This whole incident is all sorts of fail and can easily be broken down as an officer was quick to resort to his taser without using his brain. Then after screwing the pooch on that front they doubled down on stupid.
Basically these officers played the game of CYA and ended up violating more laws because of it. There’s a reason the prosecutor didn’t file charges, no jury in the world would convict. Further she probably saw the civil suit writing on the wall. This ends up in the full count because of the following:
There is no doubt that the Tacoma Police will not be punishing the officers involved and will do nothing to mediate or resolve the situation they have created. This is a textbook case of the state sponsoring its own criminals.
State Sponsored Criminal #380: Ryan Koskovich
#381: Michael Young
Because you immediately jump to the taser when you know there is a deaf woman involved. Further, after finding out you tasered an innocent, you charge her with a crime and hold her against the law without an interpreter or informing your supervisor she’s deaf. Because the police don’t have to follow the law, they are the law.
The real outrage in this is that two elected officials threatened the president under color of law for expressing his views. That’s what you should be mad about. I’ll continue my boycott of Chicago and MA.
[The other day Popehat posted a link on twitter and I had the urge to comment but let it subside. My main contention with the linked content was this though:
At which point he goes into a list of places that have been boycotted for their views one way or another. I have to disagree and here’s why.
I, like most American’s, only become involved when I feel that something affects me. I didn’t see the LGBT community come and participate with the Starbucks buycott for example. I’m sure there was overlap as I know that Gay Cynic probably participated but as a whole the groups are not tied together at the hip. I would in general do my best to support someone, but I will not expend energy in going out of my way as I will with places who forbid concealed carry for example.
What has happened here is that a large number of people are supporting Chick-Fil-A, not because of the owners stance on Gay marriage. That is an entirely separate debate and my position can be summed thusly:
The state has no business being involved in marriage. As for the legal rights provided by marriage between partners, who cares if they’re both male or female. Everyone deserves the same legal rights and it is no one’s business to judge anyone else for their choices.
Moving on though this situation was aggravated by two political individuals. Namely the mayors of Chicago and Boston. These two individuals attempted to use the force of state to punish a company and its owner for voicing their opinion. While I disagree with that opinion, they had every right to say it without the threat or use of force from government. That is the problem, these politicians were using government to silence speech. It wasn’t a separate part of the public attempting to shame the company for their opinion, it was the state. The fact that they were using government to influence or control speech is a blatant violation of the first amendment and is worthy of note because what is to stop either of them saying I cannot conduct business because of my outspoken support of the second amendment? It doesn’t have to even be about the second amendment though, it could be anything they disagree with.
I am by no means the only one with this view as well. This is very much a free speech issue because the state should not be allowed to disallow businesses from operation based on the opinions and speech of their owners or employees.
I live in Washington and there is no Chick-Fil-A out here. Overall I probably wouldn’t go if there was, but given the behavior of a few tyrannical politician’s I would give patronage just to show my support. That’s exactly what those politicians did by doing that. They drove people to patronize that business merely because the government was intimidating them. -B]
So, this is actually a kind of old incident but given new information I feel like classifying it as a state sponsored criminal. Who is this criminal, Major Nidal Hasan, the man animal responsible for the Fort Hood shooting.
Since I’m sure most of you are familiar with the shooting I won’t reiterate details. What is interesting is the following:
So let me get this straight, you ignored him and let him walk on by because of Political Correctness. Did I understand that right there sparky? Here’s the thing, you guys are more than happy to brew up your own terrorist cells, arm them, and then use the material to scare the public. If you don’t understand what I’m talking about, watch this, I don’t feel like digging up every associate link.
As horrible as this sounds, and it is purely conjecture, what’s to say you all didn’t just look the other way to increase panic and fear, thus causing the American people to want to surrender more freedom and liberty thus giving you more power. Seriously, someone explain to me how this could be allowed to pass purely under the guise of “Political Correctness?”
At best this was negligence, except this had to be willful. People knowingly did nothing and the worst part of it all is the man still hasn’t be tried and many are still claiming this was not an act of terrorism. Evidently the DHS has now released a new requirement that to qualify as a terrorist you must be a white Caucasian male, since you know they run in screaming “Allah Akbar” while shooting at every Christian in the joint.
Seriously, how is it the American public can allow the government and American media to look the other way and play down exactly what happened that day? How is the American people can believe this was anything but an act of terrorism. I know many don’t, but they sit idly by and do nothing while this administration plays the PC game to get this terrorist off the hook. All the while the DHS redefines terrorist’s so broadly myself along with many others fit the description with not a stretch of their definition which doesn’t even relate to the actual definition of terrorist and terrorism. Yet a man who obviously committed an act of terrorism and had ties to known terrorists under the traditional definition was just suffering PTSD. Doesn’t that just seem a little wrong?
The reason this happened is obvious, the state willfully allowed it to happen for political capital. He was a state sponsored terrorist that they allowed to complete his plan to reign terror on American soil. Every person associated with allowing him to walk free should be hung for treason along with him. Someone should have blown the whistle, even if it meant the end of your career. Just because it hurts, doesn’t mean it isn’t the right thing to do.
I hate sounding like a conspiracy theorist, but seriously this is just too damn stupid. The long complicated plot is trying to believe that political correctness allowed this to happen as opposed to people willfully looking the other way in an effort to gain more power.
State Sponsored Criminal and Terrorist 277: Major Nidal Hasan
Because real terrorism isn’t terrorism, it’s the result of PTSD, and all those libertarians that just want the nanny state to leave them the hell alone, they’re the real terrorists.
Really?! Blocking the accessibility of formula to new mothers? For some women, they are not able to produce milk with their pregnancy. Some, even though they are producing, aren’t producing enough colostrum and therefore are starving their child. I wonder if they will charge the mother with child abuse if the pharmacy is closed and the baby wants to feed?
Legislative fiat and nanny statism does not change biology or the way the real world works.
Women don’t need a lecture about choosing formula over breast-feeding. Breast is not always best. Especially since not every mother produces enough milk. My husband was raised on formula because his mother was unable to produce milk as he was born by C-section. A friend of mine didn’t produce milk for her child and didn’t realize it until she had starved her child for a day not knowing she wasn’t producing enough milk.
Some asshat politician who doesn’t understand biology or the medical sciences has no business telling me, my doctor, or any one else what is best for me or my child.
This is one big reason why I don’t want to be in a hospital when I have kids. I don’t need some moron telling me what to do with my own body!
If you’re female and work in his office, do the rest of us of the female gender a big favor and kick him right between the uprights. Then again I’m reasonably sure he’s lacking functional equipment down there which is why he’s spouting off about shit he doesn’t know about.
Comments Off on Surviving An Active Shooter – A commentary
So I saw this in passing last week but didn’t really have time to watch it or talk about it. Alan posted it today and well it gave me the urge to comment. So to start off with watch the video.
First off is with its emphasis on running and hiding the immediate thought was of Bert the Turtle and if you don’t know what I’m talking about. Here is an educational video from on how to survive a nuclear attack, like the above, this one is made by your government.
At least with Bert it made a little bit of sense because you couldn’t do anything to change or alter the damage from a nuclear weapon.
Amazingly though this video does give some insight that we can all take home. The first notable item is that the attacker plainly and clearly ignored a gun free zone declaration on the door, this can be seen at 1:00. Attackers do this to know their victims cannot fight back. Attacks frequently happen within gun-free zones, including the most recent one. Secondly it guarantees the outcome discussed and noted at 4:20, specifically:
Improvise Weapons
It’s pretty hard to improvise a weapon equivalent to firearm, doubly so when you know the attacker has one.
Even the agency which put this video together admits what the pro-rights side of the argument has said from the beginning. A criminal intent on doing harm will not be effected or restrained by law. The intended victims of the attacker however will be left without the most effective means of self-defense.
Next up are the comments about first responders at 4:40. Let this be a lesson to everyone because it is correct. They are not there to evacuate you, they are not there to give you medical aid, they are there to stop the threat and secure the area so that medics and other emergency personal can do that. Just because the Johnny Law has shown up doesn’t mean you are safe, that you are clear, or will receive immediate medical attention. Let me translate this for people who still may not understand.
You are still on your own!
Emergency services will arrive on scene when they can, there is no guarantee for the response time for either medical personal or police to show up with their guns since this particular location wouldn’t let you have yours.
Hopefully the gun grabbers are crying in their beer because even the educational videos on surviving mass shootings emphasize the lack of rationality in their logic. Can you say “Winning?”
*Overall I think the video was actually well done and decently educational. I am not going to go running through an area looking for the shooter, but if I see him and have an opportunity I will fight, I will not run. Running just serves to allow others to become victims or allow him a chance to shoot me in the back.
It took no time at all for the gun grabbers to start dancing in blood though. My personal favorite was the woman on twitter who informed me since no one shot back, we obviously didn’t need to have the right to arms. Let me start at the beginning, pardon while I synopsize I’ll get to why in a minute. She posted a tweet yesterday stating how she had physically fought off a rapist and she didn’t need a gun to do so and was glad her attacker didn’t have one. She then used that statement as a justification for a total ban on firearms. This is how I replied: <
Here’s the rest of the conversation, remember from the bottom up, I know it’s annoying I can’t figure out a way to change it. So after the tweets last night I thought the conversation was over. Well it was until she had some new blood to go dance in as you can see by her comments this morning.
Notice how she called me the ass and implied I was making assumptions but provided absolutely no answers to the questions I asked. Her solution when I presented arguments she couldn’t handle or respond to was to block me. All I wanted was for her to justify her position with facts and logic. Obviously the force is weak with this one. Especially with this awesome tweet after she blocked me. So even with my previous examples of people defending themselves and others, the fact that there wasn’t a CCW holder in the theater means that the right is pointless. Tell me, why wasn’t there a cop in the theater? It is not the job of the CCW permited populace to protect everyone else. Our duty is to ourselves and our families. If we end up protecting you in the process, that’s a bonus. If we choose to intervene on your behalf, we could end up being hung out to dry by the legal system so why would we?
Most entertaining though is she says that we’re eating our words this morning. Except we never claimed that guns were some sort of magic talisman, it’s just that it serves no purpose to disarm the law-abiding but to ensure their victimhood. She cannot argue against this point and she knows it. That’s why she hasn’t even attempted to answer any of my questions.
She may have blocked me, but she can’t exactly stop the signal. Feel free to go tweet at her if you like. (Do NOT harass her, just try and get her to justify her position.)
It also takes all of about three seconds to determine it’s airsoft and further he could have asked permission prior to touching. If it had been a real firearm cop or not I would yell at him to put it down. You NEVER touch someone else’s firearm without permission.
Once he was told to leave, he needed to immediately. If he has “the right by law”, I want the cite.
He’s on the count because not a damn thing will happen to him. There were much more civil ways to deal with that call than the way he did which was the Cartman method.
State Sponsored Criminal #368: Officer Tom Tiphayachan
Because a garage sale means that you can do as much digging as you want and you can’t be trespassed if you’re a cop right!?
Emily Miller gives us a nicely detailed guide on what it takes to exercise a Constitutionally guaranteed right in our nations capital. Here’s a nice excerpt, I would highly suggest reading the whole thing.
I’ve been writing this guide bit by bit from the day in Oct. 2011 when I first went to the District’s firearm registration office and said, “I want a gun.” Back then, I expected it to take a few weeks and cost $60 to have a firearm at home. I was off by a few months and $375. Also, I believed that documenting the process for the newspaper would mean a few stories about long lines and frustrating bureaucrats. I was far off the mark.
When I started, there were 17 steps to getting a legal gun in Washington. However, as my series exposed the particularly burdensome requirements to gun ownership, the city council moved to remove some of those barriers. Now there are 12 steps that take much less time and the cost has decreased by $262.
Even with the improvements I still say its way too much. Especially considering one should be allowed to vote without showing ID, but look at the barriers to gun ownership.
These barriers are numerous and the biggest is a financial hurdle that many may not be able to overcome. Imagine adding a $125 transfer fee plus an extra $48 dollars in asking the police department for permission to own a firearm.
Not to mention the additional 10 day waiting period which does nothing but make sure that someone who may legally own a firearm isn’t able to purchase one when they really need it.
Name one single other right that has these types of bars against their exercise. There is no waiting period on free speech. If someone says something bad about you, you are not prohibited from writing about them for 10 days while your blog registration application comes through. You are not required to pay a fee to the state for the permission to create a blog or computer, or network connection to run your blog. You are allowed to write freely in defense of your character.
Contrast that to firearms where an abusive-ex can threaten you, and you are now stuck waiting for 10 days. You have a pile of fees to pay both to a monopolistic FFL and the police department for the permission to have an effective tool of self-defense. A right guaranteed by the US Constitution and stated as applying to the individual in the McDonald decision is subject to fees and limitations of its exercise. The consequences in this latter case though can be lethal for the person whose rights are being violated.
Instead of allowing free exercise, they create a maze of bureaucracy to be followed, which does nothing but ease the government in their efforts to infringe a right while appearing to allow for free exercise.
If your laws need a guide in order explain to people how to exercise a right, there is something grossly wrong with the design of the system. It is obviously designed and engineered with the intent of stopping people from exercising that right. The politicians and people responsible should be run up on 18.242.
I applaud Emily Miller for her efforts in correcting this wrong. While she has made considerable advancement as can be seen, there is still a long way to go. I doubly appreciate that she created that wonderful guide to aid others through the bureaucratic nightmare that are D.C.’s gun laws.
<
So after the tweets last night I thought the conversation was over. Well it was until she had some new blood to go dance in as you can see by her comments this morning.
So even with my previous examples of people defending themselves and others, the fact that there wasn’t a CCW holder in the theater means that the right is pointless. Tell me, why wasn’t there a cop in the theater? It is not the job of the CCW permited populace to protect everyone else. Our duty is to ourselves and our families. If we end up protecting you in the process, that’s a bonus. If we choose to intervene on your behalf, we could end up being hung out to dry by the legal system so why would we?
Raw Feed
FeedBurner Feed
Subscribe by Email
