When I got to work this morning I hear the following story across the news wire (paraphrased because I currently couldn’t it in article form*):

A Moscow mother was told to get in a car by an unknown individual.  The mother had just dropped her child off at daycare when an individual approached and told her to get in his car.  She promptly drove off in her vehicle and notified police. The mother describe the vehicle as a maroon astrovan and there was a Hispanic woman in the front seat.

Now immediately I remembered what Moscow PD advised everyone yesterday after an armed robbery.

One of the radio reports has the cops telling us, after this
incident, not to fight back– to do whatever the criminals tell us to
do.

In two day’s we’ve had two instances of people doing the exact opposite of this advice and the whole situation working out quite better for the victim.  If you’re not willing to fight to survive, so be it, but don’t tell me and mine that it would be better to be violated by a criminal than fight back. 

What if all the criminal wants is your life?  Once you’re handcuffed in the back of the van, your ability to fight back has been removed.  Fight, fight hard, and plan to win.  Fighting back is what the criminal doesn’t expect, that surprise can shift the initiative.  Lastly, if you’re going to die, the least you can do is take the son of a bitch with you, less he prey on some other victim in the future.

Lastly, as can bee seen from the incident, it is not always the expected type of attack.  They reiterated over the radio that is was a mother and not a child who was told to get in the van.  How many parents worry about someone trying to take them while dropping their kid off?  They don’t, they’re worried about the kid. 

(Red team hat, here’s where you all think of me as an evil sadistic bastard).  From an attackers perspective, this actually is a good plan.  The parent will basically be “target fixated” on their child and focused on protecting the child from any threats.  When you’re target fixated though, that’s when the bandits wing man sneaks up on your six and plugs one through your exhaust hole.  While you’re still situationally aware, the parent is likely ignoring things that are not a threat to the child, including the blind spot of the parent.

Red team hat off.  Pay attention, don’t think that your child is the only possible target.  Even if they were the target, take out the parent who may not have noticed you yet.  If you go down, you’re no longer able to help and defend your child.  Lastly, never give the SOB what he wants, give him his tribute in “hot lead” instead.

*I am going to keep my eyes peeled for an actual article.  I just couldn’t let the “give them what they want” slip by.

OMG

Joan Peterson – A response to this video.

---

[My immediate thought was, “Staying up finishing that last night and all the murphy problems were totally worth it.”  Overall the thread where this quote is found is filled with some of the idiocy that is the anti-rights movement.

Let’s go through these shall we!?  First up is the two comments from Heidy Waddell.

You’re calling us dumb when you don’t even seem to be able to understand the statement.  Let me break it down so that even a 5 year old could understand it.  A vigil remembers the victims, nothing more.  A vigil does nothing to stop violence.  A candle will not stop violence.  However the Brady Campaign and CSGV are using the remembrance of the victims as a political tool to disarm the law abiding that they would be rendered defenseless. 

As for extremely low or non existent defensive gun uses by citizens, you don’t search for the same things on the net as I do.  See here in  the real world we see defensive gun uses regularly, JayG even has a running count.  My parents both had defensive gun uses, but since a single shot wasn’t fired you probably won’t count those.  The instances such as the woman who defended herself from two thugs looking for drugs after her husband died.  There are also plenty of instances of how depending on the police doesn’t work.  Just because you’re willing to die while waiting for someone else to arrive with their gun doesn’t mean the rest of us are as willing.  You have no right to tell someone to be a victim.  I cannot force you to carry, however you have no business forcing someone to be disarmed.

Next Up, Jami Regs.

Really, uneducated hillbillies?  Joe, the last shooter has a BS and MS in Electrical Engineering.  I have a BS in Electrical Engineering. The man in the still frame has at least a BS in Mechanical Engineering.  There was absolutely no alcohol on the range.  I rarely drink and when I do it’s on a special occasion and even then in a very limited amount.  As for the 2nd Amendment being ridiculous, obviously you don’t think that any of those above should have been able to defend themselves.  Again, being a victim is your choice, a choice you do not have the right to force upon others.  I don’t care if everyone else in the country went nuts tomorrow with their guns and shot up different places.  I didn’t so stop trying to tell me I can’t carry or defend myself.

CSGV’s first comment. 

How does what we’re doing not relate to the 2nd Amendment?  We were partaking in a nationally recognized shooting sport.  What part of the language of the 2nd Amendment do you not understand?  We have the right to keep and bear arms.  We were using those arms lawfully and safely.  No one was shot, no one was injured, but according to the CSGV that must mean our arms are defective.

Jane Thorne-Gutierrez, first comment.

Militia has not taken on a new meaning.  See US Code, Title 10, Subtitle A, Part 1, Chapter 13, Section 311.

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Now that we have that little statement out of the way lets nail your high violent crime rate comment to the wall.  Oh wait, you wanted just the straight crime rate, so in other words you’re inflating your statistics to argue against guns by including crimes where guns weren’t involved?  I have a better idea.  Lets look at the murder rate internationally.  What’s that, the US has a murder rate less than the world average? Less than Mexico which has very strict gun control.  Including “crimes” in which there is no victim to boost your statistics doesn’t really count.  Besides, correlation does not equal causation.  I’ve proven the Brady scores have 0 correlation with violent crime and Linoge has shown that crime rates are not affected by gun ownership either.  Please provide me solid facts on how law abiding gun owners increase violent crime, because all I see is feelings and “if you have a toaster you’re more likely to be attacked by a toaster” arguments.

CSGV’s second comment.

Thank you for admitting the truth.  CSGV doesn’t care about violent crime, they just care about “gun deaths.”  If all gun deaths were destroyed but the overall crime rate increased, CSGV would be pleased with the outcome.  Joan even admitted that she would prefer a higher crime rate for 0 gun deaths.  In this world 20 murders per 100k is ok if they’re done with a knife, but 5 murders per 100k is bad if one involves a gun.  The dumb is strong with this one.  Besides, the “gun death” statistic is stupid and pointless as it pretends that other forms of death and murder are some how less relevant.

Jane Thorne second comment.

So gun control would have stopped all of these deaths and murders?  Gun control would have protected the woman who shot her attacker who had a knife?  Gun control would have protected the woman who attempted to strangle her?  That comment is 100% fail.

CSGV Round Three.

Guns in the civilian market are extremely efficient at armed defense.  The arms available are quite efficient and provide a force multiplier that allows a small petite woman to defend herself from a line backer.

John Donnaruma

See the response to CSGV’s second comment.  Gun Violence is a BULL SHIT metric.  Why is someone who’s raped at knife point different from someone who was raped at gun point?

Jamie Gronko

Quick Draw Match.  WTF!?  Also I went through the video and pulled the stats and scores.  Incase you missed the stage description:

An explanation of the stage design is important. The brown target in the distance represents a “bad guy”. The white targets represent innocent people. When scored only hits on the bad guy counted and hits on the innocent were heavily penalized. When the scores have been reported I’ll make anther post. I think I might have won this stage. I had a good time with five A-zone hits, one C-zone hit and no hits on the no-shoot targets.

The instructions to the shooter were:

Start position: Facing up-range holding a candle with both hands. Gun is in a concealed carry state.
Course of fire: Upon signal drop candle, turn, draw, and engage T1 with six rounds. Comstock scoring.

This stage design was to simulate the January 8th 2011 shooting in Tucson. It was this event which the Brady Campaign wanted to bring attention to. This was to stimulate political interest in more gun laws.

Credit for the stage design goes to Bob N. (shown in the video preview above).

So we had a single “bad guy” surrounded by “good guys”.  We had to turn 180 degrees, draw, engage with 6 shots, and not hit any of the friendly targets.  No shooter took beyond 10 seconds from the buzzer to the last shot.  Every shooter scored at least 1 hit in a critical zone.

Joe engaged the whole stage in 4.18 seconds, scoring 5 A hits (critical zone), and 1 Charlie hit to the minor zone.  Joe practices regularly and competes regularly.  He qualifies under your “trained” statement.

I have not been able to shoot pistol however as often as I would like.  The last time I was really able to practice was over a year ago.  I am not proud of that statement, but it is what my finances have allowed.  I had never shot USPSA before and overall my formal defensive pistol training is minimal.  My score for that stage was 6.44 seconds from buzzer to last shot fired.  I put five rounds through the A zone (critical hit) and one shot through the D zone (minor hit).  Where I struck the D ring I glanced the edge of a no shoot, when I say glanced we’re talking less than an 1/8th  went in the white.  It still counted as me hitting a no shoot, however that person would live to see another day had it been real.  All of those no shoots were potential victims had that been a mass shooter.  To put it in further perspective there is a LEO that shot that stage.  He shot it in 7.57 seconds, scored 1 A, 1 C, and 2 to the D zone, there were some unhappy victims too.  I don’t know what you were judging our performances next to, but no one in that stage was really pathetic. The bottom line is, it shows we have the means and capability of stopping a mass shooter. 

Extra perspective, the Tuscon shooter fired 33 rounds in approximately 15 seconds.  Add 2 seconds to our times for being completely flat footed.  I have 6 shots on target just after he’s half way through.  Would you rather he continue his murder spree unabated?  Even with an injured civilian, injured is better than dead.  Well in you’re book that’s not true, but frankly I’d rather survive to see my wife again.

The thing about firearms training is it doesn’t take a lot to be good with a firearm, extra practice doesn’t hurt and you’ll improve, but anyone can do it.  You call it pathetic because you are envious of our independence and freedom.

Lastly we have Joan:

I’m glad I could contribute to your pants shitting hysteria.  Again totally worth it!

Also if the video is so horrible, why have 87 people liked it, but only 5 disliked it?

-B]

The Latah County Sheriff’s Office is investigating an early Monday shooting of 28-year-old Kayla M. Sedlacek at a rest area 10 miles north of Potlatch.

…

The Mineral Mountain rest area has been locked down since deputies responded to the shooting reported around 4 a.m. by the victim, who was shot while inside the women’s bathroom there, said Sheriff’s Lt. Brannon Jordan. He said the woman is a Latah County resident, but would not disclose her city of residence or name at this time.

Yeah, did you see what I saw there?  Evidently someone missed that memo from the Sheriff’s office.

Details are sketchy on what happened currently.  This definitely falls under the “It can’t happen here” column since it was out in a sleepy rural area.  Sadly this appears to be a case which the Brady Campaign would latch on to.  It appears that while using the restroom she was attacked and lost weapon retention and was shot with her own weapon.  However while many would think this could be a random case of violence, it appears not.

The Pullman Police Department has an open investigation into a stalking incident reported by Sedlacek.  Detectives from both agencies are collaborating to determine if any similarities between the cases exist.

Sedlacek believes the suspect in both cases is the same person, whose identity is unknown to her.  Based on this information the Latah County Sheriff’s Office does not believe there is a threat to the general public concerning this event.

Remember, while one would always like to maintain distance between you and a threat, it isn’t always an option.  Be prepared to fight for your weapon and be ready to fight like your life depends on it because it most certainly does.

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.

This past December the DC Metro announced that it was going to start randomly searching DC Metro riders.

Metro Police Chief Michael Taborn said the coordinated effort with the Transportation Security Administration was not in response to a specific threat but was part of a continuing effort to keep the system safe from explosives. Boston, New York and New Jersey transit officials do similar searches, according to the agency.

Evidently trying to travel to your job at work is grounds to consider you a criminal.  Again the claim of necessity is much like that used for aircraft and these shenanigans even involve A Security Theater.  This has absolutely nothing to do with security, but giving them more control.  The TSA is out of control and it seems some still feel like they need more.

Just when it seemed when it couldn’t get any worse, this new article surfaces.

Richard Sarles said Tuesday that the agency’s random bag-searching policy is here to stay. He defended the searches that he used when running NJ Transit, arguing that they help to disrupt terrorists’ plans.

"It’s not as much about detection as it’s about deterrence," he said in an interview on WTOP radio.

(Emphasis mine.)  They even admit publically that they will probably fail to detect someone attempting to smuggle explosives on.  It’s all about “deterrence”, aka, providing the illusion of security.  This is the second time this idea has been pushed, the first time it was shot down.   The person who pushed it the first time was recently promoted to a higher position.  Given all of that I guess someone really wants to run around saying “Respect my Authoritah!”

H/T to myself, I emailed it to myself and then forgot about it, I discovered it while cleaning up my inbox tonight.