Trust and Integrity…

Integrity once lost can never be regained.

Yesterday I made the following comment on Facebook.

Cops will shoot anyone for any reason even if they create or aggravate the situation.

They have been trained at this point to exercise and only use one tool in their tool box.

With how heavily qualified immunity protects them I’ve lost all faith and trust in law enforcement. When a cop can create a dangerous situation unnecessarily, shoot someone, have it declared unjustified in the review and not face a single punishment other than being fired after committing homicide the system is broken.

The article that sparked my mini rant, was this:

Two North Carolina parents are in shock after local police shot and killed their 18-year-old son in their own home, while they watched helplessly.

Now this is not the first time I’ve seen or heard of something like this and it is merely another added to the list.  Not to mention incidents like the Seattle PD incident where the officer didn’t like someone carving some wood, proceeded to close the distance to someone he, as he stated was “armed”, and when the person finally turned around to see who was yelling at him the officer shot him.  The officer claimed the knife was open and that’s why he shot, it was determined however it was in fact closed.

Ultimately that shooting was ruled unjustified however the officer was not charged with any crime because “he was acting in a public capacity” at the time.

One of my friends then posted the following comment on my wall:

“Cops will shoot anyone for any reason…”. Every cop? You knew me as a safe fellow gun owner in college who stood along side you with an empty holster on the campus open carry awareness days. I’d like to think that I haven’t turned into a mindless killer now that I choose to put on a badge and serve the public

Initially the response was just going to be there except this is a serious problem and it’s a matter of trust and integrity, and I’m not going to go completely Kevin Baker this isn’t going to be short.

The problem is the police have no trust or integrity left.  I may trust my friend because I know him and don’t have to worry about him just shooting me because I know him and his character.  The problem is I don’t have that kind of rapport with most police officers, in fact most of them are a blank sheet that I know nothing about.

Just the same when an officer approaches me they know nothing about me, unless they pull me over.  Then they see that I have a concealed weapons permit when they run my license plate.  Fun little thing there is then the officer knows I am generally most likely an upstanding citizen.  Except some officers treat concealed permit holders as criminals because they dare exercise their rights and an immediate threat to the officers safety and everyone else.

But we’re not talking about their perspective, which is interesting since officer fatalities are at an all time low:

The annual report from the nonprofit National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund also found that deaths in the line of duty generally fell by 8 percent and were the fewest since 1959. 

According to the report, 111 federal, state, local, tribal and territorial officers were killed in the line of duty nationwide this past year, compared to 121 in 2012. 

Forty-six officers were killed in traffic related accidents, and 33 were killed by firearms. The number of firearms deaths fell 33 percent in 2013 and was the lowest since 1887.

Yes you read that right, officer friendly is more likely to die in an a traffic accident than be shot by Sumdood.  Interestingly the number of justifiable homicides committed by officers far outpaces that rate, but what is disturbing is the burden of proof for their justification is far less than a citizen who may be found in similar circumstances.  But this is ultimately neither here nor there it’s just an interesting piece of information when viewed in the additional context of the following incidents raises serious concern.

Because what this subject is really about is my perception of officer friendly.  Can I trust him?

All that I have to go on is the fact he’s been issued a badge and a gun by the state.  Neither of which vouches for his character, mental health, competence, or respect for others.  Approximately 1% of police officers will be found to have committed misconduct,  this doesn’t include unreported incidents or incidents where misconduct was likely but could not be proven or the officer was protected through judicial fiat.

Let’s look at the Canton PD incident, because honestly it is a fantastic example of why integrity and trust is being lost and why just because it’s only 1% doesn’t inspire confidence in them.

Officer Harless, while operating as a law enforcement officer and protected as such by qualified immunity,  threatened and harassed people on more than one occasion.  Watching the video that made him famous there is something even more disturbing, the complete inaction of his partner to do anything to protect the victim.  Instead of reigning the out of control officer Roid-Rage in he just sits off to the side and does nothing, silently complacent in the actions of his partner.

It gets better though because lets now investigate the fallout from that incident.  First we had a city council member justifying Harless’s actions and defending him.  That’s right, the out of control behavior was defended by a man elected to represent the public (victim) at large.  He was only brought in for a disciplinary hearing and no charges were filed due to his threats and actions, of which there was a history of misconduct.  He was eventually fired and a minor amount of faith restored as he was at least fired.

Except now the fun begins.  All of his fellow officers banded together to support him and the police union forced the city to hire him back.  This is about that, all those officers were OK with that behavior and the obvious pattern of it.  So much so they forced the government to hire him back and put that man who destroy the trust back in a position of power.  That is how you destroy integrity.

Let’s look back on the whole of the state sponsored criminal count.  There were a lot of very screwed up instances, that the story was darn near always the same.

Nonetheless, she says: “In violation of NISD police department procedures, Alvarado drew his weapon immediately after exiting the patrol car. With his gun drawn, he rushed through the gate and into the back yard. Within seconds from arriving at the residence, Alvarado shot and killed the unarmed boy hiding in the shed.”

Hell, I had created a special tag, “hiding in plain sight“, because I was finding so many school resource officers who were screwing girls in the school.

This boils down to a matter of trust and integrity and honestly the police have lost it.  Due to their job and position they should be striving for excellence and be dealing immediately and harshly with any misconduct.  Instead many officers are intimidated into not reporting misconduct.  This is a problem within the system.  I don’t know how to fix it but it is a problem and it’s destroying the trust and tarnishing any integrity that people see left.

Why should I not be afraid of someone I don’t know who’s been given a badge and a gun by the state and have a free pass to shoot someone one, even unlawfully?  You want to fix this problem, bring the police and the people back into line at the same bar.  The public are the police and the police are the public.  Between the laws and behavior that is no longer true.

If there honestly isn’t a problem, why is there such a high domestic violence rate among police officers?  Is it because many of them are so heavily trained on relying on their use of force to get their way they forget the other tools at their disposal?

I am more fearful of the police than I am of criminals.  I can at least fight back against a criminal.  The police however can kick down my door in the middle of the night, shoot my dog, shoot me, shoot my wife, and then say oops wrong house and they all get a pass.  Why didn’t they just [email protected]#$ing knock on my door and show me the warrant?

Oh the criminal is dangerous and he might destroy evidence.  Here’s a [email protected]#$ing idea then, catch him on his drive to work or when he’s away from the house.  The majority of no-knock warrants are unnecessary and merely used to continue justifying funding.

Do police have a right to go home safe at the end of the day, sure, but they have no more of a right to that than the people they serve.  Honestly in signing on the dotted line, they sign on for the additional risk their job brings.  If they can’t handle it they need to go work someplace else.

Shooting a grandfather in the back while he’s lying on the ground isn’t acceptable, neither is shooting a little girl in the face, or shooting a child’s dog in a cage in front of the child.  The people aren’t the ones creating this attitude, it’s the actions and behavior of police officers.  If they want the support and trust of law-abiding citizens, they need to earn it.  Letting incidents like this happen on a regular basis without the uproar of other officers just makes them all complicit.

They are also consistently exempt from laws that are applied to the rest of the general public, that is not acceptable and is yet another example of Tyranny, and the police are happy enough to enjoy it.  Again, destroying trust, faith, and integrity one step at a time.

The actions and behavior of the police have created this rift and it’s going to take them changing their behavior to fix it.  Even then it will take a long period of time.  They need to collectively step up to the plate push out the corruption, embrace the suck and ensure that laws are applied equally across everyone, including themselves.  If some officer says, high capacity magazines should be outlawed, he should be planning on surrendering the ones from his patrol car, his house, and his locker as well.

A man of character will stand up and do the right thing, even if it hurts him personally.  I do not see men of character in law enforcement.  I see a group of men, some of whom are corrupt, but overall who operate as a “brotherhood” and will defend their brother even if he has done something wrong.  Brotherhood serves a purpose, but there’s a point where character should take over.

Today’s hour long educational presentation…

Even if you don’t really speak tech, watch it.  He doesn’t really go into deep details, though it does require some understanding of how networking works.

If you still don’t want to take the hour let me synopsize it into one single sentence:

Nothing is safe.

And there isn’t much of a hope for immediate improvement either because the NSA is leaning on organizations to leave a lot of this crap in place.  Not to mention they do not report security threats instead they want them left open for exploitation.

There are couple things that desperately need to change, one of the biggest is security needs to stop being an afterthought in software and systems development.  I’ve said it before folks, we’re in a cold war and one side just doesn’t want to admit the truth of the matter yet.

The Mission of the Modern Militia

Having been a member of a militia (past tense), I was always struck with the question of, “What is our mission?” When I was a member of the Army National Guard, our mission was clear and spelled out. While we could have another discussion about the appropriateness of the current NG mission, it was at least clear. This was never the case as a member of the militia. There were ideas that were discussed, and we had the hope (some believe this to be a 4-letter word) that if there was an emergency we’d be called on, but there was never any formal aid arrangement, response plan, SOPs or defined mission.  This has made me think about what the mission should and shouldn’t be.  I’ll start with the latter…

There are those who believe the militia will be called on by the community in times of need whether this is flooding or all out TEOTWAWKI, but personally, I believe these individuals to be truly delusional in regards to how governments work.  If we’re talking WROL, all bets are off, but I still don’t think the militias will be the first people who the local communities will want to come to their “rescue”.  Those of us who’ve been involved in government know the red tape and complexities associated with it.  If there is ever a disaster, the last thing they will want is a bunch of unaffiliated people with guns running around claiming to have authority.  There are liability issues galore that would prevent the militias from helping in any formal capacity.  There may be unique communities out there where the local government may call on the militia, but at present, I’m not familiar with any of them, and I’m fairly confident they would be a rarity.

I don’t want to dwell too much on what I don’t think the militia is because all too often people tear down something without providing anything constructive in return so I’ll skip any other areas I feel are not fitting of the militia and go to what I believe the militias could be today.

Continuing Education:  Many of us are prior military/LEO in one form or another and would like to maintain some of the skills we learned while serving.  While I don’t see a need for troop leading procedures in my future, there are a lot of other skills I learned in the military that are very useful.  Although I’ve spend many hours doing land nav and map reading, it is a perishable skill and one that can serve you your entire life if you practice it.  Having the opportunity to teach, and relearn, this was of great benefit to myself and hopefully to those I taught.  Communication is another area that is of great benefit both in and out of the military environment.  I’ve recently obtained my HAM radio license and have been learning more about that craft.  There are other areas that can be taught in the militia that will help us maintain and learn skills that we might not have otherwise.

Networking:  Getting to know other people of a similar mindset is always beneficial and usually enjoyable.  These groups can serve as a way of getting to know people who think similarly and have common goals.  This networking also allows you to meet people with different skills sets as discussed above and to learn from those people and share the skill sets you have with them.  In some ways, it’s like Facebook, except you actually have a real relationship with these people.  I think a key part of this area is involvement with other groups.  There are dozens of groups out there that share common goals with the militias, and they, unlike the militia, will actually be called on in an emergency.  Some to look into are ARES (HAM radio), CERT, and Sheriff’s Search and Rescue.  Having members in all of these different areas is a great way to cross train and will also improve communication between these groups in an emergency.  If done properly, the militia could serve as an informal way to tie together a lot of these groups together in a way that will help them be more effective.  The more people who know one another, the better they tend to work together.

The interesting thing about the good things that a militia, or similar group, can do is that none of them necessitate uniforms, patches, websites or playing in the woods with guns.  Although not as glamorous as some of the other depictions of the modern militia, I think it’s a far more practical one.  Getting together with friends (and I would suggest family) and sharing experiences, knowledge, goals, and ideas is a great way to be better prepared for whatever might happen.  And if nothing at all happens, I think you’ll still be better off.

~John

Accountabilibuddable – David Bisard

Via Tam I saw this and it made me feel a little bit better.

Suspended (and now soon-to-be Former) IMPD officer David “Bottles” Bisard has just been found guilty on all charges by a jury of his peers.

Now I’m not happy still for a couple of reasons.

  1. Took way too long.
  2. Still kept his job until the verdict was found.

Seriously, WTFO!?  Name me one other job in the world where they wouldn’t have canned your ass for doing something like that?  Heck, many employers will fire you if you’re charged with a felony.  “Come back after the not guilty verdict.”  They don’t want the publicity black eye, yet in law enforcement land they get a free pass because “COP”.

Not to mention the many other issues, honestly I don’t trust law enforcement anymore.  They have too many laws protecting them so they can get away with murder.  Seriously, they can kill you and as long as they’re in uniform most likely they will get away with it as long as it wasn’t “premeditated”.

If you still don’t understand, let me just quote Tam herself yet again on the subject:

… but I can’t think of any job I ever held where my employer would wait on the jury verdict to fire me if I’d killed somebody with a company car while three sheets to the wind.

Snuggly The Security Bear

This reminds me of Petey, the Sexual Harassment Panda.

Quote of the Day–Brian Hauss(6/6/2013)

To be sure, rummaging around through people’s personal papers may well turn up the occasional bad guy, but that is not the only consideration. No doubt law enforcement agents would also find it useful to walk into people’s homes at will, but we don’t allow them to do so because that would intrude on our reasonable expectation of privacy in our homes. And just as we reasonably expect privacy in our homes, so, too, do we expect that border agents will not base their decisions to search through our electronic information on a whim or a hunch. Put another way, requiring law enforcement agents to possess objective reasons for a search is a feature of our constitutional framework, not a bug.

(Emphasis mine.)

Brian HaussDHS Releases Disappointing Civil Liberties Report on Border Searches of Laptops and Other Electronics

June 5th, 2013


[For those who haven’t heard yet.  The DHS is claiming the following line of BS regarding searches at the border.

[A]dding a heightened [suspicion-based] threshold requirement could be operationally harmful without concomitant civil rights/civil liberties benefit. First, commonplace decisions to search electronic devices might be opened to litigation challenging the reasons for the search. In addition to interfering with a carefully constructed border security system, the litigation could directly undermine national security by requiring the government to produce sensitive investigative and national security information to justify some of the most critical searches. Even a policy change entirely unenforceable by courts might be problematic; we have been presented with some noteworthy CBP and ICE success stories based on hard-to-articulate intuitions or hunches based on officer experience and judgment. Under a reasonable suspicion requirement, officers might hesitate to search an individual’s device without the presence of articulable factors capable of being formally defended, despite having an intuition or hunch based on experience that justified a search.

Translation:  “We don’t need to specify a reason why we are seizing and searching your property.”

Now many may have forgotten so I will provide you an extra reminder of the area the DHS would like to claim as free from that pesky 4th Amendment.

For more on that go back and read my article on it (dated 2008).  So think about what the department of homeland security is claiming as within their legal abilities, and then think long and hard about that map where they can put up “border inspection points” at will.  Think your safe just because you don’t regularly travel out of the country?  Get real.

Listen folks, you either have these rights or you don’t.  They’re not predicated on some theory that you surrender them because you want to do X.  NO!  If the government wants to search my personal effects, they must present a case including evidence that I have committed a crime, or that I intend to harm another.  *Note I said harm, the war on drugs needs to go to!*  The only way you end up with this current view of the law is through twisted perversion and a lackadaisical attitude that say “I don’t care, what’s it matter?”

Just because I want to fly to visit my friends in Nashville, doesn’t mean I surrender my 4th amendment rights and agree to have someone fondle me and my wife.  It’s horse crap and frankly if we don’t stop it, it will just get worse.  There’s two options for stopping it, we get the courts to do their damn job, or well, use your imagination for the second option.

News flash folks, in a free land bad people some times end up doing bad things.  Its comes with territory.  Honestly though even in your perfect police state, the crazy guy can still do damage, even more so due to the delayed response.  Grow a pair, embrace the responsibility and with it experience freedom.  It’s freaking AWESOME. –B]

I Don’t Think They Thought This Through…

So Mom’s Demand Action, a wholly owned subsidiary of Michael Bloomberg, Inc. issued the following statement.  Most of note was this line:

The right of mothers to protect our children SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Evidently in their twisted view of the world there are only a few acceptable means of defending your children.  One small problem with that, their statement in and of itself is full of hypocrisy.  Why?  Let me illustrate with 1000 words with help from A Girl.

DefensiveMom_2

A Girl and her daughter E.

You see, my immediate thought when I read that line of garbage, and it is garbage, was of her and E.  Immediately followed by my friend Laurel:

Image via Oleg Volk.

I could continue down the list of mothers I thought of who would stand opposed to what “Moms Demand Action” is claiming to be right.  Not only do they stand opposed, but the desires of Moms Demand Action stands as a direct infringement to prevent them from doing what they claim to be protecting.

No one is forcing you to pick up a rifle to defend your family.  If you don’t want to, fine, that’s your choice and your business.  If however someone does want to pick up a rifle to defend their family, no one has any right whatsoever to tell them they cannot.   Any attempt to tell a woman she cannot pick up a rifle to defend her children is an infringement on the right to protect their children.  As such, any attempt at gun control whereby arms are removed from the hands of law-abiding citizens is just such an infringement.

So I went through and fixed up their document while adding commentary:

A Mother’s Bill of Rights

We, as mothers, have the absolute right to protect our children families from harm. We have the right to know our children are safe from gun violence, from the moment they leave our arms in the morning until they return home later in the day.  (That sentence is false, see Warren v. District of Columbia.)  We have a right and responsibility to defend our families from those who might do them violence.  But the rights of Americans mothers are under attack by criminals, the gun lobby, and legislators and puritans  who wish to trample those rights while still sticking them with the responsibility are unable to stand up for common-sense gun reforms. The right of mothers people to protect their families our children SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

As mothers people, we have the right to…

 

  • Expect that assault weapons will remain in the hands of our military, not civilians that our right to keep and bear arms in defense of our families and children shall not be infringed.
  • Preserve our children’s innocence and shield them from gun any violence by taking any means necessary to stop it abruptly and swiftly without prejudice. in America, real and scripted(Really, scripted, why don’t you just turn off the TV instead of attacking Free Speech).
  • Demand that all public places remain gun-free zones;’ except private homes and shooting ranges allow the carry of defensive arms by those legally entitled to do so.
  • Know our children are safe in their schools: any school, anywhere, by allowing those who wish to defend our children the tools to do so.
  • Expect our teachers to be focused on teaching our children, not training to become armed guards.  (Because what a teacher does in their own time to defend themselves and your children is a bad horrible thing?)
  •  Demand that our government create the same strong regulations for guns as they have for toys, cars and food.  (Umm, did you miss the fact that firearms are more heavily regulated than all those things combined?)
  • Expect our leaders to put our children’s safety above the profit desire for power and influence of the gun industry those who hate and wish to deny us our rights and personal liberties.
  • Have access to complete, accurate information about the impact of gun violence on our families and communities personal responsibilities we have in ensuring our own family’s safety and wellbeing.
  • Hold our elected officials accountable for keeping our children safe from gun violence breaking their oath to support and defend the constitution.

Seriously, in what world does anything they wrote count as not an infringement.  You all keep using these words rights and infringements and I don’t think any of you on the other side really understand what a right is and what it means to infringe on one.

Not to mention it seems that they think some how their opinion is worth more merely because they are mothers.  Tell me, does the father’s opinion not matter?  Does the opinion of the desire of the husband to defend his wife count for nothing?  Just the same, does the opinion of the wife and mother to carry for the defense of her own family not matter?  No they would rather tell you, me, and everyone else how to live our lives.  Our opinion to them counts for jack.

It doesn’t matter we respect them and their decision not to carry firearms, but they want to force their decisions on the rest of us.  To them I say, “NO!”  I’ve had enough of you taking my cake and you will not get a single solitary inch until you give something back.  I am sick of “compromising” where I give up everything and you give up nothing.  GO TO HELL!  There’s a reason I get angry.

I think this version of the picture of A Girl with some additional text says it best:

Everyone has a right to choose their own tools.

Everyone has a right to choose their own tools.

h/t to Sean.

*If you’d like to use the spoof logo I created:

Moms Demand Action

Feel free to use this, just give me credit if anyone asks. 🙂

SSCC #561 – #563: Murray County

Former Murray County Sheriff’s Office Capt. Michael Henderson pleaded guilty in federal court today for his role in setting up for arrest a woman who had complained about sexual advances by a local judge, authorities said.

Let me make sure I understand this correctly.  A cop stuck his neck out to protect the behavior of a judge.  Either that judge had covered for the cop before or the cop was known to the judge to be of questionable character.  Except the inquiry answered this question too.

Her complaint sparked a state Judicial Qualification Commission investigation and led to Cochran’s resignation. The investigation also revealed that Cochran was illegally presigning warrants for officers to use.

This is yet another example of how the War on Nouns is used to further abuse and mistreat the law-abiding so they live in fear of those in government.  Next time maybe the woman should just sleep with the judge, then she wont be facing prison right?

State Sponsored Criminal #561: Michael Henderson

#562: Josh Greeson

#563: Bryant Cochran

Because when a judge does something wrong and stupid, the right thing to do is to help him cover it up by framing someone for a crime they didn’t commit.  That’s the law of professional courtesy don’t ya know?