Be careful what you want from law enforcement

Posted on by

I’ve said for years, “people get the kind of law enforcement they deserve.” In a way, that distills down to the Talking Heads lyrics: “watch out, you might get what you’re after.”

I make this notation in reference to the NYPD’s firing of Officer Daniel Pantaleo on Monday, August 19th, resulting from the July 17th, 2014 death of Eric Garner on Staten Island.

NYPD fires Officer Daniel Pantaleo for chokehold in Eric Garner’s death

by David K. Li

An administrative judge had earlier recommended that Pantaleo be terminated. Garner’s death, which sparked national protests, occurred on July 17, 2014.

Daniel Pantaleo, the New York City police officer seen on video using a chokehold during Eric Garner’s deadly arrest five years ago ⁠— sparking mass protests ⁠and becoming a rallying cry for the Black Lives Matter movement — was fired by the department on Monday.

NYPD Commissioner James O’Neill announced he’ll enforce an administrative judge’s recommendation, made this month, that Pantaleo be terminated over the July 17, 2014, confrontation as Garner was being arrested on Staten Island for selling loose, untaxed cigarettes.

Pantaleo, who has been with the NYPD since 2006, was suspended as soon as that departmental verdict was reached, in keeping with long-standing practice when there is a recommendation for firing. The 13-year veteran had been on desk duty as his case made its way through legal and administrative circles.

“It is clear that Daniel Pantaleo can no longer effectively serve as a New York City police officer,” O’Neill announced.

It would seem to me that this is yet another police officer kicked to the curb due to politics. Please allow me to elaborate and elucidate. Because the implications then and now are rather massive. Here is the caveat:

Minutes after the police commissioner announced his ruling on Monday, Lynch said O’Neill had permanently lost the confidence of officers on the beat.

“The NYPD will remain rudderless and frozen, and Commissioner O’Neill will never be able to bring it back,” Lynch said in a statement.

“Now it is time for every police officer in this city to make their own choice. We are urging all New York City police officers to proceed with the utmost caution in this new reality, in which they may be deemed ‘reckless’ just for doing their job. We will uphold our oath, but we cannot and will not do so by needlessly jeopardizing our careers or personal safety.”

NYPD Officer Daniel Pantaleo has been through every horror-show ride imaginable. His actions have been examined by every city, county, state and federal microscope extant. Despite that, not one prosecution was recommended.

A Staten Island grand jury declined to indict Pantaleo and, this summer, the Justice Department said it would not bring federal civil rights or criminal charges against him.

Why not? Because, after all, let’s admit that it would certainly have been convenient and politically expedient to recommend Pantaleo for every possible prosecutory venue imaginable. It would have satisfied any number of “communities” involved both local and national.

Let’s not forget that cops don’t just find themselves exposed to “double jeopardy.” Oh no. (this is absolute nirvana for Leftists) They can be tried criminally. They can be tried civilly. They can be prosecuted by the federal government — which pays attorneys to do so under 42 USC 1983. And they can be face entirely separate administrative repercussions. Like Pantaleo. Sounds like quadruple jeopardy to me.

For doing their job. For responding to calls for service.

Why didn’t all of these various potential prosecutions come to fruition? Could it be that the fact patterns extant have had something to do with that?

You see, the laws of physics still remain. Those laws exist on a physical plane and on a human plane. I would remind you of them.

  • “A body at rest will remain at rest, and a body in motion will remain in motion unless it is acted upon by an external force.”
  • “The force acting on an object is equal to the mass of that object times its acceleration.”
  • “For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.”

So true, we are now discovering. In a societal fashion, you see.

You cannot denigrate the importance of a civilized, organized, policed society advancing the rule of law and then complain when it becomes none of that. Nor would you ever want the proverbial “cop on every corner” because that becomes, naturally, Big Brother and “1984.”

There has to be — and there is — some sort of happy medium which now, unfortunately, is far from sight. We talk of pendulums and cycles in law enforcement. Because in my almost 70 years on the planet and 45 years as a Sheepdog in law enforcement, I have seen it all, done it all, watched it all, heard it all, experienced it all, paid for it in a marriage, blood, injuries, psychologically and with alcohol — yet I find myself actually a bit surprised and massively disappointed by today’s state of law enforcement.

I have to admit: I truly didn’t see law enforcement caving to Leftist politics though, of course, I truly shouldn’t be surprised. The gene pool for law enforcement and law enforcement administrators is no different from the one that surrounds every locale. If it is weak, you get weak cops. If it is Leftist, you get Leftist cops. Gene pool, baby.

Read my post about the limp-wristed and Leftist Berkeley Police Department here, the likes of which stood down in the face of Leftist Antifa rioting directly in front of their faces. Their chief told them to stand down, directed by the Berkeley mayor. No more, no less. And the abysmal Berkeley PD officers did just that. They disgust me.

For perspective, all we have to do is go back to LAPD and Rampart in the 1990s. That lovely time was acquired when hiring standards plummeted due to the dearth of appropriate candidates, and LAPD — like most every other California LE agency — lowered its hiring standards. There was a delay in corruption because, as indicated by the IACP — it took a few years for those persons to become sufficiently familiar with the system and feel comfortable with gaming it. Gang members. Minorities. Ties to Death Row Records. The Kingpin of Rampart wasn’t some Caucasoid. It was a guy named Rafael Perez.

Whoa. Hold up on that car wash. I guess that means — as I said — you truly do get the kind of law enforcement you deserve. Or accept.

Stop. Law enforcement agencies get sued due to three primary failures or exposures:

  • Negligence in hiring
  • Negligence in training
  • Negligence in retention.

Are we starting to see that now? I respond: everything is cyclical. Everything.

The New York Times says:

Daniel Pantaleo Was Fired. We’re Still Afraid for Our Lives.

by Steven W. Thrasher

Five years after Eric Garner’s death, it’s painfully obvious that the daily anxiety black and brown people experience is justified.

Last week, while the officer who had held Eric Garner in a banned chokehold as he said “I can’t breathe” about a dozen times was still employed by the New York Police Department, I was thousands of miles away, in Arizona, where I found myself terrified by a different set of law enforcement officials.

Returning from visiting a friend near the Mexico border, I was driving up State Route 90 when all northbound traffic was diverted into a giant tent, where officers from Customs and Border Protection were performing cursory inspections of all vehicles. A menacing German shepherd was being led around each and every car, presumably sniffing for narcotics.

I was experiencing one of the legal checkpoints that the agency uses to search and potentially seize any vehicle within 100 miles of a border, without what would normally be called probable cause. And while I didn’t have any contraband, I felt a rising sense of panic as the officers and dog got closer to my car.

Stop. I vehemently disagree with checkpoints away from a border. But that’s a discussion for another time.

But as a black journalist who has reported as police officers lobbed tear gas and used sound cannons in Baltimore, Ferguson and New York, and simply as a black person living in America, my experience in Arizona reminded me of how very real the stress of living under occupation is for black and brown people. Such stress, of course, takes a mental health toll and likely contributes to rates of hypertension and heart disease that create “John Henryism,” a term Dr. Sherman James, an epidemiologist, coined while trying to understand why black men die younger than white men.

So blacks live “under occupation” in the United States of America?

Take a breath BZ. Then state: what a load of unmitigated bull.

I’ve been stopped by CHP a number of times, some for bogus reasons. I was an EVOC instructor, after all. I was stopped by SPD for no reason. I was stopped by a drunk CHP officer on I-5 in 1986 for going over the limit by two miles per hour. He reeked of alcohol, his hair was askew. He was a mess. I swear, the only reason I was let go was because my then-girlfriend had G-cup breasts in a low-cut blouse. Which he ogled. I’ve been stopped numerous times by law enforcement. And I’m as Caucasoid as the driven snow. So “I’ve been stopped”? Boo-damned-hoo. Get in line.

Do you know what I do that is different from most everyone else when stopped? I pull to the right cautiously and in an area that is safe for the officer. I don’t stop on the left. I don’t stop on freeway ramps. I roll down every window. I keep my hands on the steering wheel. I don’t make any movements. I let the officer set the contact. At night I turn on the overhead cabin light. I say “yes sir” and “no sir.” Lots of that. When I am armed (I am always armed) that is the first thing I say, with both my hands out on the driver’s side door sill. I stay in the car unless directed otherwise.

Today, could I get smoked? Of course I could. If I did something stupid. No one knows me any more. Melanin count means nothing. You act. Cops only get to react.

Chris Rock is correct.

It would seem that most deaths from law enforcement come down to a rather simple equation, much simpler than even Newton’s Laws. Compliance vs resistance.

And when a multitude of brackets, organizations, movements, political groups, communities, media, social mores and even the administrations of various law enforcement agencies insist upon resistance or tacitly condone it, we are discovering that this makes for a brew of terrible consequences, not unlike The Ferguson Effect.

Well, not unlike. Precisely like The Ferguson Effect.

And back we go to the NYPD. Let’s examine the Eric Garner case and why it’s critical not only to the NYPD, but to law enforcement in general. Because some decisions have to be made — not only in terms of law enforcement, but in terms of the overall thinking regarding the crafting of laws.

The background of the Eric Garner case is this.

You have a large, obese black man, Eric Garner, 6’3″ and 370 pounds, who is selling what the City of New York calls “onesies” (cigarettes sold singly, out of a pack, without tax stamps) outside of a store (known as a bodega) on July 17th of 2014.

When it’s written “without tax stamps” that means the City of New York is removed from the tax revenue stream it demands on cigarettes.

So here is a man selling individual cigarettes that folks can purchase tax free, specifically so that people avoid paying taxes. He is doing this directly in front of a store where the owner has to pay tax on every cigarette pack he sells. And the owner doesn’t get the luxury of selling them individually. That is clearly undermining the store owner who is abiding by the law. Paying taxes.

The City of New York not only declares that unfair, but illegal as well.

Here’s where I make one very critical distinction that will come into play in a moment. The cops didn’t create the law. The City of New York did.

At issue is the use of force by the NYPD in terms of an individual who was breaking the law, albeit not regarding a felony, but a crime nevertheless.

And let us not deal in generalities or phrases or SJW chants as Leftists and Demorats are wont to do, but actual issues at hand — real time and immediate solutions to problems cops find themselves facing on the street every day. Decisions that must be made in seconds. They don’t have the luxury of months of deliberation.

What Leftist organizations fail to disclose was that this was a common grievance for that area. NYPD just didn’t “happen” to be there. Citizens had complained about persons circumventing the law and, specifically, in front of their stores. The City of New York had decreed that it must have its own Tybalt-like “pound of flesh.”

Meanwhile, Eric Garner’s arrest record with the NYPD indicated a frequency of more than thirty times since 1980 for assault, resisting arrest and grand theft. Even The New York Times wrote that many of these arrests had been for selling untaxed cigarettes. What a shock to find that behavior continuing.

Here is CBS coverage.

But let’s examine things further. Much further than Leftists would care. Let’s look at the size of Garner as compared to the officers around him. They had options. Many options when people fail to comply. Chemicals. Batons. Striking moves. Even deadly force if he attempted to disarm the officers or acquire their weapons which, luckily, he did not do.

Unlike Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, upon which an entire lie was built — “hands up don’t shoot” — and “Black Lives Matter” was created. Yes. On a lie.

What they decided to do, instead, is utilize numbers. An attempt to overpower an individual who clearly was much larger than every other officer present. Further, positional asphyxia comes into play. This is something the suspect brought to the table. Not the officers. The suspect acted. The officers can only react.

But even before we get into those details, which are important, let’s examine the overall situation in the first place.

NYPD either made an on-view notice of a crime, the selling of illegal cigarettes, or they were sent there by dispatch. It really doesn’t matter which one.

They confront the person involved. He either complies or he doesn’t. The initial action is his to make. The officers gauge their reactions to his action. They only know that he’s big. Really big. And he isn’t complying.

Let’s say this is a misdemeanor. And let’s say Eric Garner resists.

If you’re in charge of NYPD, what do your officers do now in the face of resistance?

Do they — as many citizens seem to demand — simply evaluate his quotient of resistance and then determine not to engage? And walk away?

What if the officers write a citation and tell Eric Garner to sign? What if he refuses to sign a summons? Do they walk away in the face of refusal?

I mean, come on, these were cigarettes. It’s not like he murdered someone. They should have simply walked away, right?

“Stop selling cigarettes.” No compliance.

“Sign the citation.” No compliance.

“You’re now under arrest for NYC Code ___.” No compliance.

This would be the perfect time for the officers to turn around and walk away, wouldn’t it? Maybe take his name and submit for a later arrest warrant? Wouldn’t that be logical?

“Give me your name.” No compliance.

“What’s your date of birth?” No compliance.

“What’s your address?” No compliance.

“Give me some ID.” No compliance.

There. The NYPD officers should simply have walked away because, of course, everyone could see the potential escalation at that point.

By this time, everyone on the street is watching you. Do you back up your lawful demands? Do you engage? Or do you simply walk away?

Here are some examples of walking away.

And this.

Look. Let’s be real. Making the dousing of officers a felony may be impractical. Logic tells us, if enacted, the crime may be dropped to a misdemeanor.

So make it a misdemeanor that mandates an immediate arrest, no citation and, if they physically resist, depending upon the violence of resistance and substance, you could easily bump it up to a felony.

We know that, likely, at some time in the future some individual will get the bright idea of substituting, say, vinegar or gasoline or rubbing alcohol or bleach or some clear caustic chemical for water. It’s the nature of crime and criminals. Luckily, to this point, that has not occurred.

But the most important aspect of the situation is to react now. Not an hour from now. Not tomorrow or next week. Immediately at the time of the crime.

Governor Cuomo is correct. With a massive caveat.

Had the officers reacted immediately to their incidents and a “community outrage” ensued, you and I both know that Governor Andrew Cuomo would have been one of the first — after determining which way the prevailing political prairie winds were blowing, sticking his finger up in the air — to condemn the NYPD and those officers, kicking them to the curb. Guaranteed. Easy for him to say in retrospect. Isn’t it?

The streets of what I quaintly term “Urban Rate Cages” are not always filled with warm and fuzzy individuals. Sometimes they aim to punch, kick, rob, steal and murder.

Because in the lawless community — and oh yes, those communities do exist — to do nothing when law enforcement is faced with lawbreakers, simply engenders more lawbreaking and disrespect to not only authority but the entire concept of civility in general.

To do nothing — and watching various NYPD officers walking away from being assaulted — tells those persons in the affected neighborhoods that the cops do nothing and hence mean nothing.

Acting this way — acquiescing in the face of crime — tells criminals that they can do whatever they wish and emboldens them. It also makes the job of law enforcement infinitely tougher for cops who decide to actually enforce laws. They will now be the “bad guys” because “the other officers didn’t do anything.”

So, Leftists, Demorats and American Media Maggots: what are your answers?

Because essentially what you’re saying is that, in the face of resistance, just about any amount, law enforcement should step back.

One pause for a brief waft of sanity.

Had someone done that to me or any other of my fellow officers in the 70s, 80s or 90s, no matter their ethnicity, they would have found themselves handcuffed and under arrest. No one did that to me or fellow officers where an arrest failed to occur. Just as Governor Cuomo indicated. We knew where the line existed and we held that line.

The laws of certain jungles applied then as now. Either you rule the jungle or the jungle rules you. Lawlessness is either accepted or it is overcome.

Why officers don’t react that way now? Because they realize their very own departments won’t have their backs due to political pressure. And political correctness. The Ferguson Effect.

On August 1st of 2014 the Medical Examiner ruled Garner’s death a homicide. According to the medical examiner’s definition, a homicide is a death caused by the intentional actions of another person or persons, which is not necessarily an intentional death or a criminal death. The five medico-legal rulings in every death are natural, accident, suicide, homicide, and undetermined.

The grand jury decided not to indict. DOJ? Nothing. FBI? Nothing. Attorney General? Nothing.

And earlier this summer, federal prosecutors ended their five-year-long probe of the matter and elected not to pursue any civil rights charges against Pantaleo.

That means: no 42 USC 1983 actions.

Officer Pantaleo was fired after Police Commissioner James O’Neill took a phone call from Mayor Bill de Blasio over that weekend. Politics, baby.

Did we ever see this?

At a May 2019 disciplinary hearing for Pantaleo, Dr. Floriana Persechino, who performed Garner’s autopsy, testified that Pantaleo’s use of a chokehold on Garner “set into motion a lethal sequence” that led to a fatal asthma attack.[167][168] However, the examiner conceded that even “a bear hug” could have had the same effect as the chokehold, given that Garner weighed 395 pounds, suffered from asthma and diabetes, and had a heart twice the size of a healthy person’s heart.[166] Moreover, during the trial at a hearing in June 2019, a defense witness, Dr. Michael Graham, St. Louis, Missouri’s chief medical examiner, testified Garner’s death couldn’t have been caused by a chokehold because, Graham said, Garner was never actually choked or unable to breathe during the arrest.[169][170]Graham attributed Garner’s death to heart disease exacerbated by the stress of the arrest.[169][170]

Imagine that. An excerpt from an article by Dr G Wesley Clark:

Having reviewed the video several times now, and being a physician who specialized in the surgery of the very obese, I believe that the cause of Mr. Garner’s death was not
“police brutality” or negligence, but rather the unfortunate synergy between his disease of morbid obesity and actions most police perform countless times with only transient
discomfort to the arrestee. The decision of the Grand Jury was reasonable.
Mr. Garner’s demise was the consequence of a confluence of many factors, most of which were beyond the ken of a policeman, and which occurred in devastatingly rapid
sequence.
Eric Garner was very obese, said to weigh at least 350 pounds. In fact, based upon his height and appearance, he very likely weighed more than that, but very few bathroom
scales read high enough to accurately measure weight of that magnitude. By simple observation, one could see that his abdomen was very large and protuberant. His chest
was similarly blanketed with a heavy layer of fat, and he had no visible neck – no indentation under his jaw, typically present in non-obese persons, which permits
application of a “chokehold,” to briefly arrest the carotid circulation to render him unconscious and manageable. The chokehold was ineffective as a control, but it served
to take him to the ground by leverage.

Guaranteed you didn’t read of this in any American Media Maggot venue. Then there is this:

The subsequent post-mortem examination is said to have shown no evidence of injury to either the larynx or the hyoid bone, which is almost always fractured in cases of
strangulation. Mr. Garner is said to have died from “chest compression” and associated heart disease.

Few persons, undoubtedly including most police officers and even Mr. Garner, would understand the gravity and complex pathophysiology of this condition, and the rapidity
with which it can become irreversible, unless an airway and mechanical ventilation can be quickly administered – and establishing an airway in a very obese person is itself
extremely challenging even under ideal conditions, such as in an operating room, let alone on the sidewalk.

Eric Garner’s death had essentially nothing to do with racism or racial animosity, particularly when one can see an African-American female sergeant, in charge at the
scene, standing and observing the arrest in the background. Ultimately, as the senior officer on the scene, she was responsible for Mr. Garner’s safety, although it would be
unreasonable to incriminate her, either, given the obscure physiology of the chain of events that led to his unfortunate demise.

But you didn’t hear that either, did you?

This is an interesting opinion piece from the WashingtonExaminer.com:

Despite Eric Garner, Daniel Pantaleo doesn’t deserve to be fired

by James Gagliano

Pantaleo, now 34, inadvertently became part of ground zero for the populist uprising of social justice activists during the summer of 2014. It was then that he was dispatched to a Staten Island street corner, directed to take a 43-year-old father of six, Eric Garner, into custody for selling single cigarettes from packs without a tax stamp, or “loosies,” outside a bodega.

Garner’s death is a vicissitude that should sadden us all. But only one person is accountable here. It is the man who broke the law, obstinately advised police he wouldn’t be held to account for same, and then placed everyone involved in a dangerous intersection of sworn duties and no-way-out choices. Garner caused this horrible incident to occur. Pantaleo will presumably pay the price for that poor decision-making, as well.

Oddly enough, precisely what I’ve been saying.

The tragic incident has undergone scrutinization from outside investigators. First, a Staten Island grand jury failed to indict the officer. Then followed a Department of Justice investigation into Pantaleo’s actions to determine if Garner’s civil rights had been abridged. This investigation spanned both the Obama and Trump presidential administrations and was overseen by four separate attorneys general.

And two excellent points by author James Gagliano, a former FBI agent of 25 years.

Broken Windows has been under fire in the woke days of 2019. But let’s not pretend that its employment has not saved countless black and brown lives when perpetrators and victims of homicides in New York City are overwhelmingly black and brown.

We may debate whether or not the sale of untaxed cigarettes should be considered an arrest-worthy transgression. But cops don’t make laws. When we have laws on the books, law enforcement professionals swear an oath to uphold them. Do we want to confront exactly what “selective enforcement” would look like in a country that already suffers from the belief that certain communities are treated differently with respect to the law?

After a while, having been told by various communities that law enforcement “over polices,” by their administrations that they “over police,” by the news media that they “over police,” by their local politicians that they “over police” and certainly Leftists, Demorats and the American Media Maggots that they “over police,” sooner or later law enforcement officers are going to take this clarion cry to heart.

They’re going to reduce their self-initiated activity or proactive responses. Simultaneously, this is occurring as well:

NYPD officer injuries spike as union blames anti-police lawmakers

by Sara Dorn

NYPD cops have a new reason to walk their beat on eggshells: Officer injuries are spiking.

Amid a spate of assaults on police, including a melee at Brooklyn’s Marcy Projects that left three cops hurt as well as a rash of water-dousing attacks, injuries rose 12.5 percent in the second quarter over the first three months of the year, NYPD data show.

That’s up 2.5 percent over the same time period in 2018 and up 3.5 percent through June over the first half of 2018.

With 1,120 total injuries, April to June this year was the bloodiest quarter for cops since the final three months of 2016, the earliest time period of publicly available data.

Injuries aren’t just knee scrapes; 35 officers were “seriously” hurt and 47 suffered “substantial” injuries, the NYPD says.

Police-union president Patrick Lynch — who’s been warring with NYPD brass and Mayor de Blasio in the wake of officer Daniel Pantaleo’s firing — blamed the uptick on “anti-police lawmakers and failed NYPD leaders” who have “emboldened criminals to assault cops and resist arrest.”

Absolutely correct. That is America’s current narrative with regard to law enforcement.

Cops are human. Their job is to do the job. Their job is also to go home in one piece at the end of their shifts. And like all others, they have to look out for themselves and their families. So they’re going to have to make some considered decisions.

NYPD Union Tells Cops To Ask Supervisor Permission Before Arresting Anybody

by Sandy Malone

New York, NY – The police union put out a list of guidelines for officers to follow on Monday after New York Police Department (NYPD) Commissioner James O’Neill fired Officer Daniel Pantaleo in connection with the death of Eric Garner despite the fact a grand jury and a federal investigation had exonerated him.

“Be advised that neither your Police Academy training nor the current Patrol Guide procedures reflect the precedent established by this decision,” Police Benevolent Association President Patrick Lynch wrote in the memo, a copy of which has been obtained by Blue Lives Matter.

Lynch warned that Commissioner O’Neill’s termination of Officer Pantaleo set a dangerous precedent and “fundamentally changed the nature of our job” when he allowed politics to determine Officer Pantaleo’s fate without regard for the fact.

The memo encouraged officers to “uphold our oath” and continue doing their jobs but reminded them “we must remain united to protect each other from the toxic political environment in which we are forced to work.”

On Monday, the PBA accused Commissioner O’Neill of rolling over for City Hall and doing Mayor Bill de Blasio’s bidding.

In order to be in exact compliance with the patrol guide, officers will have to do a lot of things in a specified way that, in the past, was unofficially left to officers’ discretion.

The reasoning is, of course, to ensure they have authority to conduct business. They’re also saying that if they’re to be held perfectly accountable, they must act or react as the guidelines are specifically written.

“For every job involving a possible arrest situation, immediately request response by patrol supervisor and additional members to help control situation, pursuant to P.G. 221-02, ‘Use of Force,’” the PBA memo instructed officers in accordance with NYPD policy. “Await the patrol supervisor’s arrival before attempting to effect an arrest, except when immediate action is necessary to protect life and personal safety of all persons present (see P.G. 221-02).”

“Prior to effecting an arrest, confer with the patrol supervisor,” the memo said, and reminded officers to use their bodycams and “document in your memo book all instructions received from the patrol supervisor or other supervisors at the scene.”

Translated: CYA. Cover Your Ass.

The memo also reminded officers that anytime a suspect doesn’t voluntarily submit to being handcuffed, they need to request an Emergency Service Unit (ESU) before they can take that suspect into custody.

Officers should “attempt to isolate and contain the suspect” while they wait for ESU to arrives, as per NYPD official policy.

If those are the standards then they must be met, the PBA is saying.

“It’s very well known that for a majority of circumstances, the patrol guide is not followed to a T because you’d never get anything done,” the official told Blue Lives Matter. “It’s just too inefficient to do everything that way.”

The PBA memo to its members also reminded officers that they must call for an ambulance every single time there is a use-of-force, regardless of whether anyone has claimed to be injured.

“Do not transport the prisoner until he or she has been evaluated by EMS personnel,” the PBA wrote.

The memo also told officers to be sure and do their paperwork completely and as soon as possible for every incident.

When you’re under the gun as is law enforcement today, what other choices remain?

The NYPD official told Blue Lives Matter that most officers save paperwork to complete at the end of their shift so they can get back out on the street faster when they complete a call, but that the policy says they have to do all paperwork immediately after a call is completed.

I imagine you see the issues here. It’s called “back and forth.” No more. It’s now “one way.”

In Kalifornia, things got worse for law enforcement officers. From CalMatters.org:

Newsom signs landmark police use-of-force bill

California will soon have a tougher new legal standard for the use of deadly force by police, under legislation Gov. Gavin Newsom signed today that was inspired by last year’s fatal shooting of a young, unarmed man in Sacramento.

The governor contends that with Assembly Bill 392 in place, police will turn increasingly to de-escalation techniques including verbal persuasion, weapons other than guns and other crisis-intervention methods.

Under the new law, which takes effect January 1, police may use deadly force only when “necessary in defense of human life.”

That’s a steeper standard than prosecutors apply now, which says officers can shoot when doing so is “reasonable.” One of the most significant changes will allow prosecutors to consider officers’ actions leading up to a shooting when deciding whether deadly force is justified. 

Some police administrators are saying “calm down, there is no difference.” Changing the word “reasonable” to “necessary.” And how will you determine “necessary”? Only at the end of the event. What is “reasonable” to the officer in terms of reaction is no longer of consideration — in other words, what would other reasonable officers have done in a similar situation?

The Ferguson Effect.

It would appear that, throughout all this, Leftists, Demorats and American Media Maggots are getting what they want. From Fox26Houston.com:

Significant drop in people wanting to become police officers

There has been a significant drop in the number of people wanting to be police officers. One officer says he knows why.

Please remember this: at the same time law enforcement is attacked and themselves handcuffed, the LDAMM are waging war against your Second Amendment rights and your ability to defend yourself. Who defends you if law enforcement is stymied and your rights are removed?

The entire point of the article is this: what do you want from your law enforcement officers? At what point do you demand they back down? Is it a sliding scale in terms of the initial crime committed? Is it a sliding scale of the resistance encountered?

Because you have to realize that in terms of any and every crime encountered by law enforcement, persons are going to resist. They are going to resist speaking to an officer, signing a citation, getting out of a car, refusing to submit to handcuffing and more.

Every law created has the potential for resistance. Including smoking in a bar. Vaping in a doorway. Onesies. Cops are called. What do you really want them to do when faced with resistance? Nothing?

Then why are you sending them to calls for service in the first place if you don’t intend them to enforce the law?

The bottom line is this: citizens, what kind of law enforcement do you really want?

After many decades in law enforcement, I do know this: people get the kind of law enforcement they deserve.

The Ferguson Effect is real.

Because cops are human just like everyone else. Unless you want RoboCop — perhaps it might not be that far off.

Good luck with that.

“Watch out, you might get what you’re after.”

BZ

 

 Share

BZ’s Berserk Bobcat Saloon Radio Show, Tuesday, 8-27-19, with special guest GEORGE ELISEO

Posted on by

Featuring Right thinking from a left brain, doing the job the American Media Maggots won’t, embracing ubiquitous, sagacious perspicacity and broadcasting behind enemy lines in Occupied Kalifornia from the veritable Belly of the Beast, the Bill Mill in Sacramento, the capitol building at 10th and L Streets, I continue to proffer my thanks to the SHR Media Network for allowing me to utilize their studio and hijack their air twice weekly, Tuesdays and Thursday nights, thanks to my shameless contract — as well as appear on the Sack Heads: Against Tyranny Show every Wednesday night.

Hour 1: BZ spoke to a brand new guest, retired San Diego Police Department Officer GEORGE ELISEO, author of the book ALTERING COURSE — now available in Kindle form for the grand rate of $2.99 here on Amazon! I’ve purchased the book myself and recommend it highly, noting that its very first page had me hooked and ready to go. We’re definitely going to be seeing more of this author and, thankfully, George has agreed to return to the Saloon!

Hour 2: BZ proffered one metric tonne of Happy Stories, the likes of which he’d been remiss for a few weeks, to include some of these Million Dollar Monster Crassics:

By the way, if you didn’t already know, BZ is in fact on iHeart radio. Click here.

If you want to listen to the show on Spreaker, audio only, click on the yellow button below.

Listen to “BZ’s Berserk Bobcat Saloon Radio Show, Tuesday, 8-27-19” on Spreaker.

If you care to watch the show on the SHR Media YouTube channel, click on the red arrow below. We kindly ask you to SUBSCRIBE to the SHR Media channel.

Please like us and follow us on Facebook! Video of the show is here on Facebook.

Join me, the Bloviating Zeppelin (on Twitter @BZep, Facebook as Biff Zeppe and the Bloviating Zeppelin, and on Gab.ai @BZep), every Tuesday and Thursday night on the SHR Media Network from 11 PM to 1 AM Eastern and 8 PM to 10 PM Pacific, at the Berserk Bobcat Saloon — where the speech is free but the booze is not.

As ever, thank you so kindly for listening, commenting, and interacting in the chat room or listening later via podcast.

Please remember we only monitor the chat room at SHRMEDIA.COM — though there is chat available on both Facebook and YouTube. Come on over to the SHR chat room where you’ll meet great friends!

  • Want to listen to all the Berserk Bobcat Saloon archives on Spreaker? Go here.
  • Want to watch past shows on Periscope? Go here.
  • Want to watch past shows on the SHR Media Facebook page? Go here.
  • Want to watch past Berserk Bobcat Saloon shows on YouTube? Go here.

Thank you one and all for listening, watching and supporting the SHR Media Network: “Conservative Media Done Right.”

BZ

 

 Share

BZ’s Berserk Bobcat Saloon Radio Show, Tuesday, 8-20-19, with an SHR Media Special Report: RED FLAG LAWS

Posted on by

Featuring Right thinking from a left brain, doing the job the American Media Maggots won’t, embracing ubiquitous, sagacious perspicacity and broadcasting behind enemy lines in Occupied Kalifornia from the veritable Belly of the Beast, the Bill Mill in Sacramento, the capitol building at 10th and L Streets, I continue to proffer my thanks to the SHR Media Network for allowing me to utilize their studio and hijack their air twice weekly, Tuesdays and Thursday nights, thanks to my shameless contract — as well as appear on the Sack Heads: Against Tyranny Show every Wednesday night.

Hour 1: Sadly, Jeff Dunetz could not make it tonight, he was not feeling well, so instead BZ talked about the new John Solomon article anticipating the upcoming IG report regarding the Russia collusion narrative that distracted the US for, literally, years. BZ also talked about the Muslim female pro-BDS supporters Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib. But wait; BZ also talked about the wondrous Uncle Joe Biden.

What are Joe Biden’s accomplishments? “Um, well.  .  .”

Let’s see. He had a job. He showed up for work. There you go.

Hour 2: BZ featured an SHR Media Network Special Report, RED FLAG LAWS. Please read the article for reference.

By the way, if you didn’t already know, BZ is in fact on iHeart radio. Click here.

If you want to listen to the show on Spreaker, audio only, click on the yellow button below.

Listen to “BZ’s Berserk Bobcat Saloon Radio Show, Tuesday, 8-20-19” on Spreaker.

If you care to watch the show on the SHR Media YouTube channel, click on the red arrow below. We kindly ask you to SUBSCRIBE to the SHR Media channel.

Please like us and follow us on Facebook! Video of the show is here on Facebook.

Join me, the Bloviating Zeppelin (on Twitter @BZep, Facebook as Biff Zeppe and the Bloviating Zeppelin, and on Gab.ai @BZep), every Tuesday and Thursday night on the SHR Media Network from 11 PM to 1 AM Eastern and 8 PM to 10 PM Pacific, at the Berserk Bobcat Saloon — where the speech is free but the booze is not.

As ever, thank you so kindly for listening, commenting, and interacting in the chat room or listening later via podcast.

Please remember we only monitor the chat room at SHRMEDIA.COM — though there is chat available on both Facebook and YouTube. Come on over to the SHR chat room where you’ll meet great friends!

  • Want to listen to all the Berserk Bobcat Saloon archives on Spreaker? Go here.
  • Want to watch past shows on Periscope? Go here.
  • Want to watch past shows on the SHR Media Facebook page? Go here.
  • Want to watch past Berserk Bobcat Saloon shows on YouTube? Go here.

Thank you one and all for listening, watching and supporting the SHR Media Network: “Conservative Media Done Right.”

BZ

 

 

 Share

Red Flag Laws

Posted on by

I won’t hold you hostage. I’ll proffer my opinion right now.

No.

Why? Because I know where Leftists are going with the matter. And because Red Flag Laws (or RFLs) can vary in so many different ways.

I write this in spite of the fact that, as a law enforcement officer I was occasionally tasked with doing something similar.under two California bodies of law when I was in Patrol:

    • §5150 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, and
    • §273.5 of the criminal Penal Code

5150 W&I states:
(a) When a person, as a result of a mental health disorder, is a danger to others, or to himself or herself, or gravely disabled, a peace officer, professional person in charge of a facility designated by the county for evaluation and treatment, member of the attending staff, as defined by regulation, of a facility designated by the county for evaluation and treatment, designated members of a mobile crisis team, or professional person designated by the county may, upon probable cause, take, or cause to be taken, the person into custody for a period of up to 72 hours for assessment, evaluation, and crisis intervention, or placement for evaluation and treatment in a facility designated by the county for evaluation and treatment and approved by the State Department of Health Care Services. At a minimum, assessment, as defined in Section 5150.4, and evaluation, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 5008, shall be conducted and provided on an ongoing basis. Crisis intervention, as defined in subdivision (e) of Section 5008, may be provided concurrently with assessment, evaluation, or any other service.

(b) When determining if a person should be taken into custody pursuant to subdivision (a), the individual making that determination shall apply the provisions of Section 5150.05, and shall not be limited to consideration of the danger of imminent harm.

And here’s the kicker in California:

Pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code 8103 individuals with mental illness are restricted from access to guns. Section 8103 reads: “No person who has been (A) taken into custody as provided in Section 5150 because that person is a danger to himself, herself, or to others, (B) assessed within the meaning of Section 5151, and (C) admitted to a designated facility within the meaning of Sections 5151 and 5152 because that person is a danger to himself, herself, or others, shall not own, possess, control, receive, or purchase, or attempt to own, possess, control, receive, or purchase any firearm for a period of five years after the person is released from the facility. Any facility that places a 5150 hold on someone is required to report them to the Department of Justice which, in turn, is required to list them on the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. Gun dealers must access the NICS prior to making a firearm sale.

On its face, this appear immediately reasonable, right? Perhaps this is the time to insert two words: due process. Hold that thought.

The other section in California involves domestic violence, 273.5 PC. California and federal law both prohibit people with domestic violence convictions from possessing guns. And courts have repeatedly ruled that such restrictions do not violate your Second Amendment right to bear arms. The applicable federal law is 18 USC 922(g).

Please note an important difference in the above sections: you must have been convicted of the crime(s) as opposed to merely having been arrested or detained. Meaning: you were afforded due process. It just didn’t go your way. Next case.

If Red Flag laws stayed right there, with a few necessary adjustments, I wouldn’t have a massive amount of heartache if there were guaranteed aspects of due process mandated. This is not necessarily the case and, of course, laws vary by state. Hold that thought as well.

I can hear a number of you now bemoaning and wailing: “BZ, you hypocrite, you applied the earliest version of what have now become known as Red Flag laws and now you’re against them. You despicable heathen!”

I suppose I could say “yes, but that was then and this is now.” Would that suffice? I don’t quite care. Because that was then and this is now. Please allow me to explain.

In the 80s and 90s when various laws were initially instituted — and I can only speak for Kalifornia (it was actually just California back then) — the politics and ramifications of every action taken by law enforcement wasn’t parsed down to every footstep, every syllable. We were actually treated, mostly, like adults by our administrations and we were allowed, mostly, to do our jobs primarily unimpeded by stupidity.

One quick example: in my sheriff’s department we did not have to ask Mom or Dad if we could make an arrest. They just trusted us to make a generally good decision — unlike the Sacramento Police Department, whose officers had to consult with a supervisor prior to taking someone to Booking. True story then, true story now. SPD didn’t trust its officers then and doesn’t trust them now. When you treat people like kids, expect them to act like kids. When you treat people like adults, expect them to act as adults. Human Behavior 101. The likes of which I still insist Leftists have no grasp. Of human behavior.

Some of us, like me, railed against the initial inequality of 13700 PC/273.5 PC. That is to say, I believed then as now that “no one is equal until everyone is equal.” 273.5 PC, by the way, is a felony in Kalifornia.

I set a precedent and it was my precedent that resulted in the Sacramento DA’s office issuing a proscription against my actions. The story is this:

I was sent to a domestic violence call at a Marconi Avenue apartment complex around 1986. A male and a female had been engaged in a heated domestic dispute. At the time the mandate was for officers to make a 273.5 PC arrest if there was an injury “no matter how slight.” The problem was, I failed to view myself solely as the Women’s Gestapo. I instead viewed myself as an equal applicator of the law as written, male or female.

Because the truth is, more than 40% of domestic violence victims are male. Women are also likelier to utilize emotional abuse which can be just as scarring psychologically. But, of course, much more difficult to document because, after all, where’s the broken bone?

At the scene,the female accused the male of hitting her. There was a faint bruise. The male accused the female of hitting him. There were scrape/scratch marks on his face. The words “no matter how slight” danced in my brain. Therefore I arrested them both. They both objected. Loudly. Somehow things didn’t go as either expected.

The female said “I didn’t mean for you to take him to jail. I just want him gone.” The male said “you shouldn’t arrest her.” I explained 273.5 and the 13700 PC mandate, “no matter how slight.” They both then recanted their stories and said they would both not testify. I properly responded with “it doesn’t matter. That is the law.” There was fresh evidence to indicate they both struck each other. Why would I arrest only one, the male, and not the other when evidence indicated both were involved in physical violence?

I arrested them both under the felony 273.5 PC.

I subsequently learned — and then a memo was issued from the DAs office — that the point of the law was to arrest males and not females. No more “double arrests” were to occur. That is when I decided that I was still not going to be a member of the Women’s Gestapo when reality indicated that, frequently, it took two to tango.

That’s a roundabout way of saying that I know how things work in law enforcement and with various laws. In Kalifornia, EPOs — Emergency Protection Orders — can also be executed in order to remove firearms. That entails an on-call judge being contacted who authorizes an emergency order that can take many forms, including confiscation of firearms.

And that was the beginning of the injection of politics into law enforcement. It is infinitely worse now. Much worse.

My guess is that so-called “Red Flag laws” mean something entirely different from their initial installation back in my time. And that would be absolutely correct.

What might be some of the triggering mechanisms desired for various RFLs?

The first would be instances of clear mental instability. That in and of itself is a massive clusterfuck. Hold onto that thought as well, we’ll return.

The second would be instances of domestic violence in which violence was utilized with, specifically, a firearm.

But you have to consider and allow for what I term the “Logical Extension.”

Would those instances of potential firearms confiscation include, these days, the following — at minimum — subject areas?

  • Social media;
  • Voting history;
  • Employment;
  • Geographic area;
  • Dialect;
  • Melanin count;
  • Sex;
  • Religion;

And many other considerations?

Because the devil is, of course, in the details. The details count most massively.

“BZ please, stop being stupid” you say. Oh really? You don’t think the possibility exists for certain personnel to rat you out on social media? Because they simply don’t like you?

What would you say if I told you social media was already a consideration? From Newsweek.com:

GUN CONTROL: NEW YORK WANTS TO MAKE YOU SUBMIT SOCIAL MEDIA HISTORY BEFORE PURCHASING GUNS

by Aristos Georgiou

proposed bill in the New York State Senate could mean that anyone wanting to buy a pistol or renew their permit will be subject to a review of their internet history and social media accounts going back up to three years.

The bill, referred to as S9191, was drafted by State Senator Kevin Parker from New York’s 21st Congressional District with the intention of keeping firearms out of the hands of potentially violent people, ABC-affiliate WHAM reports.

S9191 “requires a person applying for a license to carry or possess a pistol or revolver or a renewal of such license to consent to having his or her social media accounts and search engine history reviewed and investigated for certain posts and/or searches over a period of 1-3 years prior to the approval of such application or renewal,” the draft bill states.

If the bill passes, investigators would be able to look for posts or searches that contain threats to the health or safety of others; intentions to carry out an act of terrorism; or commonly known profane slurs or biased language describing the race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, age, disability or sexual orientation of a person.

In order for investigators to access personal accounts, applicants would have to give over their login details to social media platforms such as Facebook Snapchat, Twitter and Instagram.

And there goes your privacy. And your rights. Because, if I’m not mistaken, the Second Amendment is still active and a part of the Bill of Rights. For a time, at least. The submission of all your passwords wouldn’t be a “hint” or a “guideline” or a “request.” It would be a demand.

In order to defend yourself. Or now, even to hunt. Which, by the way, isn’t even considered under the Second Amendment. It Second exists because you have a right to protect yourself in general. And protect yourself from overbearing and tyrannical government, more specifically. If you think it can’t happen here, you clearly are failing to pay attention to what’s occurring all around you.

But let’s step back for a moment in order to consider what many are saying is one of the most mandatory inclusions in any set of RFLs: mental instability.

We should also remember that for every individual whose circle of friends and relatives said something similar to “we knew it was only a matter of time before he did ______,” there are even many more who said “we never saw this coming, not even for a second.”

After the spate of recent shootings — to include the shootings of law enforcement officers — EBPs, or Emotions-Based Policies do little to solve the problem. In fact, a very recent study came out from Johns-Hopkins which related:

California’s Background Check Law Had No Impact on Gun Deaths, Johns Hopkins Study Finds

by John Miltimore

The findings—which run counter to the conventional wisdom that gun control saves lives—have received almost no media attention.

A new academic study has found that, once again, gun laws are not having their desired effect.

A joint study conducted by researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and the University of California at Davis Violence Prevention Research Program found that California’s much-touted mandated background checks had no impact on gun deaths, and researchers are puzzled as to why.

In 1991, California simultaneously imposed comprehensive background checks for firearm sales and prohibited gun sales (and gun possession) to people convicted of misdemeanor violent crimes. The legislation mandated that all gun sales, including private transactions, would have to go through a California-licensed Federal Firearms License (FFL) dealer. Shotguns and rifles, like handguns, became subject to a 15-day waiting period to make certain all gun purchasers had undergone a thorough background check.

More than a quarter of a century later, researchers at Johns Hopkins and UC Davis dug into the results of the sweeping legislation. Researchers compared yearly gun suicide and homicide rates over the 10 years following implementation of California’s law with 32 control states that did not have such laws.

They found “no change in the rates of either cause of death from firearms through 2000.”

The findings, which run counter to experiences in Missouri and Connecticut that did show a link between background checks and gun deaths, appear to have startled the researchers.

Let me clarify: it startled Leftists. Or perhaps more appropriately, disappointed Leftists.

Alas, the experts are behaving exactly as expected.

More than a decade ago, the writer Louis Menand, in a New Yorker article, explained the rationalizations experts make when their theories fail to hold up in our real-world laboratory:

When they’re wrong, [experts are] rarely held accountable, and they rarely admit it, either. They insist that they were just off on timing, or blindsided by an improbable event, or almost right, or wrong for the right reasons. They have the same repertoire of self-justifications that everyone has, and are no more inclined than anyone else to revise their beliefs about the way the world works, or ought to work, just because they made a mistake.

California’s failed gun control law appears to be yet another example of experts, to quote the great Milton Friedman, judging “policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results.”

Despite the dismal record of gun control, expect the media and “experts” to use a repertoire of self-justifications rather than modify their beliefs—regardless of what the evidence shows.

Let’s talk about the actual impact of Red Flag Laws or RFLs. The bottom line is that RFLs allow the government to violate Fourteenth Amendment due process rights along with Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights in order to confiscate property (firearms) — and make no mistake, it is a confiscation — on some kind of an unsubstantiated report or complaint by a family member, a peer, a co-worker, a friend or potentially a completely uninvolved third party whose information may be wildly hearsay.

And again make no mistake: about something a person might do. (I have to be honest: the first mental image that came to mind? East Germany’s Stasi.)

That’s a lower standard than the “reasonable suspicion” standard I used when I was in law enforcement. And it opens up another huge venue for political and personal retribution, outright punishment and perhaps even deaths.

In Maryland, that’s already occurred.

Police serving order to remove guns shoot, kill armed man

FERNDALE, Md. (AP) — Police in Maryland say an officer shot and killed a man while serving an order to remove guns from his home.

Anne Arundel County police said in a statement that the shooting happened Monday as officers served the “red flag” protective order, which can be used to temporarily restrict firearms access. Police spokesman Marc Limansky says officers responded to a family dispute Sunday and an officer suggested a protective order.

When officer arrived to serve an order Monday, police say 60-year-old Gary Willis answered the door with a gun. He put it down, but later became irate and grabbed the gun. When an officer tried to take it, Willis fired. A second officer shot Willis, who died on the scene.

No officers were injured and police haven’t released their names.

Yes. Personal and, more specifically, political retribution? Have we even factored for that? I submit that no one has.

Because, trust me, you and I both know that Leftists will utilize every potential opportunity to make the lives of Conservatives, those with religious views (except Islam, because Islam will kill you, no questions asked), Trump supporters and Republicans as much of a living hell as possible. We know that because they’ve demonstrated their intent and told us so outright.

Sometimes you simply have to take people at their words.

Further: has anyone heard of “Swatting”? And if so, depending on the potential loose limits of who can instigate the RFL system (

You think Leftists, Demorats, Antifa, anarchists won’t do this? Think again, particularly under expanded RFLs. Think: your family, if you have oppo family members. Think: your co-workers, if you’ve let your political allegiance leak at work. Think: social media, if RFLs were to include those on social media who can complain. And also think, doing the logical extension: psychiatrists and psychologists who may be tasked with determining if you are “fit” not just to own firearms, but to meld into a life with your sons, your daughters, your ex-wives, your ex-husbands. Again, please hold that thought.

And yes, in today’s political environment, I do believe that RFLs will lead to abuse. 30 years ago? Not so much. Today? It’s all about the politics.

You have to understand your enemy, those persons who are calling for everything from RFLs to “gun bans” to outright confiscation. Listen to what they’re saying. A few years ago Leftists, Demorats and the American Media Maggots would use hedging or couched words; now, it’s outright advocation of confiscation. Know thy enemy.

But let’s be clear. Technically there is no such thing as an “assault weapon.” What the LDAMM refer to as an “assault weapon” is nothing more than a rifle. There are rifles and there are carbines. There are automatic rifles and semi-automatic rifles. There are bolt-action rifles, lever-action rifles and those with clips or detachable enclosed magazines.

Any rifle can “assault” someone. Any pistol can “assault” someone. Any revolver can “assault” someone. Persons can “assault” others. What does the word “assault” mean anyway?

Assault:
noun
-a sudden, violent attack; onslaught:
-an assault on tradition.
-Law. an unlawful physical attack upon another; an attempt or offer to do violence to another, with or without battery, as by holding a stone or club in a threatening manner.
Military. the stage of close combat in an attack.
-rape1.

Sheriff David Clarke wrote on August 12th:

The Second Amendment is personal to me. These liberty-stripping laws will not stop the next mass shooting. It’s a Trojan Horse toward gun confiscation. So are the so-called universal background checks. First of all, there is nothing universal about background checks. Ask any person prohibited from possessing a gun. If they want a gun, they will find a way to get one. I confess that I don’t know what will stop mass killings because we are dealing with flaws in the human condition, but I am not going to cede back to the government, rights that my slave ancestors shed blood and tears over so that the U.S. Constitution would apply to them. One of the hallmarks of slavery was that blacks could not be armed to defend against kidnapping, lynching, and mob attacks. Black Codes enacted after the civil war continued the prohibition of newly freed slaves from being able to exercise their Second Amendment freedoms. It’s been referred to as the Black Tradition of Arms.

Shame on anybody who thinks that Red Flag Laws are a good idea. It was Benjamin Franklin who said, “Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” 

And oh yeah. Sheriff Clarke is black. To learn more about Sheriff David Clarke, go to www.americassheriff.com

We already know that accusations of many sorts have been weaponized against Conservatives. We have to go no further than those leveled against Brett Kavanaugh.

Kavanaugh accuser admits to making up rape accusation as ‘tactic’

by Stephan Dinan, the Associated Press

One of Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh’s accusers admitted this week that she made up her lurid tale of a backseat car rape, saying it “was a tactic” to try to derail the judge’s confirmation to the Supreme Court.

Sen. Chuck Grassley, chairman of the Judiciary Committee revealed the fraud in a letter to the FBI and Justice Department Friday, asking them to prosecute Judy Munro-Leighton for lying to and obstructing Congress.

Mr. Grassley said Ms. Munro-Leighton is a left-wing activist who hijacked another “Jane Doe” anonymous report about a backseat rape and claimed it as her own story, calling it a “vicious assault.”

Now repeat this however many times Leftists perceive they know about certain Conservatives possessing firearms. You know. Any of us on social media at all.

But wait:

What good does it do to disarm someone and leave them free to access whatever weapons or materials they can get their hands on? The greatest mass murders in this country were reportedly initiated with utility knives (9/11), fuels oil and fertilizer (Oklahoma City) and a dollar’s worth of gasoline and a match (Happyland dance club fire). Guns didn’t even enter into the equation — and it is for this reason the contention that anyone who can’t be trusted with a gun can’t be trusted without a custodian holds true.

Dammit Jim, stop with the Logic Bombs.

Because: isn’t this, truly, the ultimate consideration? It would be for me.

As the story goes, the dead gun owner’s sister had filed for a protective order. Was she right in doing so? Is the piece of paper really a deterrent for someone violent enough to warrant one? And how many times do we need to learn the lesson that you’d better not summon the state into your home unless it’s truly your last resort, because they’ll bring with them an up-to-lethal force continuum they’re trained to escalate when not immediately obeyed.

The corollary is then in reverse true: when you step into another person’s neighborhood or community, you really don’t know them. And perhaps they have truly anticipated you. Worse yet: you’re about to intrude into an intimate household realm the likes of which you are not prepared. Call it CQB.

Then this:

So the cops were primed. And what better way to defuse a volatile situation than to pound on a door in the wee hours when it’s still dark and scare the hell out of someone you have reason to believe is armed?

Let’s go back to Waco. We know Koresh left the Branch Davidian complex to go into town. But “certain personnel” wanted to make a statement and attacked Koresh on his home turf. Big mistake. Take your time. Don’t make tactical mistakes.

An interesting point:

Just don’t look to the politically-motivated Anne Arundel County police chief to do anything but call for more infringements:

Chief Timothy Altomare said the fatal shooting in Ferndale was a sign that the law, which went into effect Oct. 1, is needed.

What do you think the odds are that Chief Tim wouldn’t get the courtesy of an apologetic heads-up if a disgruntled relative decided to bad-mouth him?

Under today’s newly-proposed RFLs? Oh yeah he would. But us “Militant Normals” as defined under Kurt Schlichter? We can go straight to hell.

Ben Shapiro — who is, sadly, an advocate of RFLs, says this:

The editor-in-chief of The Daily Wire, Ben Shapiro, said partisan anger and political abuse of proposed red-flag gun laws could lead to a power grab by the government if statutes and regulations aren’t instituted properly.

Well, thanks for allowing the nature of humanity to intervene. Particularly Leftists.

Shapiro added, “I’ve been supportive of red-flag laws but the counter-argument … is that you cannot trust people to be able to take away other peoples’ gun rights, because there are too many people who are going to use that in bad faith, and there are too many judges who are willing to impose such orders in bad faith.”

Fucking duh. Facts in federal court evidence. Hello? Then this:

“There are a lot of people on the right who are worried about this and I think that that worry is not an unreasonable one, given the way that the left is treating the right, right now — given the way that Democrats are treating anyone who says they will vote for Trump — given the way they are lumping in everybody who is on the right with white supremacists,” he said.

Because Cory Booker has said: “Red Flag Laws are not enough.”

And clearly, for Leftists, they are not.

But let’s get back to the “mental health” aspect involved these days. And with that I ask you and everyone else:

Prove to me that you are not insane or, at the very least, mentally unbalanced.

What do we know about this? Oh yeah. “Mentally unbalanced” exists in the mind of the beholder. Or more specifically, the examiner.

In today’s environment, prove to me that you are completely sane.

  • Because, if you’re against abortion, you are insane;
  • If you are not a supporter of a fluid or liquid Constitution, you are insane.
  • If you believe anyone — save those celebrities or politicians important to the Left — should be armed, you are insane.
  • If you believe free speech requires preservation, you are insane.
  • If you think the Constitution and the Bill of Rights simply get in the way of “good government,” you are insane.
  • If you believe in any kind of a religion — except Islam, because they’ll kill you — you are insane.
  • If you believe wages, shelter, transportation, clothing, medical care shouldn’t be free, you are insane.

The DSM-5 is the current version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders extant. But there will be future versions to include the DSM 6, 7 and 8.

Who determines sanity? Correct. Those persons assembling the current and future DSMs.

And who are those people predominantly? Leftists, of course. People seek certain jobs because they satisfy certain worldviews. Not very many Leftists consider law enforcement as a profession as they are not much interested, for example, in the sacrifice, discipline and judgment required for such officers.

I tend to distill it down to two camps:

  1. Those who must say yes all the time because it’s easy, and
  2. Those who have the sack to actually say NO. Because it’s difficult.

Then let’s move on to a recent Johns-Hopkins study:

California’s Background Check Law Had No Impact on Gun Deaths, Johns Hopkins Study Finds

by Jon Miltimore

The findings—which run counter to the conventional wisdom that gun control saves lives—have received almost no media attention.

A new academic study has found that, once again, gun laws are not having their desired effect.

A joint study conducted by researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and the University of California at Davis Violence Prevention Research Program found that California’s much-touted mandated background checks had no impact on gun deaths, and researchers are puzzled as to why.

In 1991, California simultaneously imposed comprehensive background checks for firearm sales and prohibited gun sales (and gun possession) to people convicted of misdemeanor violent crimes. The legislation mandated that all gun sales, including private transactions, would have to go through a California-licensed Federal Firearms License (FFL) dealer. Shotguns and rifles, like handguns, became subject to a 15-day waiting period to make certain all gun purchasers had undergone a thorough background check.

Again I say, Leftists completely fail to read humans and understand humans. They fail to recognize that humans are very clever, that humans can be simply evil with few if any redeeming features, and that proscribing one tool from an evil person will never stop their being evil, or their ability to acquire whatever tools they deem necessary to accomplish said evil.

More than a quarter of a century later, researchers at Johns Hopkins and UC Davis dug into the results of the sweeping legislation. Researchers compared yearly gun suicide and homicide rates over the 10 years following implementation of California’s law with 32 control states that did not have such laws.

They found “no change in the rates of either cause of death from firearms through 2000.”

And this is very revealing:

More than a decade ago, the writer Louis Menand, in a New Yorker article, explained the rationalizations experts make when their theories fail to hold up in our real-world laboratory:

When they’re wrong, [experts are] rarely held accountable, and they rarely admit it, either. They insist that they were just off on timing, or blindsided by an improbable event, or almost right, or wrong for the right reasons. They have the same repertoire of self-justifications that everyone has, and are no more inclined than anyone else to revise their beliefs about the way the world works, or ought to work, just because they made a mistake.

California’s failed gun control law appears to be yet another example of experts, to quote the great Milton Friedman, judging “policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results.”

Despite the dismal record of gun control, expect the media and “experts” to use a repertoire of self-justifications rather than modify their beliefs—regardless of what the evidence shows.

Then there is this — another article hardly mentioned by any one of the Leftists, Demorats or American Media Maggots — because, after all, this is one of the primary underpinnings of RFLs themselves:

Studies Find No Evidence That Assault Weapon Bans Reduce Homicide Rates

The studies, data, and examination of the available evidence by scholars suggest that assault weapon bans or buybacks will have little if any effect on rates of violent crime and gun violence.
Saturday, August 17, 2019

Mass shootings are unconscionable acts of violence and are the most acutely disturbing form of gun violence. In the wake of such tragedies, many gun control advocates lambast gun rights supporters for allowing “weapons of war” onto the streets of America and not supporting “responsible gun reform.”

The measures put forth are usually either a ban and/or mandatory buyback of “assault weapons,” most of which are more accurately known as semi-automatic rifles. (“Assault weapon” is a vague term that varies state to state and can include common pistols and shotguns depending out other attachable accessories.)    

While these initiatives are “common sense” to advocates, if one takes the time to examine the data and evidence, it becomes abundantly clear that gun control in this form will do little do reduce gun violence.

Oddly enough, what you and I, proper thinking human beings, naturally intuit from the involved statistics.

Mother Jones’s database of mass shootings, defined as shootings involving three or more fatalities, shows that between 2007 and 2017, there were 495 people murdered in such events. When breaking down those shootings by the weapons involved, it is revealed that around half of those victims (253) were murdered by a perpetrator with an assault weapon (AW), such as an AR-15.

Over the same timeframe, FBI annual crime reports show that there were 150,352 homicides in total, of which 103,901 involved firearms. This means that mass shootings involving AWs constitute 0.17 percent and 0.24 percent of all homicides and firearm homicides, respectively.

Uh-oh. Then there’s this.

To further illuminate the relative infrequency of mass shootings with “assault weapons,” consider the fact that in 2017, some 1,590 people were murdered using knives or sharp instruments.

Over the last five years, 261 people were murdered with AWs in mass shootings (an average rate of 52 murders annually.) At such a rate, it would take over 30 years of mass shootings with AWs to produce the same number of deaths as one year’s worth of knife murders. (It would take 135 years’ worth of mass shootings with AWs to produce the 7,032 deaths that handgun homicides did in 2017.)

Consequently, even a completely effective ban/buyback of AWs would have an incredibly small impact on rates of homicide and gun violence, and then there is always the probability that people intent on committing mass violence will substitute AWs with other available firearms or methods of destruction (such as homemade explosives.)

Gosh. Like we’re seeing the resulting explosion of knife crime in Europe and now here in the United States.

There are theoretical reasons to doubt the effectiveness of a ban or buyback of assault weapons, but it also doesn’t help that real-world evidence suggests these measures fail to produce reductions in gun violence.

Between 1994 and 2004, the federal government banned the manufacture, sale, or transfer of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines.  A subsequent Department of Justice studyfound no evidence that the ban had had any effect on gun violence and stated that “should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.”

A recent study published this year in the Journal of General Internal Medicine examined state gun control policies and found no statistically significant relationship between assault weapon or large-capacity magazine bans and homicide rates. A Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) study came to the same conclusion.

And the Australian model, demanded by Leftists here — which resulted in the confiscation of firearms in 1996 — well, that doesn’t work either.

Listen to JACK ALEXANDER, a resident of Australia, talk about firearms confiscation in Australia, its results and ridiculous proscriptions — no air-driven spearguns, no bb guns, no pellet guns, no wrist rockets, no crossbows, no bows.  .  .

Start at 39:00 to understand what happened to Australia under firearms confiscations.

In 1996, Australia experienced a horrific mass shooting. In response, the government implemented a mandatory buyback scheme that banned and confiscated certain types of firearms, including assault weapons.

A 2016 JAMA study on the matter found no statistically significant change in the trend of the country’s firearm homicide rate following the law’s passage. The authors also noted that the decline in firearm suicides post-ban could not clearly be attributed to gun control since non-firearm suicides fell by an even greater magnitude.

The article concludes:

The studies, data, and examination of the available evidence by scholars suggest that assault weapons bans or buybacks will have little if any effect on rates of violent crime and gun violence. There seems to be no relationship between these gun control measures and reductions in firearm homicide or suicide, and there doesn’t appear to be any clear evidence they reduce mass shootings.

But wait. Isn’t that the reason for the new demand in Red Flag Laws? “Assault weapons” are everywhere and people must be stopped in advance? Is this an earlier version of the movie “Minority Report”?

The Kopel Testimony says this is what’s wanted:

• Petitions initiated by law enforcement, not by spurned dating partners or
relationships from long ago.
• Ex parte hearings only when there is proof of necessity.
• Proof by clear and convincing evidence, which has been corroborated.
• Guarantees of all due process rights, including cross-examination and right to
counsel.
• Court-appointed counsel if the respondent so wishes.
• A civil remedy for victims of false and malicious petitions.
• Safe and orderly procedures for relinquishment of firearms.
• Strict controls on no-knock raids.
• Storage of relinquished firearms by responsible third parties.
• Prompt restoration of concealed carry permits for the falsely accused.
• Prompt return of firearms upon the termination of an order.
• Renewal of orders based on presentation of clear and convincing proof.
• Not allowing time-limited orders to be bootstrapped into lifetime federal
prohibition.

But trust me when I tell you that is isn’t what Leftists want, They want it greatly, greatly expanded.

If we are predicating RFLs but upon specious information and statistics that do not point to the wondrous efficacy of RFLs, then why are we considering the sacrifice of even more personal liberties and freedoms — demanding that Leftist become even more intrusive into our lives and minds?

It just doesn’t make sense to me.

So I say no to Red Flag Laws, knowing full well how Leftists and Demorats, supported ably by the American Media Maggots, intend to expand them into categories heretofore unconsidered.

BZ

 

 

 Share

BZ’s Berserk Bobcat Saloon Radio Show, Thursday, 8-15-19 with Australian radio host JACK ALEXANDER

Posted on by

Featuring Right thinking from a left brain, doing the job the American Media Maggots won’t, embracing ubiquitous, sagacious perspicacity and broadcasting behind enemy lines in Occupied Kalifornia from the veritable Belly of the Beast, the Bill Mill in Sacramento, the capitol building at 10th and L Streets, I continue to proffer my thanks to the SHR Media Network for allowing me to utilize their studio and hijack their air twice weekly, Tuesdays and Thursday nights, thanks to my shameless contract — as well as appear on the Sack Heads: Against Tyranny Show every Wednesday night.

Hours 1 and 2: BZ spoke to the percipient JACK ALEXANDER, radio host of the Jack Alexander Experiment.

BZ and Jack spoke about the 1996 gun confiscation in Australia and its necessary ramifications for the entire first hour. And it didn’t go how Leftists anticipated.

In the second hour, we continued to talk about shootings but, now, at law enforcement. To include Riverside, West Sacramento and most recently Philadelphia. Sad to discover that the shooter in Philadelphia was the neighborhood drug dealer and, of course, this tended to piss off those whose drug conduit was so rudely interrupted by Philadelphia PD — damn them.

If we take away guns, we’re going to have to take away knives, then sporks, then sticks then — what else? Check this out:

Chicken takeaway boxes warn young people of knife crime danger

Chicken boxes featuring warnings about the dangers of carrying a knife have been sent to takeaways in England and Wales as part of a government campaign.

More than 321,000 boxes will replace standard packaging at outlets including Chicken Cottage, Dixy Chicken and Morley’s, the Home Office said.

Real life stories of young people who chose positive activities over carrying a weapon are printed inside the boxes.

Shadow home secretary Diane Abbott said the plan was “crude” and “offensive”.

However, Home Secretary Priti Patel defended the campaign, accusing Ms Abbott of “playing politics with knife crime”.

Printed inside the special boxes, part of the Home Office’s #knifefree campaign, are first-hand accounts of young people who have opted to pursue pastimes such as boxing or music instead of carrying a knife.

Right. Because everyone, sooner or later, given a chance, will obey every law.

By the way, if you didn’t already know, BZ is in fact on iHeart radio. Click here.

If you want to listen to the show on Spreaker, audio only, click on the yellow button below.

Listen to “BZ’s Berserk Bobcat Saloon Radio Show, Thursday, 8-15-19” on Spreaker.

If you care to watch the show on the SHR Media YouTube channel, click on the red arrow below. We kindly ask you to SUBSCRIBE to the SHR Media channel.

Please like us and follow us on Facebook! Video of the show is here on Facebook.

Join me, the Bloviating Zeppelin (on Twitter @BZep, Facebook as Biff Zeppe and the Bloviating Zeppelin, and on Gab.ai @BZep), every Tuesday and Thursday night on the SHR Media Network from 11 PM to 1 AM Eastern and 8 PM to 10 PM Pacific, at the Berserk Bobcat Saloon — where the speech is free but the booze is not.

As ever, thank you so kindly for listening, commenting, and interacting in the chat room or listening later via podcast.

Please remember we only monitor the chat room at SHRMEDIA.COM — though there is chat available on both Facebook and YouTube. Come on over to the SHR chat room where you’ll meet great friends!

  • Want to listen to all the Berserk Bobcat Saloon archives on Spreaker? Go here.
  • Want to watch past shows on Periscope? Go here.
  • Want to watch past shows on the SHR Media Facebook page? Go here.
  • Want to watch past Berserk Bobcat Saloon shows on YouTube? Go here.

Thank you one and all for listening, watching and supporting the SHR Media Network: “Conservative Media Done Right.”

BZ

 Share