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.

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.

TMW’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.

TMW’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:

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 TMW’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.

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.

The King County prosecutor has decided not to press charges against Officer Ian Birk regarding this incident.

This whole incident is reminding me of the what the Federal Government did to protect Lon Horiuci after Ruby Ridge.  The officer created this incident, and shot a man without any real probable cause.  The individual had done nothing wrong, was not aggressive or threatening anyone, yet he was shot four times.  The reasoning for the prosecutors office was the following:

Speaking Wednesday, Satterberg cited a 25-year-old state law mandating that police officers not by held criminally liable for using deadly force if they acted “without malice and a good faith belief” that their actions were justified.

Any civilian who made the same decision as Birk would be charged with murder, or at minimum manslaughter.  There is no way that they would escape criminal prosecution.  Even in video taped incidents of self defense civilians do end up on trial.  Why is law enforcement given a free pass?  So what that their job is more dangerous, if they use deadly force, it needs to be CLEARLY justified.  In this case Seattle PD has admitted that he was clearly unjustified.

Initially the department said Williams made a move toward the officer, but it later backed away from that assertion. Sources tell KING 5 a preliminary review on October 4 by the firearms review board concluded the shooting was not justified.

So, this is really just the same story we’ve heard before, but now on a lower level than the Federal level.  Remember, they’re exempt, you are not.

Tam posted something recently regarding always checking that a chamber is empty.  I have a story along those lines but without the ND.

For those that don’t know me I am quite anal about not having live ammunition within my safe, even more so chambered in a weapon.  There are three reasons for this.

1. While the interior of the safe may not burn, the contents are safer should the safe exceed it’s fire rating.  With ammunition in the safe, the could cook off damaging equipment and valuable within the interior. 
2. Ammunition in the chamber that cooks off could cause bullets to pierce the integrity of the safe.  Thus allowing the fire to do more damage to the contents.  This also depends on the type of ammo loaded, for instance 62grn penetrator will be an issue to your safe integrity.
3. Lastly and most importantly, putting rifles in and taking them out of the safe while loaded is quite dangerous.  There was a news article recently about a man who ended up killing himself when the trigger on his 22 rifle snagged pulling it out of the safe.  Mechanical safeties can fail and I’m not going to trust my life to them.

Many look at putting ammo within the safe and say, well the safe will contain it.  Why in god’s name did you spend the money on the safe then if your own actions are going to render the protection it provides useless?  If you want to lock up your ammo, build a custom heavy rack with a lockable metal door.  If you want to be sly about it, make it a false wall and embed an RFID reader with a magnetic lock.

The bottom line is if I am needing a rifle and ammunition in an emergency and I’m going to my safe for it, I have planned horribly wrong.  So, every rifle as it goes in the safe is checked clear, and the hammer put down on snap cap.  This helps ensure my safety and those around me while putting in and pulling out of the safe. 

After Boomershoot 2010, I unloaded and cleared all my rifles and put them away as I normally do.  The next weekend I pulled out one of my AR’s to use in a private party.  I pull it out and swing on the trap area I’ve made and rack the charging handle.  To what should my lovely eyes did appear, not a blue or maroon snap cap, but a shining piece of brass and copper.

I immediately set upon trying to determine where my procedures lapsed during their last use.  I locked the bolt open and inspected the weapon.  First thing of note was that the safety was on, which considering the hammer is supposed to be down the safety should be off when stored in the safe.  For those who don’t know, an AR will not allow you to engage the safety while the hammer is down.  So obviously I hadn’t even dropped the hammer during storage.  I began to replay the unpacking from Boomershoot and I realized what happened.  We were in a rush, during the unpacking.  A buddy was helping me store all of them and uncasing them.  It was one of the last to go in the safe but was one of the first to be unpacked.  It was set off to the side without my actually having handled it.  When it came time to put it in the safe my mental inventory said I had, and it had been within sight the whole time.

From that experience my personal rule has become always check the chamber when picking it up if either of the following conditions are true:

• I have been handling other firearms as well.
• The weapon in question has been out of my sight, even if it’s in the safe.

My dad constantly told me growing up, “A smart man learns from his mistakes.  A wise man learns from other peoples mistakes.”  Between my mistake and Tam’s, please learn something!  Checking the chamber takes mere seconds and the ND depending on the cause can cost you everything.