Now are you going to limit her to 10 rounds? That operator as I said lacks normal dexterity so while you can quickly and easily reload a magazine you’ve still limited the disabled shooter. And for what? It’s not like the magazine bans really matter to a determined individual:
Remember it was 20 minutes for the police to respond, so short of banning metallic cartridges, people can reload guns, again and again, using them for evil. The answer is to step up and stop evil when it appears, that is best done by allowing people to retain the best tools for doing so. That is not done by banning the otherwise law-abiding and turning them into felons overnight. I find it ironic though that you claim we should do the right thing and show leadership and you do so by blindly following the talking heads. The right thing is stepping up and doing what needs to be done, even if it seems difficult. The right thing is protecting the rights of others despite the actions of a lone mad man. By the way sir, you lead from the front, not from the rear as you kiss the boots of your future masters begging forgiveness for something that wasn’t your fault.
In the words of Samuel Adams:
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace.
We ask not your counsels or your arms.
Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.
May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.
Umm, evidently the mayor has missed the memo, actually multiple memos about how his police force aren’t some how magically superior than the rest of the public. As a matter of fact, they have probably the highest incident rate in my criminal count currently.
Instead of accepting help to prevent looting and restore order, thus allowing his citizens to stop living in fear since he forcibly disarmed them, he says no, he wants only his paid thugs to be armed in the city. Remember this man has his own private army to protect him and his family.
As for the comments about the National Guard allowing for a police state to occur within New York City, you haven’t been paying attention have you. I have three words for those who think New York City isn’t a police state, “Stop and Frisk“.
The mayor that is more worried about big gulps and preventing law-abiding citizens from defending themselves unsurprisingly is actively preventing others from defending those same citizens.
Mr. Mayor, I suggest you recite the Scout Oath and Law, since it’s become blatantly apparent that you’ve forgotten it. Not to mention I’m reasonably sure that you wouldn’t know a good turn if it hopped up and bit you square in the face. Frankly sir, I wish you would just shut up and step down because between you and Michael Moore, you’re making the rest of us look bad. Your statements and actions reflect on all of us and you would do well to remember your charge. Here let me help you.
The Eagle’s Charge
The foremost responsibility of an Eagle Scout is to live with honor. To an Eagle Scout, honor is the foundation of all character. He knows that “A Scout is trustworthy” is the very first point of the Scout Law for good reason. An Eagle Scout lives honorably, not only because honor is important to him but because of the vital significance of the example he sets for other Scouts. Living honorably reflects credit on his home, his church, his troop, and his community. May the white of the Eagle badge remind you to always live with honor.
The second obligation of an Eagle Scout is loyalty. A Scout is true to his family, Scout leaders, friends, school, and nation. His loyalty to his troop and brother Scouts makes him pitch in and carry his share of the load. All of these help to build the loyalty which means devotion to community, to country, to one’s own ideals, and to God. Let the blue of the Eagle badge always inspire your loyalty.
The third obligation of the Eagle Scout is to be courageous. Courage has always been a quality by which men measure themselves and others. To a Scout, bravery means not only the courage to face physical danger, but the determination to stand up for the right. Trusting in God, with faith in his fellowman, he looks forward to each day, seeking his share of the world’s work to do. Let the red in the Eagle badge remind you always of courage.
The fourth obligation of an Eagle Scout is to be cheerful. To remind the Eagle Scout to always wear a smile, the red, white, and blue ribbon is attached to the scroll of the Second Class Scout award, which has its ends turned up in a smile.
The final responsibility of an Eagle Scout is service. The Eagle Scout extends a helping hand to those who still toil up Scouting’s trail, just as others helped him in his climb to the Eagle. The performance of the daily Good Turn takes on a new meaning when he enters a more adult life continuing service to others. The Eagle stands as protector of the weak and helpless. He aids and comforts the unfortunate and the oppressed. He upholds the rights of others while defending his own. He will always “Be Prepared” to put forth his best.
You deserve much credit for having achieved Scouting’s highest award. But wear your award with humility, ever mindful that the Eagle Scout is looked up to as an example. May the Scout Oath and the Scout Law be your guide for tomorrow and onward.
Yeah, about the only thing you’ve done in that charge is walk around with a grin that approximates Joe Biden’s smirk. Honestly though that point is probably the least important of the points.
If you feel that you’re being courageous and doing the right thing here’s a pro tip: it’s not being courageous when others are dead and victimized for your decisions. It is anything but courageous to tell someone they cannot carry arms in their own defense while paying someone else to carry arms to defend you.
Courageous in this day is standing up for individual liberties and rights from nanny statists like you who would rather rape and pillage the land for their own profit.
Raw Feed
FeedBurner Feed
Subscribe by Email
