JayG posted a meme this morning that I’ll hop on board with mainly because… well you might notice.

So here’s the meme. Long answers or short.

1. What was your first car? Model, year, color, condition?

2. What adventures did you have in it, good or bad?

3. What happened to it, what’s the end of the story?

So my first car was a 1994 Chrysler LeBaron my parents bought used in 1996.  It looked very much like this.

Those became my primary wheels in 2002 once I finally started driving.  I was late to the party since I had no reason to drive anywhere prior, second my parents used my drivers license as leverage to speed me up in getting my Eagle Scout, it didn’t work.  I finally bothered to give a crap and get my license so I could go visit the future Minutewoman while she was home on break. The interior was in quite decent shape, though the paint was flaking off by the time I got it.

I had a couple interesting road trips in it.  Mainly between the Seattle area and the Palouse where I now reside.  The most memorable was a trip where I told the future wife I had to go help my mom with some stuff and I’d be on IM later that night.  I then drove the 5 and a half hours and knocked on her dorm room door with roses while wearing a tuxedo.  This car was also the source of a personal record for the Pullman Seattle run.

One night on the cross state strip I found a dead deer in the middle of my lane on highway 26.  I shaved it’s belly after straddling it.  It sprayed entrails all over the firewall and engine block.  It stunk to high heaven for about 2 months until the rest of it burned off.

I had a lot of fun in that car and loved it cause it always treated me well.  I traded her in because she was starting to burn oil and maintenance bills were increasing expensive.  We replaced her with the 2003 Explorer Sport in 2007.

Many of the anti-rights cultists tout how police officers are the only one’s who should be anointed with the ability to carry a firearm.  They claim this comes from numerous factors including their extensive training, self-control, and their general infallibility.

The training argument will be ignored today with the exception of the following comment. 

Many civilians receive equal if not better training through their own funding.  Many civilians spend more on ammunition in a month that many officers will in their entire career.  The assumption that a police officer is some how magically more qualified by training is false.  Not to mention the fact that training has no bearing on the exercise of a Constitutionally protected inalienable right.  No one has to attend a training class before they can exercise their right of free speech.

The argument about their general infallibility has been covered quite well in the state sponsored criminal count.  This list doesn’t even focus on the incidences where officers have been caught and convicted, but centers around officers getting away with illegal or being provided unfair treatment under the law.

So instead this article is going to focus on self-control.  Numerous incidents have occurred as of late illustrating that police are human and their position does not provide them a magical exemption that alters their behavior from that of the human condition.

*Note nothing in this article should be construed as my being anti-law enforcement.  There are many officers who do an upstanding job and are quite commendable.  My goal through this article is to illustrate that there should not be a duality in law to differ between someone who works as a civilian in law enforcement and a normal law abiding citizen.

Where does this idea come from?

Often we hear the anti-rights cultists claim that only law enforcement should be allowed to carry or own firearms.  The claims provided previously coupled with the mistaken belief that the police are some how above a common citizen mix to create a serious problem.  Those ideas mix to provide an unrealistic definition of what a law enforcement officer is.  They combine together to destroy the idea that the officer is fallible, capable of making mistakes, or otherwise a human being.

When their want of their initial claim for total disarmament fails they instead extend restrictions on the right.

Exempted classes aren’t special.

Many of the anti-rights crowd call for banning carrying into establishments that serve alcohol. Never mind the fact that it is illegal to carry a firearm while drinking alcohol. Where with driving there is a limit, no limit exists with regards to carry. A single drink renders you unable to carry legally until your liver has finished it’s job. What this does do is disarm the designated driver, or someone who hops into a bar to visit with friends just for a bite to eat. Just because you visit someplace that has the ability to serve liquor, doesn’t mean you’re going to drink it.

Cops however can make poor judgment calls while off duty.  An officer in Gatlinburg assaulted two people while off duty, thankfully in this incident he left his service weapon at home.  There was also an incident where an off duty police officer assaulted someone in a bar because the channel on the TV was changed.  However one should not ignore other incidents where officers while off duty have carried into bars, legally, and the worst nightmare of the anti-rights cultists came to pass.

Baltimore homicide detectives have completed an initial inquiry into Saturday’s fatal shooting by an off-duty police officer of an unarmed man outside a Mount Vernon nightclub, and a decision on criminal charges rests with prosecutors who plan to repeat interviews with key witnesses over several days.

The victim in that case was disarmed as the law required allowing that law enforcement officer his selection of disarmed victims.  Just as it works with any other victim disarmament policy.  As the assailant in this case was also a police officer, it was left from their inclusion in their “gun death” metric.

Moving forward though the question around bars and alcohol though doesn’t just include off duty officers.  There have been instances where officers, while on duty, have assaulted people, and then falsely accused their victims.  In cases where the officers were on duty, they are also carrying their service weapons. 

There have been instances where officers are dunk on the job, or drunk on their way to work.  In the latter instance, putting on the uniform of a police officer does not magically render you sober.  While certainly this is in the outside boundary it illustrates that police are human.  The act of wearing the uniform does not provide them magical powers regarding firearms, alcohol, and proper social behavior.

What about emotional stress?

Another favorite amongst the anti-rights crowd is that carry will result in blood in the streets.  With shootouts occurring over parking spaces, increases in domestic violence, and any other type of social activity where people can become agitated.

The idea that cops are invulnerable from this type of behavior is quite disturbing.  Just look at instances such as Officer Roid Rage, the Atlanta PD officer who’s more unstable than nitro-glycerin, the off-duty cop in Philadelphia who shot someone over a parking spot, or the following group of incidents that will now be dissected that started this blog post.

The first involves not just one but two police officers. 

According to the sheriff’s department, Cortez was having an argument with Officer Senovio Elizondo when she broke his car window with her night stick. He then allegedly did the same to her car, and that’s when deputies say Cortez began chasing Elizondo with her handgun.

It ends up this was not only an argument between coworkers, but they were living together.  It was a domestic disturbance that overflowed into their work, which has both of them armed.

The second incident is a standard domestic dispute.

Police said Brown told his girlfriend to go to the basement. When he told her, according to police reports, that he “was not afraid to die” and he “would shoot any police officer that came to the location,” she pretended to comply with his instructions, then ran outside to call for help.

Domestic migrated from physical, to full out confrontational.  Again emotion was the root cause.

Obviously police officers can suffer from this type of emotional distress just like anyone else.  And the belief that disarmament make everyone safer is down right false.

So how are the two groups different?

The bottom line is neither group is different from the other.  Each side suffers from the same stresses and human tendencies.  We know relative to the general population that those with a concealed weapons permit are considerably more law abiding that the general population.

Trying to perform this comparison though is considerably harder within law enforcement.  Statistics for law enforcement as a whole are not tracked well.  While just looking at the New Orleans police department placed a corruption rate of 15% amongst officers, this is by no means a representative sample of all of law enforcement.  Trying to get a solid comparison between the two will be difficult due to changes in demographics and freedom the police have.

What can be blatantly seen is though is that officers are in fact human.  They are capable of the same errors, and mistakes that any other human being is.  Officers are in fact civilians like the rest of the general public.

In 1829, Sir Robert Peel created the Metropolitan Police when he served as Home Secretary of England. According to Peel, the real key for policing is “the police are the people and the people are the police”.

(Emphasis mine.)  Given those facts, along with the smattering of incidents that show it is not lawful concealed carriers that we need to be concerned about, we must wonder why the anti rights crowd continues to insist that it’s for our safety.  Obviously given the facts and the evidence, safety has absolutely nothing to do with, if anything it’s solely about control.

That control is important considering many of their supporters wish the gun culture and other law abiding citizens harm.  Anyone that tells you that police are a special case and should be granted particular rights and privileges exempt from the law abiding public is nothing more than wanting a group of elitists to create their “vision” of utopia hell.

It’s becoming increasingly difficult for the law abiding to seek simple over the counter treatment for the common cold.

The state will soon keep tabs on everyone who buys over-the-counter cold medicine.

Consumers’ personal information will be stored in an electronic database that will also send real-time alerts to police.

Without question this violates the Jews in the Attic test and it does absolutely nothing to catch those cooking meth. 

Cooking meth has been a crime.  In an effort to stop the crime they created a new crime, purchasing too much, or having too much in your household.  The intent of the purchase though no longer matters.  Have a house full of sick kids, too bad you’re going to jail after your door is kicked in by the SWAT team.  The worst part is, if your jury has no clue about Jury Nullification your ass is going to prison.  Obviously you broke the law as written because you bought or had too much in your household.  Without nullification they would disregard for the fact though that you were using it lawfully and for it’s intended purpose.  If you think that type of charge is impossible, think again.

The icing on the cake though was at the end of the article:

The American Civil Liberties Union said it does not plan to challenge the move based on privacy concerns.

As usual, the ACLU ignores any attack on civil liberties that doesn’t fit their political agenda.  Anyone who puts Union in their name couldn’t possibly understand the idea of personal liberty.  Sometimes law enforcement shouldn’t be made easier, especially when law abiding citizens get caught in the crossfire.  When that happens, it should become so damn difficult the cops want to do something else instead.

h/t Ry.

Officer Andy Hester evidently missed two very crucial pieces of education regarding the handling and use of weaponry.

Police Chief Mike Hall says officer Andy Hester was at the Front Porch restaurant last week when he held up his taser to activate it.

Hall says Hester removed the cartridge, and that’s when it accidently hit a restaurant employee’s arm.

First don’t play with it or handle it unless it is necessary.

Second, when dealing with a firearm, or firearm like weapon, keep your booger hook off the bang switch.

Had it been a civilian they would have been charged with assault, for that reason he goes on the count.  Accident or not.  While tasers are less lethal, they are still weapons and should be handled and treated as such.

In the words of Say Uncle, “Stop touching it!”

State Sponsored Criminal Count: 133 – Andy Hester

Because playing with weaponry in public where others can be injured is perfectly acceptable if you’re a cop.

Three officers who lied in Federal court have been reinstated by the city.

The board’s orders say Brandon Jackson, Jason Overbaugh and William Porter — who were all reinstated — gave testimony in federal court based on a “poorly written” report by James Menzoian, whose firing was was not overturned. The three reinstated officers also depended on their memories to recall events that happened about 150 days earlier, the board explained.

…

The board’s rulings said the city had not proved the three lied intentionally.

So let me get this straight.  Officers are giving testimony based on a poorly written report, that they did not write.  How is that testimony anything but hearsay since they did not write the report.  Any testimony they did give should be based on their knowledge of the situation, not a report written by someone else.

Moving forward though anything they say they should be sure of and know as fact.  Their testimony has the potential of ruining peoples lives.  The costs of giving false testimony are weightily and should not be taken lightly, intentional or not.

It was their responsibility to verify and authenticate the facts in the case they were presenting.  Anything they testified about that was proven to be false they are just as culpable as the fourth who wrote the report.

State Sponsored Criminal Count: 126

• Brandon Jackson
• Jason Overbaugh
• William Porter
• James Menzoian

Because if you’re a cop, you have no responsibility to verify anything prior to acting.  If you falsely provide testimony or end up raiding a house where the criminal hasn’t been for 7 years, you will not be held responsible. 

After the past two days of criminals who actually got busted, but no amount of punishment will ever be enough,  we return to our regularly scheduled program.

Video surveillance from Universal Studios captured the entire incident, which contradicts officers reports, 

…

Brillant wrote in a report he “felt a snap and heard a loud pop” while he directed Kavallierakis to the ground. Soon after, she was compliant and officers handcuffed her while she apologized. The handcuffs were removed and she was taken to Dr. Phillips hospital for treatment.

While it was drunken belligerence that created the initial situation, that is no excuse for the force applied to this woman.  Force was applied because the officers didn’t like being berated by the drunk woman.  Last I heard, verbal insults were not a cause to use force, especially force strong enough to break bone.  In case you think that maybe the officers might still be clear:

Kavallierakis’ trial on three misdemeanor charges — resisting arrest without violence, trespassing and disorderly intoxication — is scheduled to begin Thursday. If the charges are not dropped, Conan said he hopes the jury will acquit his client after watching the video.

Orlando police internal affairs records show Michaels and Brillant have been investigated in excessive force cases in the past.

(Emphasis mine) The video shows there was no reason for the use of force, but you’ll be glad to know both officers are still on duty.  Protecting the public as usual.

State Sponsored Criminal Count 122:

• Officer Brillant
• Officer Michaels

Because when a drunk lady calls you a pig, you have every write to break her arm.

This one makes me sick. 

A former South Ogden police officer has been sentenced to a possible
life prison term on charges of aggravated sexual abuse of a child and
forcible sodomy.

Welling, 41, worked for the agency from August 2008 until his
resignation in January while both the internal and criminal
investigations were ongoing.

As this incident occurred while the officer was off duty the reason for it’s inclusion is because of the trust children are instructed to give to police officers.

State Sponsored Criminal Count: 119 Andrew Welling

Because the trust gained by being police officer is something to abuse.