Search Results for: node/state%20sponsored%20criminal%20count%20tsa

The Problem with Stop and Identify – SSCC #21

There has been a lot of back and forth by me regarding this one and actually including it as a criminal count.  I finally decided that it is due to the following facts:

  • The initial contact was not by an identified LEO.  Sorry but a shirt that says public safety officer doesn’t count.
  • That individual in question made physical contact without proper legal authority.
  • The initial contact had no legal purpose as there was no suspicious activity to warrant investigation or the belief that a crime had occurred.

That said, the New York State Patrol I’m afraid is technically in the clear.  Note I said technically.  New York is a stop and identify state.  What is problematic is this law is most easily abused, much like the declaration of a concealed firearm was in Ohio.  The initial contact was in no way legal, as there was no reasonable reason to believe a crime had occurred.  This LEO then assaulted one of the people he was intimidating and then called in the state police.  The state police with what they were informed at this point had given them enough to reasonably believe that a crime had occurred.  The problem is the issue is circular.  Identifying is what is claimed as the obstruction and a failure to identify, and to the state patrol officers all they know is what they were told over the radio.

This brings me to the second issue, as they were on foot, they have no duty to provide photo identification.  They government must supply identification should they be requiring it when no license is required for walking.  The individuals involved are at a loss when it comes to dealing with the mess that is the legal system and they knew none of the key words that should be used in a situation like this.  This further compounded the irritation exhibited by both state patrol officers.

If you are stopped on the street the conversation should go something like the following if you’re unfortunate enough to live in a stop and identify state*:

  • Officer: Sir I need to see Identification
  • You: Am I under arrest?
  • Officer: No, but I need to see identification.
  • You: Am I being detained?
  • Officer: No
  • You: Then you have no legal right to request me to identify (depends on state in this case it would work).

Another variation:

  • You: Am I being detained?
  • Officer: Yes
  • You: Why am I being detained?
  • Officer: (State’s a reasonable reason for being detained)
  • You: (Identify) State your name and address.
  • Officer: What are you doing here?
  • You: (State’s reason for being in area and what you are doing)

Third variation is much like the second but that’s if they say you are under arrest.  Again depending on the state they must inform you what you are being arrested for prior to the cuffs.  This is because some states allow you to resist an unlawful arrest, even by force.  If you pursue this route be careful and be sure you can win; it’s going to be a very tough fight.  Then again you might end up dead anyway, killed while handcuffed in the jail.

So on that final note: The stupid public safety officer is abusing the law to intimidate the public and twisting it to obtain the support of the state patrol.  The state patrol was acting within the law, but the law allows them too much leeway.

State Sponsored Criminal Count: 21

Because the job of “public safety” is to harass law abiding citizens on foot to the point of arrest by twisting poorly constrained legislation.

Found here.

*Note: I am not a lawyer, do not take this as legal advice, do any of the following at your own risk.  Make sure you know the applicable laws for the areas you live and are traveling in.

 

PSH of Another Kind, Election Edition

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:

reject1183

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.

Washington Residents, Contact Your State Legislators

Had something come across my screen tonight, and it’s not good news for those of us in Washington.

Washington lawmakers are beginning to coalesce around a plan that would expand the state’s laws on gun background checks, providing hope for supporters after years of failed efforts.

While the measure is supported by many Democrats, the background checks plan also picked up support from Republican Rep. Mike Hope of Lake Stevens, Republican Sen. Steve Litzow of Mercer Island and Senate Majority Leader Rodney Tom, a Democrat who has aligned himself with Republicans this year. The Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs also supports the idea.

This is not a joke folks and this is deadly serious.  The bill in question is SB 5711 and as you can see there are some Republican’s selling us and our rights up the river.  Make no mistake folks, this has nothing to do with background checks and never mind that in the end they wont actually do anything.

Our opponents claim that it will not deny anyone their rights, except many are delayed for no reason other than NICS cannot handle the load.  In December the local gun shop was having trouble getting through to NICS to complete purchases.  There are no provisions in this law to create a state system or otherwise provide additional funding to the federal system.  All it will do is increase burden, which will decrease availability and increase the difficulty and delay in getting  a firearm.  Further without a state registry there is no way this law could be effectively enforced.  Given the behavior of California and New York with moves for confiscation, does anyone think that’s a good idea?

Tell me, if the state is so desperate for background checks at the state level, why not just place an endorsement on every drivers license indicating that they are not a prohibited person.  Now the background check merely becomes checking your driver’s license.  Or why not do something like Idaho, your CPL satisfies the NICS requirement, lessen the burden on the federal system.

The problem is those creating this legislation aren’t actually interested in solutions to the problem they claim to be after.  Their problem statement is as follows:

How do we disarm the citizens of the State of Washington?

Their statement isn’t:

How can we work to aid the law-abiding people of Washington in preventing arms from falling into the hands of criminals while also protecting the rights of the law-abiding?

Think about that long and hard folks.  Don’t believe the lies they feed you.  Most certainly do not think that republicans are on your side.  Tonight’s post was originally going to be on an event that occurred last Saturday but that will be delayed until tomorrow.

There are more bills in the works than just this one as well.  Public hearings are scheduled for 0800 on Wednesday the 13th.

What I need, what your fellow gun owners of Washington need is for all of you sound the alarm and contact your representatives and attend the hearings if you can.  This fight is real and it’s down right serious.

via Gay Cynic

Realistic translation of I-1077 for those in Washington State

The following initiative is straight from the WA Secretary of State website.

Ballot Title
Statement of Subject: Initiative Measure No. 1069 concerns the state seal.

Concise Description: This measure would require the Washington State Seal to depict a tapeworm attached to a taxpayer’s intestine, encircled by the words: Committed to sucking the life blood out of each and every taxpayer.

Should this measure be enacted into law? Yes [ ] No [ ]

Ballot Measure Summary

This measure would require the Seal of the State of Washington to be changed to depict a vignette of a tapeworm dressed in a three piece suit attached to the lower intestine of a taxpayer shown as the central figure. The seal would be required to be encircled with the following words: “Committed to sucking the life blood out of each and every tax payer.” The illustration would be selected from submissions submitted by taxpayers.

TMM and I both find it a realistic translation for I-1077, just in a visual form for the State Seal. Given other taxes they’ve pushed this year, we’re all for it.

SWEET! A journalist has nailed it on the head.

The ferry system union has been uncovered as being dirty rotten scoundrels and wasting tax payer money and Gregoire is not interested.

Gregoire dismissed it all by saying she’s too busy to watch TV and hadn’t even seen any of the reports.

She then turned around and talked about how she has absolute faith in ferry system officials.

What?! How is that possible? She is the Governor and therefore should know and care about mismanagement of taxpayers’ dollars.

I find the governor’s arrogance incredible.

I find her lack of regard and respect for taxpayers offensive.

Why did she get voted in again? Oh, right, the Republic of Pugit Sound wanted her, no one else really had a say. Though I think the winds may change when the Governor seat is back on the chopping block.

By kissing off the work of a respected journalist the governor has kissed off the people of this state, who deserved answers to the questions of how their money is being wasted by ferry officials.

The governor doesn’t have time to keep up with the news?

Maybe the voters of this state don’t have time for her condescending attitude anymore.

This hits home for the husband as his dad was at ground zero working for the state on the Washington State Ferry scandal back in the 1980s against Marine Power and Electric. His dad served as a consultant for the counter suit after he quit Marine Power and Electric.  He quit MP&E when two supervisors approached him one night and requested him to place his Professional Engineering Seal on a design that not only did he not draw, but took no part in.  When he first refused, stating why he could not seal the documents, they threatened to fire him, at which point he quit.  The next morning he was in Olympia at the A.G.’s office.

Under orders from the Legislature, the Transportation Commission signed a $105.8 million state contract for six new ferries with a local company in 1977 while William Bulley headed the department. The new ferries delivered by Marine Power and Equipment Company, named the “Issaquah class,” had computer-operated steering and stopping mechanisms that failed repeatedly, causing many dock rammings and thousands of dollars in ferry and dock damages and repairs to the ferries’ operating systems. In 1981, Marine Power filed a $32 million lawsuit against the state, claiming that the State had required extra work, delayed or refused payments, and had meddled in the contract. Shortly afterward, the State filed a $28 million counter-suit, claiming the ferries were riddled with design faults and safety problems, which would cost $28 million to repair.

The State settled with Marine Power in 1985 for $8.4 million, but only after paying $6.4 million in legal fees. Marine Power declared bankruptcy in 1986, but the state received its settlement because the payments were covered by a bonding company. All the trouble with the new ferries and legal issues kept Berentson embroiled in WSF scandal from day one through his tenure as WDSOT department head. Marine Power was criticized for taking a $29.28 million profit, or 27 percent, when the going profit margin on other ship building companies was 2 to 4 percent, and WSDOT was criticized as mismanaging the contract and bowing to political pressure, allowing Marine Power to skirt contract specifications. Berentson said in 2005, “There were several incidents, but it all worked out — there was court action and settlements, but we came out all right. The boats delivered still function today” (Interview).

Note: Three of the ferry names the husband remembers his dad using.
Cathlamet: Can’t Land It
Skagit: Smash It,
Issaquah: It’s a crash

{H/T Mad Rocket Scientist at RNS}

Why Would You Carry Out of State?

So the gun grabbers are going into hysterics because the house passed HR-822.  My personal favorite quote was from none other than the founding case of Peterson Syndrome.

There were a lot of claims about concealed carry permit holders and the inconvenience of not being able to carry their guns into every state in the nation. I’ll tell them about inconvenience. My family was inconvenienced when we had to plan a funeral for my sister, shot to death on an August day. The inconvenience of sneaking to the back of the church in a rented bus to avoid the press shouldn’t have to be, but it was. It was inconvenient to watch my mother deal with the death of her first born child. It was inconvenient to watch my own children deal with the awful death of their favorite aunt. It was inconvenient to watch my sister’s grown kids and step children deal with each other and with their grief. So really, I just don’t feel sorry for these guys who can’t carry their guns everywhere they go. Do they care about victims? Are their gun rights more important than the public’s right to be safe from shootings of family members or friends? Are their rights to carry their guns more important than jobs, health care, housing, and other pressing needs? I believe that most Americans know the answer to this.

Emphasis mine.  I posted the whole quote so it was obvious I wasn’t twisting something out of context or the emotional state was completely lost.  Loosing a loved one is hard, but again, given her logic I’m a victim of cancer.  But then we find news articles such as this article.

By surviving his ordeal two weeks ago in Noble County, the victim, whose name authorities haven’t released, helped uncover an elaborate scheme by at least two men to lure people with the promise of work from across the country to Ohio. Authorities say the real plan was to rob and kill them.

The first victim was lured across state lines and was robbed and killed, the second victim was lucky enough to have survived.  However she thinks the victim in this case had no right to be armed for self-defense.  They had no right to be as equally armed as the criminals of the state of which they’re visiting.  As usual her pro-predator stance shines through like a light house.  Especially given the fact that she thinks that criminals should be allowed to retain firearms as they are necessary for their job.

Who needs guns then? Well, hunters need guns for the sport. Some people need guns for their profession- law enforcement, security guards, people who transport cash from businesses to banks, etc., gang members, drug cartels, felons, robbers and those who, without a gun, could not do their jobs.

She would rather disarm victims and ensure that they were easy prey for predators just because they crossed an invisible line in the sand that means nothing but a change in legal boundary.  As shown above can find prime examples of predators preying upon those from out of state due to the higher likelihood of the prey being disarmed.  National reciprocity guarantees those that can carry at home can continue to legally exercise their right to self-defense where ever they go*.

*It appears that the right to self-defense might be missing now in Massachusetts

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 Honorable Mention–New Mexico State Patrol

KOB Eyewitness News 4 has obtained surveillance pictures of a State Police officer having sex with a woman on the hood of a car in broad daylight.

He was on duty at the time of the incident.  He was in uniform.  The only thing is he didn’t really break any laws other than maybe some decency laws.  It’s grey, it’s not clear cut, but certainly since tax payers were paying him to do his job, it’s a problem.

Dr. Joe’s cure all is quite an effective remedy, however there is a time and place for it.  I must say though I started laughing when I saw it was the New Mexico State Patrol.

My dad hated the New Mexico State Patrol with a passion.  After getting out after his first tour he was driving to California and had everything he owned in his car.  He pulled over into a rest stop in New Mexico to get some sleep.  A police officer woke him up asking him what he was doing.  Asked for ID and then ran my dad.  Please note, my dad was in the Navy, and had a clearance due to his job.  When they ran him there was a hold, with no indication as to why.  The promptly arrest my dad, tow his car and throw him in a cell.  Back at the station they tear his car apart.  Seats, interior and all.  About two hours later they get a call from NCIS asking about my dad.  The conversation went like this evidently:

NCIS:“Is Mr. TOMM being held against his will?”

NMSP: “Yes, he’s currently been placed in a cell and is under arrest.”

NCIS: “Why?”

NMSP: “Because there was a hold and we assumed he was a criminal”

NCIS: “You will release him immediately, that hold was to guarantee that he was not being placed under duress or pressed for information.”

They then let my dad go, with his stuff scattered to hell and gone and his car still disassembled.  From that day forward my dad would stop at the New Mexico border, piss on the state, and then drive non-stop to the other side.

Because ultimately the sole purpose of being in the state patrol is to fuck someone, either literally or figuratively.