SSCC #383–IMPD

Here’s another from RobertaX.

Also during the past five months, Ratcliff has continued to stalk and harass a woman who has been the object of his obsession for years, according to Marion County prosecutors who charged him Thursday. He faces three felony counts of stalking, one misdemeanor count of battery and 26 misdemeanor counts of invasion of privacy.

Here’s a question, why was he still employed as a police officer during that time if he was harassing and stalking a woman?  I guess the IMPD believes in giving predators every advantage.

State Sponsored Criminal #383: Craig Ratcliff

Because an officer of the law stalking a someone is perfectly acceptable and while we disarm the general public we should leave them with their badge and gun to use against their victim.*

*Note, I don’t like how many of the DV laws work for this reason amongst others.  It is too easy to use against someone who is actually innocent and is often used as a tactic to harass someone through the legal system, but the futility is obvious when some how when a cop does it he’s special.

SSCC #382–Los Angeles

“I felt 300 pounds on my neck,” Brooks told reporters at NBC Los Angeles. Brooks, a volunteer employee at THC Downtown Collective, a Long Beach, CA medical marijuana dispensary, was arrested June 19 during a police raid of the pot shop. Footage from the dispensary’s security camera reveals a brutal bust, including cops walking on Brooks’ back and standing on his neck, while officers prepare to handcuff the suspect. “I just felt violated and disrespected,” said the 28-year-old volunteer, one of five arrested in the raid. “We got beat up and arrested for a citation that’s equivalent to someone jaywalking.”

Even less surprising is the fact that the officers also destroyed the surveillance equipment.  Tell me, why would an officer do that?  My immediate guess is to steal pot without evidence against him for own personal use.  There’s only one reason cops destroy surveillance equipment and that is to make sure they’re not recorded when they’re breaking the law.

Overall this is nothing more than state level cronyism when you see the following:

Although police admit the dispensary was compliant with California state law, Long Beach PD said the raid was ordered because the store was operating without a city permit. The attorney for Dorian Brooks, however, argued that the city of Long Beach denied owners a permit, and makes it increasingly difficult for dispensaries like THC Downtown Collective to get one.

State Sponsored Criminal #381:

Because honest up right cops just don’t like being recorded right?  I mean they’re honest so they don’t need to be recorded, they’re just doing their job right?

h/t Uncle

How Fear, Not Fact, Informs the Gun Rights Debate

Wonderful video from Reason TV the truth behind the gun rights debate.

I find this a great addition to go along with this video I’ve used numerous times previously:

Then again, most of these people who fall into the irrational panic state don’t seem to understand the benefit of discussion occurring while you’re calm and rational.  Their coping mechanism for tragedy is to “Do Something,” even if that something actually causes more people to die they feel better because the did something.

I did see a video this weekend and I think I’m going to have to get together with some friends and script out a response.

Quote of the Day – Say Uncle (8/3/2012)

The real outrage in this is that two elected officials threatened the president under color of law for expressing his views. That’s what you should be mad about. I’ll continue my boycott of Chicago and MA.

Say UncleChick Fellatio
August 3, 2012


[The other day Popehat posted a link on twitter and I had the urge to comment but let it subside.  My main contention with the linked content was this though:

Don’t you dare say that you’re just supporting Dan Cathy’s freedom of speech and religious expression. While there may be some of you who actually do care about the First Amendment working for everyone, I would like to know where you were when:

At which point he goes into a list of places that have been boycotted for their views one way or another.  I have to disagree and here’s why.

I, like most American’s, only become involved when I feel that something affects me.  I didn’t see the LGBT community come and participate with the Starbucks buycott for example.  I’m sure there was overlap as I know that Gay Cynic probably participated but as a whole the groups are not tied together at the hip.  I would in general do my best to support someone, but I will not expend energy in going out of my way as I will with places who forbid concealed carry for example.

What has happened here is that a large number of people are supporting Chick-Fil-A, not because of the owners stance on Gay marriage.  That is an entirely separate debate and my position can be summed thusly:

The state has no business being involved in marriage.  As for the legal rights provided by marriage between partners, who cares if they’re both male or female.  Everyone deserves the same legal rights and it is no one’s business to judge anyone else for their choices.

Moving on though this situation was aggravated by two political individuals.  Namely the mayors of Chicago and Boston.  These two individuals attempted to use the force of state to punish a company and its owner for voicing their opinion.  While I disagree with that opinion, they had every right to say it without the threat or use of force from government.  That is the problem, these politicians were using government to silence speech.  It wasn’t a separate part of the public attempting to shame the company for their opinion, it was the state.  The fact that they were using government to influence or control speech is a blatant violation of the first amendment and is worthy of note because what is to stop either of them saying I cannot conduct business because of my outspoken support of the second amendment?  It doesn’t have to even be about the second amendment though, it could be anything they disagree with.

I am by no means the only one with this view as well.  This is very much a free speech issue because the state should not be allowed to disallow businesses from operation based on the opinions and speech of their owners or employees.

I live in Washington and there is no Chick-Fil-A out here.  Overall I probably wouldn’t go if there was, but given the behavior of a few tyrannical politician’s I would give patronage just to show my support.  That’s exactly what those politicians did by doing that.  They drove people to patronize that business merely because the government was intimidating them. -B]

SSCC #377–NOAA

Yes, you read that right, NOAA, as in the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration.

The huge humpback whale whose friendliness precipitated a surreal seven-year — so far — federal hunt for criminality surely did not feel put upon. Nevertheless, our unhinged government, with an obsession like that of Melville’s Ahab, has crippled Nancy Black’s scientific career, cost her more than $100,000 in legal fees — so far — and might sentence her to 20 years in prison. This Kafkaesque burlesque of law enforcement began when someone whistled.

So what was so horrible a crime that these agents from the government have spent so much time and effort?

Black, 50, a marine biologist who also captains a whale-watching ship, was with some watchers in Monterey Bay in 2005 when a member of her crew whistled at the humpback that had approached her boat, hoping to entice the whale to linger. Back on land, another of her employees called the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to ask if the whistling constituted “harassment” of a marine mammal, which is an “environmental crime.” NOAA requested a video of the episode, which Black sent after editing it slightly to highlight the whistling. NOAA found no harassment — but got her indicted for editing the tape, calling this a “material false statement” to federal investigators, which is a felony under the 1863 False Claims Act, intended to punish suppliers defrauding the government during the Civil War.

See, they knew it wasn’t harassment but well, given 3 felonies a day they can up root your life to dig up anything.  When we say dig up, I also mean twisting the facts to make you guilty of crimes you didn’t commit.

If there was ever a clue that something was wrong with our government and legal system, this is a shining example.

State Sponsored Criminal #377: NOAA

Because if you’re an environmentalist wacko, get a job with the feds, then you can destroy anyone who does something you disagree with with the power, weight, and force of government behind you.

via Uncle.

SSCC #376–DEA

Commandeered by one of his drivers, who was secretly working with federal agents, the truck had been hauling marijuana from the border as part of an undercover operation. And without Patty’s knowledge, the Drug Enforcement Administration was paying his driver, Lawrence Chapa, to use the truck to bust traffickers.

At least 17 hours before that early morning phone call, Chapa was shot dead in front of more than a dozen law enforcement officers – all of them taken by surprise by hijackers trying to steal the red Kenworth T600 truck and its load of pot.

In the confusion of the attack in northwest Harris County, compounded by officers in the operation not all knowing each other, a Houston policeman shot and wounded a Harris County sheriff’s deputy.

As expected though the DEA is refusing to accept responsibility for the damages to his truck.  This however is unsurprising since I’m sure Obama would claim this man wasn’t building a business, someone else was.  Now for those who claim that his insurance should cover the costs:

Copies of letters and emails from Patty’s insurance company state that it won’t pay for repairs because the truck was part of a law-enforcement operation. Patty drew from his 401K retirement fund to repair the truck, which was out of operation for 100 days.

So basically what happened here is the DEA shifted the costs and risks for their idiocy onto a small business man and when it went south they left him with the bill.

State Sponsored Criminal #376: The Entire DEA

Because when fighting the war on drugs, collateral damage is inconsequential. 

Morons of the male persuasion

Bloomberg is such an asshole!

Mayor Bloomberg is pushing hospitals to hide their baby formula behind locked doors so more new mothers will breast-feed.

Really?! Blocking the accessibility of formula to new mothers?  For some women, they are not able to produce milk with their pregnancy.  Some, even though they are producing, aren’t producing enough colostrum and therefore are starving their child.  I wonder if they will charge the mother with child abuse if the pharmacy is closed and the baby wants to feed?

Legislative fiat and nanny statism does not change biology or the way the real world works.

Women don’t need a lecture about choosing formula over breast-feeding.  Breast is not always best.  Especially since not every mother produces enough milk.  My husband was raised on formula because his mother was unable to produce milk as he was born by C-section.  A friend of mine didn’t produce milk for her child and didn’t realize it until she had starved her child for a day not knowing she wasn’t producing enough milk.

Some asshat politician who doesn’t understand biology or the medical sciences has no business telling me, my doctor, or any one else what is best for me or my child.

This is one big reason why I don’t want to be in a hospital when I have kids.  I don’t need some moron telling me what to do with my own body!

If you’re female and work in his office, do the rest of us of the female gender a big favor and kick him right between the uprights.  Then again I’m reasonably sure he’s lacking functional equipment down there which is why he’s spouting off about shit he doesn’t know about.

h/t Weer’d

A Guide to Exercising a Right…

Emily Miller gives us a nicely detailed guide on what it takes to exercise a Constitutionally guaranteed right in our nations capital.  Here’s a nice excerpt, I would highly suggest reading the whole thing.

I’ve been writing this guide bit by bit from the day in Oct. 2011 when I first went to the District’s firearm registration office and said, “I want a gun.” Back then, I expected it to take a few weeks and cost $60 to have a firearm at home. I was off by a few months and $375.  Also, I believed that documenting the process for the newspaper would mean a few stories about long lines and frustrating bureaucrats. I was far off the mark.

When I started, there were 17 steps to getting a legal gun in Washington. However, as my series exposed the particularly burdensome requirements to gun ownership, the city council moved to remove some of those barriers. Now  there are 12 steps that take much less time and the cost has decreased by $262.

Even with the improvements I still say its way too much.  Especially considering one should be allowed to vote without showing ID, but look at the barriers to gun ownership.

These barriers are numerous and the biggest is a financial hurdle that many may not be able to overcome.  Imagine adding a $125 transfer fee plus an extra $48 dollars in asking the police department for permission to own a firearm.

Not to mention the additional 10 day waiting period which does nothing but make sure that someone who may legally own a firearm isn’t able to purchase one when they really need it.

Name one single other right that has these types of bars against their exercise.  There is no waiting period on free speech.  If someone says something bad about you, you are not prohibited from writing about them for 10 days while your blog registration application comes through.  You are not required to pay a fee to the state for the permission to create a blog or computer, or network connection to run your blog.  You are allowed to write freely in defense of your character.

Contrast that to firearms where an abusive-ex can threaten you, and you are now stuck waiting for 10 days.  You have a pile of fees to pay both to a monopolistic FFL and the police department for the permission to have an effective tool of self-defense.  A right guaranteed by the US Constitution and stated as applying to the individual in the McDonald decision is subject to fees and limitations of its exercise.  The consequences in this latter case though can be lethal for the person whose rights are being violated.

Instead of allowing free exercise, they create a maze of bureaucracy to be followed, which does nothing but ease the government in their efforts to infringe a right while appearing to allow for free exercise.

If your laws need a guide in order explain to people how to exercise a right, there is something grossly wrong with the design of the system.  It is obviously designed and engineered with the intent of stopping people from exercising that right.  The politicians and people responsible should be run up on 18.242.

I applaud Emily Miller for her efforts in correcting this wrong.  While she has made considerable advancement as can be seen, there is still a long way to go.  I doubly appreciate that she created that wonderful guide to aid others through the bureaucratic nightmare that are D.C.’s gun laws.