The mayoral candidate who wants to disarm the police

First, the background to the headline, in terms of the predicating event prompting mayoral candidate Raymond Dehn’s statement about disarming the Minneapolis Police Department, first from

Minnesota cop who fatally shot Australian woman was ‘fast-tracked’ into the force

The Minnesota police officer who fatally shot Justine Damond was put on an accelerated police cadet program that required only seven months of training, a nontraditional route that aims to help those who have a college degree enter law enforcement.

Mohamed Noor, 31, shot Damond, 40, after she called 911 to report a sexual assault behind her home. When she approached the driver’s side of the squad car, Noor fired from the passenger side, across his partner, killing Damond.

The Minnesota Police Department has been under fire since the July 15 shooting. Many have questioned Noor’s experience and training after only graduating in 2015. However, former Police Chief Janeé Harteau, who resigned last week, stood by Noor’s training.

That’s a story in and of itself.

A female chief. A lesbian chief. Gone in 60 seconds.

That tells me one quite important thing. An innocent Caucasoid Australian woman and a Somali Muslim magically trump a lesbian chief of department, politically. Color me shocked.

Boom. Gone. Good to know. The hierarchy of politics. What I told each and every Patrol trainee of mine: “If it is fiscally or politically expedient, you will be sacrificed.”

There is truth here. You have to dig it out one or two or three major chisel strikes at a time.

“We have a very robust training and hiring process,” Harteau told reporters at a news conference last Thursday. “This officer completed that training very well, just like every officer. He was very suited to be on the street.”

No political correctness here or there, eh wot? That would never occur in a job as critical as peace officer, would it?

But others believe the fast-track program could leave officers ill prepared to handle real-world police scenarios.

Wait. Are you saying there is Opposition Theory?

“The cadet program is rigorous, no doubt,” James Densley, a criminal justice associate professor at Metropolitan State University in St. Paul, told the Star Tribune, “but it is also an immersive paramilitary experience, taught by practitioner faculty without advanced degrees, and I suspect it leaves students with a limited view of the profession.”

Right. They’re well trained but they’re not well trained? Taught by great staff or taught by inadequate staff? Which is it?

But wait. Read this.

Nate Grove, the head of the State Peace Officer Standards and Training Board (which controls police training and sets objectives) said that the nontraditional routes are no less rigorous in Minnesota than the traditional ones. The Peace Officer Licensing Examination includes 275 questions and takes about two to three hours to complete.

The suggestion here is that, in lieu of full training, Noor instead took a paper test which he was able to pass. Otherwise, why include the intimation that he was “fast tracked”? And if Noor was “fast tracked” by having passed only a paper test instead of a full training venue, well, a serious slight was committed in training. Perhaps, now, a deadly slight. But I don’t know because the articles do not so definitively state.

This much is true.

Damond’s shooting death has been ruled a homicide by the Hennepin County Medical Examiner’s office.

And this much is true as well. We know the body cams were not activated at the time of the event but, truly, that’s an internal issue with regard to whatever policy the Minneapolis PD has immured with regard to operation. The dashcam was also off. Same thing with regard to policy. And let me state that would fall under the umbrella of internal policy and not law.

MPD policy does indicate that body cams should be activated if force is used but, of course, one seldom if ever gets to accurately predict when force must be utilized. The priority should be safety and response rather than the activation of equipment.

This, in and of itself, is a massive issue with which, in my estimation, law enforcement agencies have yet to sufficiently grapple. There is yet no “one size fits all” policy with regard to body cam and video equipment. Much less the issues of storage and costs.

Then there is this puzzler from the

Australian woman shot by cop ‘did not have to die,’ Minneapolis police chief says

by Ami Forliti and Steve Karnowski

The fatal shooting of an Australian woman by a Minneapolis police officer responding to her 911 call “should not have happened,” police Chief Janee Harteau said, adding that the officer’s actions “go against who we are in the department.”

In her first public remarks since the death of Justine Damond, a 40-year-old life coach and bride-to-be, Harteau on Thursday defended Officer Mohamed Noor’s training but criticized his actions.

Wait, wait wait wait wait. He was well-trained but he screwed up? Just what are you saying here, former Chief Harteau? What are you trying to justify? His training or his actions? Because training, or lack thereof, does have a good deal to do with reactions in the field.

Oh right. She’s a former chief of police.

“He was well trained but we don’t act like this,” is what you’re saying Harteau? It would seem to me, at first blush, that you’re attempting to justify something — a Somali Muslim cop — that many would say needn’t be justified. Just what are you saying?

I’m sorry; were saying. Past tense.

Harteau faced several questions about her absence in the days following the shooting, which sparked anger and a demand for answers in the city and in Damond’s home country. She said she had been backpacking in a remote area, it was “challenging” to return and that she had been in touch with her command staff.

Priorities. Please see above.

Damond had called 911 twice late Saturday to report a possible sexual assault in the alley behind her house on Minneapolis’ southwest side. Noor, who was in the passenger seat of a squad car, shot at Damond through the driver’s side window.

Noor has declined to speak with the state’s Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, which is handling the investigation. His partner, Matthew Harrity, told investigators he was startled by a loud sound right before Damond approached the police vehicle.

Perhaps his right in Minnesota, but not his right in California. When I was in Homicide, I happened to be tasked with investigating OIS, or Officer Involved Shootings. I had to be well versed in OIS investigations as well as POBR — the Peace Officer Bill of Rights. Officers had the right to determine not to speak to me in detail but they didn’t have the right to not tell me the basics, such as firearm, place, position, backstop, number of rounds fired, location of suspect and the like.

It was a long way to get here, yes, but we can now get to the point: add a Minneapolis mayoral race.


Minneapolis Mayoral Candidate: Maybe Cops Should Just Leave Their Guns In The Car

by Matt Vespa

Is this guy high on drugs? That’s the only explanation for this nonsensical policy proposal regarding law enforcement coming out of the Minneapolis area. Mayoral candidate Raymond Dehn pretty much put forward a policy that would disarm police, requiring them to leave their firearms in their car.

The most striking proposal came from Raymond Dehn, a state legislator who finished first in the Minneapolis DFL’s no-endorsement convention on July 8, beating out Hodges, Council Member Jacob Frey and Tom Hoch and attracting more than a third of the support from party insiders.

“We must divest resources, disarm officers, and dismantle the inherent violence of our criminal justice system,” Dehn said in a statement Friday.

He later elaborated on what sounded like a call to take guns from cops, adding he is not advocating against police officers having access to weapons when they need them.

“Officers don’t need to carry guns on their person all the time,” Dehn said Tuesday. “Currently, officers carry all sorts of assault weapons in their cars. So why can’t one of those weapons be the side arm? It’s important that we begin to have a conversation, and I would say that all things are on the table.”

Look. I’ll be honest. Quite a number of persons have asked me to weigh in on the initial shooting involving Noor. Having served not in the military but instead 41 years in law enforcement, I have something of a perspective from the front lines.

And that is this.

No matter how Noor was trained or whatever his reputation may have been or not been, an individual who, sitting in a vehicle shared by a partner, deigns to reach across and in front of said partner crank off rounds within the unit is one of two things:

  1. Brilliant in terms of officer safety, or
  2. Massively problematic, bordering on unhinged or insane.

I suspect a bit of the latter. And most everyone in that department now knows just about everything regarding Officer Noor. There are few secrets when lives are on the line.

I also suspect this. Due to his incomplete training regimen — that is to say, the “fast tracking” the department admits to having done — much was known about Noor before he even opened his first Crown Vic door.

That said, I highly suggest each and every Leftist Urban Rat Cage eschew their police and disarm them completely. Take their guns. Give them short truncheons. Whistles. A nice dark hat like Scotland Yard. Give them Smart cars or bicycles and tablets and social media. And sarcasm. Sarcasm can be a weapon. But not too much sarcasm. You wouldn’t want to offend.

In terms of this Great Disarm the Police Experiment, I suggest these cities first:

  • Minneapolis
  • San Francisco
  • Chicago
  • New York
  • Detroit
  • Baltimore
  • Los Angeles
  • DC

It’s already been suggested, for example, that Chicago defund its police department. No. I’m not kidding.

I think the best summary is this:

But the head of the police union, Lt. Bob Kroll, says there’s not a chance this idea would fly with any cop.

“I don’t think the people in Minneapolis are logically ready for anything like this,” said Kroll. “Who would ever do the job of policing again? It’s absolutely an absurd thought.”




Let’s listen to Canada’s Leftist PM Justin Trudeau

This is simply too good to pass up.

Then there is this lengthier compilation.

So Leftists, Demorats, anarchists, progressives and the like think President Donald Trump is daft and embraces “too many Russians”?

Shelby Steele (author, columnist, film-maker, Senior Fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution) explains wonderfully the Leftist mindset:

Tell you what, Canada. You keep Trudeau. We’ll keep Trump.



California wants a law about “fake news”

And no, I am not kidding.

As California’s debt explodes, businesses flee, illegals drain and trash the state and are encouraged to vote illegally, as San Francisco is turned into a piss-and-shite-filled excrement dump and Los Angeles borders on bankruptcy due to its policies and the lawsuits filed against it (wait, I thought LA was Leftist Central and violated no one’s rights), Sacramento decides that this issue demands its immediate and pointed focus.

From the

California lawmakers propose bills to teach students to identify ‘fake news’

by Alan Yuhas in San Francisco

The bills aim to teach high school students how to detect misleading, fabricated or inaccurate reports in the wake of the 2016 US election

Two California lawmakers have proposed bills to fight “fake news” by teaching high school students how to detect misleading, fabricated or inaccurate reports in the waves of information flooding into their daily lives.

“The rise of fake and misleading news is deeply concerning,” Dodd said in a statement. “Even more concerning is the lack of education provided to ensure people can distinguish what is fact and what’s not.”

“By giving students the proper tools to analyze the media they consume, we can empower them to make informed decisions,” he added.

But wait; let’s hearken back to this incredibly insightful and correct quote by Josef Stalin.

Because, after all, who determines an election? Who decides whom is insane? Who decides what is fake news?

Tessa Jolls, president of the nonprofit and nonpartisan Center for Media Literacy, said that such measures were long overdue. “Now that powers have shifted, with citizens as producers [of information], people are suddenly saying, ‘Oh wow, this is something we need.’”

Well just hold on there, cowgirl. Perhaps you ought to go back and evaluate the origin of “fake news,” why and when the meme was created. And who determines “fake news.”

“Fake news” didn’t exist when NBC, ABC, CBS and other “mainstream media” sites were historically lying their arses off to the American public. They were and are what I term the American Media Maggots, for obvious reasons.

Fake rape stories on any number of occasions, AMM? Cars that tip over, AMM? Dan Rather lying about George Bush? Hundreds of false discrimination stories? Rick Jones? Sharmeka Moffitt? Reza Aslan? Tahera Ahmad? Anti-gay tip receipt? Duke University? Michael Nifong? Oberlin KKK hoax? Tawana Brawley? Grand Valley State University black chick? Rolling Stone magazine? Joseph Baken? CAIR’s staged videos? CNN interviewing their own cameraman, claiming it was an anti-Trump protester on Don Lemon? “Trumpers violent” when it was in fact Leftists who burned, hit, stabbed, cut, destroyed property around the US? HRC having a “98% chance of winning”?

Buzzfeed? CNN?

The “Fourth Estate” exists only as, now, a PR firm for Leftists and Demorats. We’re on to you. You are in fact naked.

How shallow be thy memory, American Media Maggots. Where an anti-conservative meme exists, you jump on it and provide vast amounts of time, headline space and copy inches. Because you have an anti-conservative theme to catch.

More importantly, just who fact checks the “fact checkers”? Were you, my dear readers, cognizant that the staff of is comprised primarily of Leftists? Would you even remotely be shocked? What about Facebook?

Facebook routinely buried conservative news and topics from trending on the site and artificially made liberal topics part of the national discussion, former Facebook employees admitted last May. TheDC previously reported that the former Facebook trending news team was filled by liberals. It has since automated the Trending Topics section of its page.

Jolls makes an admirable statement:

“What we want is skepticism, not cynicism,” she said. “Cynicism is when you don’t believe anything. Skepticism is when you have discernment, judgment you can rely on.”

In a vacuum, the quote is sensible. In reality, I go back to my Josef Stalin quote.

Just who determines what is what?

In Fornicalia, come on.

I think you know that answer.

I say: go ahead. Prove to me you’re not insane.

By what standards?

Ultimately: who creates and holds those standards?

Fornicalia is as impartial as a Chinese judge at the Beijing Olympics.



Rep Tom McClintock (R) 4th, weighs in on CA’s hiring of Eric Holder

It was discovered yesterday that California taxpayer dollars will be funneled into the pockets of ex-US Attorney General Eric Holder and his firm, Covington & Burling, in order to fight the Trump administration on behalf of the State of California. For background, please see this.

SHR Media, of which I am a part, discussed the issue Wednesday night on the Sack Heads Radio show. Before the show, however, I attempted to acquire a response from the California Attorney General’s office but was unsuccessful.

I next contacted the office of my former 4th District representative, Tom McClintock, first speaking to Bill George in Rocklin, and followed with an email in order to see if I could solicit Rep McClintock’s opinion on the hiring of former AG Eric Holder.

Representative McClintock was kind enough to respond the very next day, and had this to say:

1.     This is a huge vote of no confidence in Xavier Becerra, who as incoming Attorney General would otherwise be responsible for representing the state government’s perspective in the courts.  Implicitly, legislative leaders are saying they don’t trust Becerra’s competence and need to bring in outside counsel.  I don’t disagree with them in this assessment.  Normally, the Attorney General would decide whether he needed additional legal counsel for a specific case – it looks like legislative leaders have made this decision for him.

2.     Since the administration has not taken office and therefore has not yet taken any official actions, it is hard to see specifically what Holder et al are being hired to contest.  Placing them on general retainer once again voices no confidence in Becerra and, given the partisan political connections involved, has the appearance of a political payoff.  Holder is also a curious choice as the only Attorney General to be held in contempt of Congress.

3.     An essential component of federalism is the ability of a state to assert its constitutional powers and prerogatives and to challenge federal authority through our legal system.  If they have no confidence in Becerra, they have every reason to hire outside counsel and every right to challenge federal actions.  Although I obviously strongly disagree with them on policy, I think state legal challenges to federal action are healthy.  This is certainly preferable to recent Democratic attempts to nullify federal law by refusing to obey or enforce it.   Democrats started the discredited and defeated doctrine of nullification in the antebellum era and have revived it with “sanctuary” and non-enforcement policies in recent years.   

I wholeheartedly concur with Rep McClintock’s assessment of incoming AG Becerra. It’s, to me, something of a resounding slap in the face. Particularly in light, as Rep McClintock aptly points out, of the fact that Holder was held in contempt of Congress in 2012.

This is, essentially, the State of California posturing for the Leftists within and without; chest-puffing if you will. Holder’s retainer comes directly out of the budgets of the Senate and Assembly. Will Holder’s consultancy extend beyond the “initial” three months? Quite possibly.

Thanks kindly to Tom McClintock and Bill George for assisting me in the matter and their rapid response.



California hires former AG Eric Holder to fight Trump

The rampant insanity continues unabated in the state of the insane.

I truly am “behind enemy lines in Occupied Fornicalia.”

My taxpayer dollars are going to be used to fight taxpayers. Meaning, I’m funding the state to fight my philosophy.


California Legislature to pay Eric Holder to challenge Trump administration

by Taryn Luna

The California Legislature has hired the firm of former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder as outside counsel to assist legal challenges posed by conflicts with the Trump Administration, Democratic leaders announced Wednesday.

Holder’s firm, Covington & Burling, will advise the Legislature “in our efforts to resist any attempts to roll back the progress California has made,” said Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León and Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon in a joint statement on Wednesday.

As I said, my taxpayer dollars going to fight me. $75,000 in fact.

The Assembly and Senate have agreed to split the firm’s $25,000-a-month fee for an initial three-month period. “Given the urgency, intensity and complexity of the work, these terms are eminently fair and consistent with industry standards,” Assembly spokesman Kevin Liao said in a statement. “The initial agreement extends for a minimum of three months, at which time the parties will mutually and more specifically assess the evolving federal landscape and determine what overall scope of work will be required to meet California’s challenges going forward.”

Fornicalia politicians admit that illegals voted for them.

“This is a critical moment in the history of our nation,” Rendon and de León said. “We have an obligation to defend the people who elected us and the policies and diversity that make California an example of what truly makes a nation great.”

Note: “We have an obligation to defend the people who elected us.” Why would lawful Fornicalians require defense?

State legislative leaders have struck a defiant tone against President-Elect Donald Trump. The day after the election Rendon and de León issued a statement praising California, which voted overwhelmingly for Hillary Clinton, and pledging to protect the state from Trump policies that may hurt the economy or infringe on the rights of people living in the state.

“I am honored that the Legislature chose Covington to serve as its legal advisor as it considers how to respond to potential changes in federal law that could impact California’s residents and policy priorities,” Holder said in a statement, “I am confident that our expertise across a wide array of federal legal and regulatory issues will be a great resource to the legislature.”

But wait. Do I detect some potential conflict of interest here?

De León has connections to Covington that extend beyond Holder.

Really? In what fashion?

Dan Shallman, a partner in the firm’s Los Angeles office, is the brother of John Shallman, whose Southern California-based political consulting and advertising agency serves as the longtime consulting house for de León and several other California elected officials. It is paid a $10,000 a month retainer by the California Democratic Party. This summer, Shallman Communications hired de León’s daughter, Lluvia de Milagros Carrasco, a recent graduate of Saint Mary’s College in Moraga, to work as an account coordinator.

There is going to be, clearly, a fight. First, a court fight. But possibly, in time, a civil fight that will extend across the nation.

Either the rule of law wins, or the rule of law loses.

If the rule of law loses and entire states can flaunt laws, then why should any other state — or, for that matter, you and me — obey state or federal laws? If the rule of law loses, the precedent will have been set.

This is a place that, trust me, California and Leftists nationally do not want to go.



Can you now see the vital importance of the Second Amendment and the First Amendment?

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” – John F. Kennedy