Search Results for: node/SSCC children police

Why having an Anointed Class Doesn’t Work.

Many of the anti-rights cultists tout how police officers are the only one’s who should be anointed with the ability to carry a firearm.  They claim this comes from numerous factors including their extensive training, self-control, and their general infallibility.

The training argument will be ignored today with the exception of the following comment. 

Many civilians receive equal if not better training through their own funding.  Many civilians spend more on ammunition in a month that many officers will in their entire career.  The assumption that a police officer is some how magically more qualified by training is false.  Not to mention the fact that training has no bearing on the exercise of a Constitutionally protected inalienable right.  No one has to attend a training class before they can exercise their right of free speech.

The argument about their general infallibility has been covered quite well in the state sponsored criminal count.  This list doesn’t even focus on the incidences where officers have been caught and convicted, but centers around officers getting away with illegal or being provided unfair treatment under the law.

So instead this article is going to focus on self-control.  Numerous incidents have occurred as of late illustrating that police are human and their position does not provide them a magical exemption that alters their behavior from that of the human condition.

*Note nothing in this article should be construed as my being anti-law enforcement.  There are many officers who do an upstanding job and are quite commendable.  My goal through this article is to illustrate that there should not be a duality in law to differ between someone who works as a civilian in law enforcement and a normal law abiding citizen.

Where does this idea come from?

Often we hear the anti-rights cultists claim that only law enforcement should be allowed to carry or own firearms.  The claims provided previously coupled with the mistaken belief that the police are some how above a common citizen mix to create a serious problem.  Those ideas mix to provide an unrealistic definition of what a law enforcement officer is.  They combine together to destroy the idea that the officer is fallible, capable of making mistakes, or otherwise a human being.

When their want of their initial claim for total disarmament fails they instead extend restrictions on the right.

Exempted classes aren’t special.

Many of the anti-rights crowd call for banning carrying into establishments that serve alcohol. Never mind the fact that it is illegal to carry a firearm while drinking alcohol. Where with driving there is a limit, no limit exists with regards to carry. A single drink renders you unable to carry legally until your liver has finished it’s job. What this does do is disarm the designated driver, or someone who hops into a bar to visit with friends just for a bite to eat. Just because you visit someplace that has the ability to serve liquor, doesn’t mean you’re going to drink it.

Cops however can make poor judgment calls while off duty.  An officer in Gatlinburg assaulted two people while off duty, thankfully in this incident he left his service weapon at home.  There was also an incident where an off duty police officer assaulted someone in a bar because the channel on the TV was changed.  However one should not ignore other incidents where officers while off duty have carried into bars, legally, and the worst nightmare of the anti-rights cultists came to pass.

Baltimore homicide detectives have completed an initial inquiry into Saturday’s fatal shooting by an off-duty police officer of an unarmed man outside a Mount Vernon nightclub, and a decision on criminal charges rests with prosecutors who plan to repeat interviews with key witnesses over several days.

The victim in that case was disarmed as the law required allowing that law enforcement officer his selection of disarmed victims.  Just as it works with any other victim disarmament policy.  As the assailant in this case was also a police officer, it was left from their inclusion in their “gun death” metric.

Moving forward though the question around bars and alcohol though doesn’t just include off duty officers.  There have been instances where officers, while on duty, have assaulted people, and then falsely accused their victims.  In cases where the officers were on duty, they are also carrying their service weapons. 

There have been instances where officers are dunk on the job, or drunk on their way to work.  In the latter instance, putting on the uniform of a police officer does not magically render you sober.  While certainly this is in the outside boundary it illustrates that police are human.  The act of wearing the uniform does not provide them magical powers regarding firearms, alcohol, and proper social behavior.

What about emotional stress?

Another favorite amongst the anti-rights crowd is that carry will result in blood in the streets.  With shootouts occurring over parking spaces, increases in domestic violence, and any other type of social activity where people can become agitated.

The idea that cops are invulnerable from this type of behavior is quite disturbing.  Just look at instances such as Officer Roid Rage, the Atlanta PD officer who’s more unstable than nitro-glycerin, the off-duty cop in Philadelphia who shot someone over a parking spot, or the following group of incidents that will now be dissected that started this blog post.

The first involves not just one but two police officers. 

According to the sheriff’s department, Cortez was having an argument with Officer Senovio Elizondo when she broke his car window with her night stick. He then allegedly did the same to her car, and that’s when deputies say Cortez began chasing Elizondo with her handgun.

It ends up this was not only an argument between coworkers, but they were living together.  It was a domestic disturbance that overflowed into their work, which has both of them armed.

The second incident is a standard domestic dispute.

Police said Brown told his girlfriend to go to the basement. When he told her, according to police reports, that he “was not afraid to die” and he “would shoot any police officer that came to the location,” she pretended to comply with his instructions, then ran outside to call for help.

Domestic migrated from physical, to full out confrontational.  Again emotion was the root cause.

Obviously police officers can suffer from this type of emotional distress just like anyone else.  And the belief that disarmament make everyone safer is down right false.

So how are the two groups different?

The bottom line is neither group is different from the other.  Each side suffers from the same stresses and human tendencies.  We know relative to the general population that those with a concealed weapons permit are considerably more law abiding that the general population.

Trying to perform this comparison though is considerably harder within law enforcement.  Statistics for law enforcement as a whole are not tracked well.  While just looking at the New Orleans police department placed a corruption rate of 15% amongst officers, this is by no means a representative sample of all of law enforcement.  Trying to get a solid comparison between the two will be difficult due to changes in demographics and freedom the police have.

What can be blatantly seen is though is that officers are in fact human.  They are capable of the same errors, and mistakes that any other human being is.  Officers are in fact civilians like the rest of the general public.

In 1829, Sir Robert Peel created the Metropolitan Police when he served as Home Secretary of England. According to Peel, the real key for policing is “the police are the people and the people are the police”.

(Emphasis mine.)  Given those facts, along with the smattering of incidents that show it is not lawful concealed carriers that we need to be concerned about, we must wonder why the anti rights crowd continues to insist that it’s for our safety.  Obviously given the facts and the evidence, safety has absolutely nothing to do with, if anything it’s solely about control.

That control is important considering many of their supporters wish the gun culture and other law abiding citizens harm.  Anyone that tells you that police are a special case and should be granted particular rights and privileges exempt from the law abiding public is nothing more than wanting a group of elitists to create their “vision” of utopia hell.

SSCC #112–Gatlinburg Police

A former Gatlinburg police officer entered a guilty plea this week to assault charges stemming from an incident last year at a Gatlinburg bar.

Steven Cline of Sevierville was charged earlier this year in a sealed presentment issued by a Sevier County grand jury. The charges arose from a Sept. 4, 2010, incident in which Cline attacked a couple outside the Hoggs and Honeys bar.

Incident reports said he punched a man in the jaw and shoved a woman down, then poured beer on her head during an altercation while he was off duty.

This officer was off duty but I am including it in the count because this is not the first incident of this nature.  Not to mention the fact that many seem to think that LEOs are some how better at controlling their behavior in a bar than the general public.

The fact is that police are civilians and people.  They screw up and should not be given a free pass, or allowed extra leeway given their position.  If people think that the rights of law abiding citizens should be restricted, LEOs should be included in that list.

The job of the police is not to prevent crime but to investigate a crime after it has occurred.  It is the job of the public at large to prevent crime.  This includes crime committed by police officers.  This count is reactionary but is done with the express purpose of attempting to provide a negative feedback loop to prevent further abuses.  It is also done in the hope to raise awareness to help the public realize their role and hold their local police accountable.  I am not saying every cop is corrupt, but it is readily apparent that they do not police themselves.

There are officers who do a fantastic job.  Those men should be praised for what they do, for exercising proper restraint, doing their job professionally, and treating the public with the respect they deserve.  Many of these men also do the right thing when their brethren cross the line.  Those who do not do the right thing though are no better than the man who crossed that line.  Often we talk about the man who crossed the line, but we hear nothing about his partner who said nothing and did nothing.

Some have called me anti-police as of late.  That is blatantly false, honest cops who do a good job I like and respect.  What I don’t like and have absolutely no tolerance for is this kind of abuse.  Some are willing to write a free pass due to “stresses of the job”, I give no such pass.  If you can not take the stress of the job, maybe you should do something else.  

I work in safety critical systems, I have to take responsibility for everything I do, including when I screw up.  If I ignore something someone else does because, “it’s not my problem” and it ends up in an incident, I am equally culpable.  Officers who look the other way are culpable, officers who make negligent decisions should be fired.  Especially when they do not immediately admit their mistakes and often abuse the public due to the qualified immunity they are given.  

Name me anywhere in the private sector that has that kind of immunity.  At best your company looses a chunk of money and you’ll probably be hunting for a new job.  At worst you are bankrupt, going to prison for involuntary manslaughter, and you’re career is over.  Which path depends on if you’re a PE and a few other qualifiers.  The bottom line is in my industry I am held accountable, what holds the police accountable, especially given their exemption?

State Sponsored Criminal Count: 112 Steven Cline

Because when you’re off duty going and assaulting drunks is the thing to do.

SSCC #134 – Pennsylvania State Police

Second verse, same as the first.  This time a whole lot louder and a whole lot worse.

A Pennsylvania State Police corporal is accused of pepper-spraying and physically assaulting a Franklin County man who was handcuffed and seat belted in the back of a police car, according to the state Attorney General’s office.

It appears that rules and laws regarding the application and use of force have changed recently.  I can see no reason someone who is handcuffed in the back of a police cruiser needs to be maced and beaten.

One of the medical responders is heard commenting about Broadwater’s movements in the car and Fow was then seen opening the rear door and pepper-spraying Broadwater in the face, according to the complaint.

That explains the situation.  A criminal shouldn’t move at all.  Never mind the fact that being handcuffed alone is uncomfortable.  Not to mention being stuffed in the back of a police cruiser with hard seats and pressure applied by the back on the cuffs and shoulders from sitting.

Couple this with the fact that he was a patrol supervisor and this happened within the plain view of other officers and emergency personal signals this man is a loose cannon.

State Sponsored Criminal Count: 134 – Christian D. Fow

Because it’s standard procedure to beat on someone in cuffs in a police car.  The better to make sure the attacking officer isn’t injured.

SSCC #431 & #432–New Jersey State Police

One November night two years ago, State Police found Daniel Fried slumped behind the wheel of his van along Route 72 in Burlington County. He stared forward, eyelids drooping. He was incoherent, slurred his words and seemed to be falling asleep.

He may have looked drunk or like he was on drugs, but doctors say these are classic symptoms of diabetic shock. Paramedics found Fried’s blood sugar was so low he could have suffered a coma, seized or died, according to State Police records.

These officers made an assumption about the condition of an individual.  They caused an adrenaline spike that made him coherent enough to be able to request assistance and they continued to ignore him.  Upon arrival of paramedics they promptly took him to the hospital because of a severe blood sugar deficiency.

As my father had diabetes this isn’t funny, this isn’t ok, this is down right negligent.  The police officers assume without any actual evidence that this individual is a criminal.  Except he is the exact opposite.  He felt his medical emergency coming on and pulled himself off the road.  Below is the officers thank you for his responsible actions.

[Sarcasm]Yup that right there is called positive reinforcement for good behavior.[/Sarcasm]

There is also a serious policy issue given the following:

In State Police reports and court depositions, Brown, who was first on scene, said he suspected Fried had diabetes but did not call paramedics because he could not rule out drugs or alcohol. He said he saw no evidence of drugs or alcohol and did not smell anything.

So policy dictates that in an incident where someone is obviously no longer of a sound mental state, so much so they may loose consciousness, medical aid shouldn’t be sought unless it can be confirmed beyond a reasonable doubt the cause is diabetes?  What if the individual dies from alcohol poisoning or a drug overdose? Since when have police officers started receiving medical training to the degree of EMTs, much less doctors and nurses.  Their job should be merely to asses the situation and say, “Does this person need attention to verify he is ok?”  Mental incoherence is a big, “Get Help Now Idiot!”.

No matter how you cut it though these officers were criminally negligent and exercised unnecessary force because well that’s how cops deal with problems.  Instead of using their brain, the just beat the thing until they get it to do what they want.

This isn’t the first instance I’ve heard of something like this happening either.  Yeah I hate drunk drivers, more than you can possibly believe, but the legal system exists for a reason.  Even more than that, I don’t want someone who has an actual medical emergency getting beat up because someone thinks they’re drunk.  There’s simple tests to determine the truth.  Cops are paid to protect the public, beating the hell out of a man who was in a medical emergency doesn’t fit the bill.

State Sponsored Criminal #431: Officer John Doe

#432: Officer John Doe

Because when you’re a cop, you’re Judge Dread and can determine someone’s guilt on the spot.  You don’t need a blood test, there’s no such thing as a medical emergency so they must be either high or drunk.

SSCC #85–FBI, Alameda and Martinez Police

Police and FBI agents arrested a drug suspect in Alameda on Wednesday, but not before mistakenly trying to raid a home across the street belonging to a network TV reporter and her political consultant husband.

Officers intended to carry out a follow-up raid Wednesday, but didn’t realize that Ung had sold the four-bedroom home to the Clemenses about three months ago and is renting a home across the street.

Awesome police work there sparky!  Guess all those delayed notice warrants for terrorism have really aided the police in doing their job haven’t they?  Seriously why do these mentally degenerate morons never think to actually verify the person they’re looking for lives there first.  Then at least when they point their guns as someone and try to arrest them they at least know they are dealing with the right person.

It reminds me of a scene from Demolition Man

Chief: "While you were sleeping, everyone in the city was installed code. Sensors all over the city can zero in on anyone at any time. I can’t even conceive a visual of what you police officers did before it was developed."


Stallone: "We worked for a living. This fascist crap makes me want to puke."

Now days instead of working for a living, they just kick down any door and shoot whoever’s inside.  No worries about consequences though, the law protects them from such silly things.  Though in this case we didn’t hear about them shooting the dog.  Though I think Ry was right when he said, “Of course, she’s a reporter, so they didn’t shoot her dog.”  Cause while they shoot other peoples dogs, this one would be guaranteed to be in the news for the next month until a settlement was paid out.

State Sponsored Criminal Count: 85 (Sure there’s more involved, but I have no clue how many.)

Because police work is now for chumps since qualified immunity means that no matter how bad you screw up, you’re still justified and squeaky clean.

via Ry

SSCC #14–Elk Grove Police

An Elk Grove police officer acted lawfully in January when he fired his AR-15 rifle at a handcuffed suspect, seated in the back of a patrol car, who officers thought may still have been armed, according to Sacramento County District Attorney Jan Scully.

No weapon was found on then-32-year-old John Hesselbein when officers searched him for the second time after the shooting.

Because nothing screams lawful use of deadly force like shooting someone with rifle while handcuffed in the back of a police car.  Later in the article we see the real reason this individual was absolved from criminal liability as a member of the state, the section of the DA’s office responsible for investigating criminal liability of government employee’s was disbanded.  It’s much easier to just clear him of liability than actually investigate and prosecute.  It’s also much easier to cover up a ND as a justified shoot.  Cause if it’s an ND, then the department can be held liable.  It’s a win win for the state.

Also why grab your rifle if he’s handcuffed in your squad car and you suddenly feel threatened?  Seems like a prime example of a moment for a TASER.

State Sponsored Criminal Count: 14

Because the police have every right to shoot you while you’re handcuffed in the back of a police car.

H/T to Uncle.

WSU Student Rights and Little London

So the level of brainwashing that has been inflicted upon our youth has been quite apparent over the past few weeks of reading the Washington State University news paper.  The first article is an effort to bring a little bit of Brittan right here to the heartland of America.

The Pullman Police Department will install security cameras in high
crime public areas in College Hill as a part of a two-year grant the
police department received from the United States Department of Justice.

The royal kicker though is what the editorial board admits in a following opinion piece.

The Daily Evergreen Editorial Board would like to urge students to
accept and support the installation of security cameras in Adam’s Mall.
The cameras will probably do little to deter crime as drunken brawlers
are unlikely to consider the fact that a camera is watching them.

(Emphasis mine.) They readily admit that the cameras will not deter crime.  The school continues to prohibit the ability for students to lawfully carry on campus and the paper is more than supportive against allowing lawful carry.  Yet they are more than willing to argue that students throw away their privacy for semblance of security.  It is a public place after all so really how much privacy should you have.  Well the editorial board obviously doesn’t care considering the following piece I saw in yesterdays paper.

Barring campus police from patrolling the most densely populated living areas on campus is a huge mistake.


Residence halls are not private residences. They are not houses
or apartments – they are more akin to hotels. They are places students
stay for a few short months, then leave for vacation, then come back to
again, then leave, return, leave for the summer and usually never return
afterward.

About 5 years ago while I was a student there was a court case involving unnecessary access by police to the residence halls.  The judge ruled that the police were not allowed access to the dorms except in an emergency.  The reasoning is that dorms were a residence much like an apartment building.  Evidently the editorial board is acting like their brethren the Brady Campaign in ignoring the reasoning behind the case.  The editors would prefer to ignore this much like CSGV disregards Heller and McDonald.

Further the comparison they use to a hotel fails their litmus test, not to mention their other excuses as well.  The police are not allowed to meander around the halls of a hotel without cause or warrant.  Their statements smack of a belief that the police exist to operate as an RA for the school.

RAs have complete access to each individual’s room within a
residence hall. They are the ones now expected to enforce the law within
the dorms. The only problem is, RAs are students like the rest of us.
They are subject to enjoying the same vices they are supposed to be on
the lookout for.


Police officers have years of training and experience when it comes to upholding the law. RAs do not.

The job of the RA is not to enforce the law, but to ensure the dorm rules are followed and mediate disputes.  If the law is broken it is the job of the police to investigate after the fact.  It is not the job of the police to prevent crime, that is the job of the populace at large.  In other words, fellow residents should be acting in a manner to aid in preventing crime.  The police have no duty to protect and it is the responsibility of the citizen to protect themselves and their property.

The Daily Evergreen Editorial Board is doing no good by attempting to destroy the rights of their fellow students.  Many fought long and hard to secure their right from the police unlawfully entering their place of residence.  While living in the dorms, many leave their doors open not out of want or an open door policy, but because it is so damn hot they need the air flow.  An officer walking up and down the hall would now be able to see into the room by incidental viewing.  He could also achieve this as they occupant gains entrance into their room and close the door behind them.  With so many laws and rules on the books now, why are you attempting to surrender one of your defenses from their abuse? 

While many college campuses swing a bit to the left, this over reliance on the state and belief that the police are the solution to all their problems is very disconcerting.  Doubly so when you consider the fact that they have not bothered to look into the context of why the push was made to throw officers out of the dorms.  The universities own rules as well as the expectation of privacy created the reasons the police were illegal within the dorms.  The Daily Evergreen Editorial board should examine its view on personal liberty and freedom and explain why they believe that college students should surrender it because they are attending school.  Because some students are criminals doesn’t make them all criminals and the law exists to protect the innocent, not catch the criminal.  That is not a bug, it’s a feature.

So, the police are lying about the raid

Apparently there was a TV crew along for the raid Sunday night that cost a 7 year old girl her life. It has now come out that the account of the struggle with the woman is not accurate.

“There is no question about what happened because it’s in the videotape,” Fieger said. “It’s not an accident. It’s not a mistake. There was no altercation.”

“Aiyana Jones was shot from outside on the porch. The videotape shows clearly the officer throwing through the window a stun grenade-type explosive and then within milliseconds of throwing that, firing a shot from outside the home,” he said.

Any shooter will tell you that you always verify your target and what is beyond it! This man fired blindly into a house, and look what happened as a result. If I discharged my firearm in defense of myself and hit someone behind a wall my ass is in deep crap. Why, because I violated the rule previously mentioned. This man was in no immediate threat to life or limb, yet felt it necessary to discharge his firearm which then resulted in the death of this young girl.

SWAT teams serve a purpose, however they are often used in ways that are completely unnecessary. As Tam put it, SWATing flies with a hammer, and not doing so well. It appears that police departments nowadays will use any justification to bring out the SWAT team, at this point I believe to ensure that its funding is not cut. What better way to do this than make a show for the camera.

Two prominent criminal defense attorneys said they were unaware of past instances when Detroit police used flash grenades in raids when children were possibly present.

“That’s a new one,” said Detroit lawyer Corbett Edge O’Meara. “That does seem to be a pretty extreme measure. It doesn’t surprise me that the police had no concern whether they were endangering the lives of children when they made this raid.”

I find it doubly ironic that after this now infamous event they then charged the parents with child endangerment. Video of that raid. Police no longer have to fear the law because they are above it. The police no longer serve us, we are merely here for their amusement when they get bored.

I hope that officer is pleased with his actions and he is correctly charged and not shielded from his negligence just because he happens to be a police officer. I doubt it will happen, Lon Horiuchi got away with killing Vicki Weaver while she held her baby, why is this any different?