Category Archives: Unfiled

Last night was not one of my best nights.  Mainly it was compounded by one very sad annoying fact.  A woman who loved animals wouldn’t just take the hint to drive on and leave.  It would have eased and prevented an extra 40 minutes of suffering.

Let me start at the beginning, on my way home I rounded a bend on the highway and at the top of a hill there was a car on the side of the road with it’s 4 ways on.  At the last minute I saw the yearling lying in the middle of the road and swerved to avoid it.  I immediately pulled in in front of the car, grabbed flares out of the tool box lighting them up.  Some how in the process I burnt a shirt lighting them.  

While laying out flares for the deer it became quite clear to me how the night was going to end.  Broken spine, blood dripping from it’s snout and mouth.  The deer was trying to stand up but it’s rear legs wouldn’t move.  It was a bad situation for the deer.

I told the woman driver to go ahead and go home and I’ll take care of calling it in and reporting it.  She insisted on sticking around.  So the option of just dispatching the deer and moving it off the road is now out since I’ve got a witness who won’t be supportive.  I call Whitcom, inform them of the location and what’s happened, they attempt to connect me with WSP.  Every time they transfer the call, the call was lost.  I call Whitcom back, inform them the call was lost, and ask for the number for the WSP office handling the incident.  They tell me not to worry about it and just stay away from the deer.  I tell them again the deer is in the highway, alive, attempting to move, and needs to be dispatched.  He tells me to just wait for the officer.

I now begin the wait in the cold, the deer is obviously in a lot of pain and attempting to pull itself off the road whenever a semi rolls by.  It eventually pulls itself off the road and rolls down the embankment.  Wailing as it tumbles over.  Now that it’s off the road I kick the flares off the road.  The woman gets out of her car to ask what happened.  I tell her and suggest that she just go home.  She suggests that WSU could take the deer, I know that will never happen.

A firefighter rolls up on his way home.  He calls in and gets authorization from State Patrol to dispatch the deer.  At this point he comes back with his revolver and the woman decides now is the time to leave.  One of us got authorization from the state for what needed to have been done 35 minutes earlier.  He fires one shot hitting the deer in the head.

About 45 seconds later the WSP officer arrives.  The firefighter informs him he just dispatched the deer.  The cop is elated because he won’t have paperwork for discharging his service arm.  At about this point the deer starts groaning again and thrashing.  Now often animals will go into the death throws but this wasn’t just the twitch of the nervous system shutting down.  The firefighter had already put his weapon back in his vehicle.  The officer said, “I’ll go grab the shotgun.”  Without missing a beat I said, “Would you like me to save you the paperwork?”  His response was, “That would be great.  Need a flashlight?”

I walk down with my tac-lite and pull my XD.  I plug two at the base of it’s brain stem with the second making a obvious entrance wound.  Immediately it falls dead silent and only one leg continues to have a minor twitch.  At this point it’s been about 40 minutes since I arrived on the scene.  The deer has been removed from any pain that it did have and the whole way home I was nothing but pissed off because it took 40 minutes to get me permission from the state to do what was ethically best for the deer.

Had the woman left I would have just dropped the deer and pulled it off the road into the ditch.  From talking to the officer after, had the dispatcher given me the number I would have been authorized to dispatch the animal.

Thanks to this whole mess, I now have the Colfax State Patrol number in my wallet.  This is by no means how I wanted to end up shooting my first deer.  Doubly so since I got to listen to it suffer for 40 minutes.  40 minutes of suffering for the animal so someone could feel like they’re being a good Samaritan trying to save it.  

Blogging might be a bit light today and tomorrow.  I really wish I had just killed that deer on the spot.

Earlier last week an article was printed authored by a fudd who ended up being a member of Mayors Against Illegal Guns.  That fudd has been thoroughly beaten to death and it does nothing to beat a horse further after death.

However often there are times when I wish celebrities would keep their mouths shut.  That way they won’t put their foot in their own damn mouth.  Today was one of those days.

It appears that Mr. Engvall is a fudd and doesn’t think people should own semi-automatic firearms.

First of all, firearms are not only used for hunting but for other purposes as well.  These purposes range from competitive sports to self-defense.  Note at the end he claims to support the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment completely.

Ahh, so now he believes in the rights of all firearms owners and just doesn’t care for the AK-47.  It appears though he has made that statement not with regards to full auto but semi-auto given his tweet to Michael stating he doesn’t need 60 bullets to shoot a deer.  While that is true, you may need two.  Depending on the game you’re hunting you may want 5 rounds immediately accessible to deal with a group of varmints.  Lastly what about the defense of your home and family.  We come back around to the variety of different purposes for a rifle.

His statement though hits harder and farther with me than most people.  For those who don’t know, The Minute Woman has radial nerve palsy
.  This limits the ability for her to lift and open her hand.  Given those limitations you can probably guess that for her to operate a bolt action rifle is a difficult exercise.  Doubly so given the multiple axes required to charge the weapon.  An AR-15, or any of my other semi-auto weapons she can handle and use with very limited effect from her disability.  With an AR-15 she can easily go hunting with me and shoot a follow up shot quickly and accurately.  Where as with a bolt action rifle the time and awkwardness of cycling the action makes a second shot almost impossible.  

My wife can enjoy hunting through the use of semi-automatic firearms.  A sport that Mr. Engvall likes and enjoys, but apparently he wishes those to enjoy it just like him, disregarding technology that makes the sport safer and more enjoyable.  Mr. Engvall I can hunt the muzzle-loader season, does that mean all modern cartridge firearms should be banned?  Or I could go even further and just hunt bow, should all firearms be banned then?

Mr. Engvall, you have provided ammunition to the enemy.  You have attacked the rights of fellow hunters and citizens, intended or not.  Lastly your statements and beliefs serve to remove many from the sport of hunting.  Given those three pieces of information it is obvious that statement was as idiotic as reaching down and grabbing a muffler after test driving a car.  Here’s your sign Fudd!

*It should be noted that he can redeem his position by realizing the contraindication in his statements and coming back to actually support the Second Amendment.  That will take more than words though, actual action will be required.

h/t Bitter

Given how depressing my State Sponsored Criminal Count is, I do try from time to time showing those who aren’t sponsored.  Sadly these stories roll through my inbox much less frequently.  However tonight I got one that is perfect to kick of the Accountabilibuddyable sister series to the State Sponsored Criminal Count.

I say accountabilibuddyable because the public has a responsibility to ensure that officers who misbehave are held accountable for their actions.

The rules are simple, a police officer has to do something wrong, either by breaking the law, or violating someones rights, and then be held accountable for their actions.  The more accountable, the better, this first one is down right awesome.

A former Oakland police officer must pay $40,000 out of his own pocket to two men who were illegally strip-searched in public and have already been awarded at least $100,000 apiece in damages.

(Emphasis mine)  Given how often and how easily qualified immunity is thrown around it’s rare you see an officer being held accountable for something he did.  Honestly I think he should have to repay back the funds to the city as well but I’m more than pleased to see at least this much of a result.

Officer Ingo Mayer has been held accountable for his actions.  More like this please!

So on the 2011 ballot for Washington is I-1183 which will allow stores to sell hard liquor.  As a red blooded libertarian I’m all for this.  Anything that removes a government monopoly on something makes me all warm and fuzzy inside.

A little history:

A year ago there was a similar measure, I-1100 on the Washington state ballot.  It died with 53% of the voters voting against it.  That’s right 53% of the state of Washington was fine with the state monopoly on liquor.  46% of the state thankfully has a brain and was able to look at the facts instead of the FUD being spread.

Much of the FUD was quite similar to concealed carry with claims that drunk driving would go through the roof.  That underage drinking would increase, and it would increase the rate of alcoholism all around.

Same Crap Different Year:

Fast forward 365 days and we find ourselves in exactly the same position.  We have one side that is arguing with fact and logic.  Then we have the other side arguing with emotion, feelings, and general FUD.  My personal favorite is the fact they discuss Costco has spent 22 million dollars in support of the measure.

Costco has only donated 21 million dollars, and of the total amount raise they have only spent about half. While the total amount raised is 22 million, not all of that belongs to Costco.  Damn close but when people feel it necessary to fudge numbers when they don’t have to it’s a bit disconcerting.

The group pushing the negative ballot has only been able to raise 7.5 million dollars.  Their biggest contributor is “Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America Inc.”.  All of the donors in fact all are in the business of wholesaling liquor.  The reason being is the state monopoly allows higher prices and price gouging of consumers.

Their big negative donors are not supporting the initiative because of the children or some want to aid in public safety.  Their campaign against it exists purely to insure their bottom line.  The funding against the bill shows the true colors of those opposed to the bill as being against free enterprise and for a government monopoly of the sale and distribution of products.

Dissecting Their BS:

The first “Fact”:

Section 103 of the initiative allows for sales in mini marts- where teens and problem drinkers are 400% more likely to purchase liquor according to independent law enforcement studies.

This jewel is provided from the WA Liquor Control Board.  No citation of statistics or facts from states who have removed the government monopoly on liquor.  Just says some independent survey says that this FUD is real.  I am aware of no change coming to the state drinking age, so the line about teens is BS.  If they’re going to break the law for alcohol they’re going to do it with or without this change.

Secondly those who have problems drinking can stay out of the areas that sell liquor just as they stay out of the state liquor store.  400% more likely compared to what!?  400% more likely to buy alcohol than someone who doesn’t have a drinking problem?  My assumption is they are saying someone is more likely to slip off the wagon if it’s sold in a mini-mart.  You know they sell junk food in mini-marts, I like junk food, I can walk my ass in and out without buying more junk food.  If the act of walking into a mini-mart causes someone to slip off the wagon, they’d fall off visiting friends who don’t have a problem.  This also ignores the fact they have a 10,000 square foot requirement to sell liquor.  That would take the mini out of mini-mart.

The argument that there is no extra provision for enforcement also fails in that the state will no longer be funding the operation of store fronts to sell liquor.  There is no change in the eligibility requirements to purchase liquor, do you want the police carding everyone instead of the store.  A store must obtain a license still under 1183 to sell liquor, and that license can be revoked.

Second “Fact”:

The social costs of expanding liquor access and sales are staggering: The Centers for Disease Control estimate $224 billion in annual costs nationwide, with the majority of it falling to local law enforcement, domestic violence and health care related costs.

They then top this off with the icing that law enforcement and human service agencies are struggling.  Currently the State of Washington is in debt.  Our fearless leaders always have a habit of cutting vital services first to create a panic that will aid in passing tax increases.  Currently schools and many other areas are suffering in the funding department.

The state budget offices report an increase in state revenue by over $400 million.  That’s $400 million towards the deficit.  That’s $400 million that doesn’t have to be obtained by blanket tax raises.

Fact, we are in debt, we do not have the money to pay all our bills, and we are running a monopoly on liquor that is costing us money.  In the world of finances, this is a very stupid decision.  The argument against correcting this issue is to play on the heart strings and emotions of others.  There are arguments about the increase in costs due to those who are drinking.  That relies on their assumptions of blood in the streets to be correct.  Further the increase in funding will help close the deficit and make sure departments get the funding they need.

Interestingly enough there are firefighters who agree with my statements above, but you won’t hear the 1183 nay-sayers talk about them.

Third “Fact”:

Alcohol kills more kids than all other drugs combined.  I-1183 would turn back the clock on successful efforts to keep liquor out of the hands of teens and problem drinkers.

Again, the drinking age isn’t changing folks, it will still be just as illegal to sell alcohol to minors.  Again this relies on their prediction of blood in the streets.  News flash to these dumb asses.  Prohibition doesn’t work.  Restraining availability doesn’t work.  All it does is inconvenience the law abiding and general public.

Fact, not everyone buys alcohol even when it’s available to them.  While some may be more likely to purchase now that wouldn’t otherwise is inconsequential.  Drunk driving is illegal and will still be illegal, drinking under age is and will continue to be illegal.  Just because something is available doesn’t mean that behavior patters are going to change by gross amounts.

The ability to buy liquor at the grocery store is not going to change the behavior of the law abiding or the public at large.  Those who do have issues with drinking will continue to have their issues.  Why should the state budget, the law abiding, and the public at large suffer for the actions of those who would violate the law anyway?

Closing:

If my crusade in gun rights has taught me anything, it’s when you see emotional arguments that side usually doesn’t have solid facts and logic to back it up.  Those screaming about how the passage of I-1183 is going to create an influx of drunk teens and alcoholics are doing nothing more than yelling about how the passage of concealed carry is going to result in blood in the streets.  What this will do is allow me and my wife to more readily be able to entertain friends and family without breaking the bank.  It will allow us to more easily obtain a wider variety of liquor at competitive prices.  Lastly when I discover I’m out of something I don’t have to schedule my shopping trip around the hours of the only liquor store in the area.  Instead I can get what I need at the same time as everything else.*

I do not want the government being my nanny and saying when and where I am allowed to buy alcohol and at what price.  The state should not be in the business of anything, much less in the business of selling liquor.  The main groups against 1183 are against it purely for profit.  The state monopoly has aided them in having profit margins well beyond what the free market would actually support.

*For all you environmentalists out there, you should support it.  Think about all those extra miles driven just to visit the liquor store and all that gas that could be saved.