from Bayou Renaissance Man
Yesterday I wrote about the impossible conundrum facing police. They’re literally in a no-win situation. If they enforce and uphold the laws, they’re accused of racism, abuse of authority, and everything else one can imagine. If they don’t, the law-abiding citizens they’re sworn to protect and serve will pay the price in the anything-goes free-for-all that will result.
A graphic example of how this plays out every day on the streets of some of our rougher neighborhoods was given in Chicago a few days ago. The video below is profane, graphic and very disturbing. I can only commend the police involved for not giving in to what must, at times, have been the overwhelming temptation to deal with the interlopers as their conduct deserved.
LANGUAGE ALERT: Profanity is frequent and very graphic. If you’d like to read what happened, and watch the video with the sound turned off, you’ll find the details here.
Now ask yourself, dear readers: if you find yourself on the streets of a city or suburb like that (say, after a traffic accident, while you’re waiting for emergency services to arrive), and you get heckled like that . . . what are you going to do about it? You probably won’t have sufficient legal justification to open fire on the mob. If you produce a gun and try to threaten them, their reactions will be just as they are above. They’ll dare you to use it, knowing that if you do, the law will basically side with them, no matter how provocative and threatening their conduct might have been. What’s more, some of them will probably have guns too. If you use yours, they’ll likely shoot back – and your family and anyone else with you will be in the line of fire. You might be well advised to leave the area as quickly as possible, by any means necessary (including hitching a ride with passing motorists), and abandon your vehicle. If it gets stripped or stolen, that’s still a lot less trouble than what might happen if you stay with it.
John Farnam’s advice (which we’ve repeated on several occasions in these pages) still holds good. Bold, underlined text is my emphasis.
The best way to handle any potentially injurious encounter is: Don’t be there. Arrange to be somewhere else. Don’t go to stupid places. Don’t associate with stupid people. Don’t do stupid things. This is the advice I give to all students of defensive firearms. Winning a gunfight, or any other potentially injurious encounter, is financially and emotionally burdensome. The aftermath will become your full-time job for weeks or months afterward, and you will quickly grow weary of writing checks to lawyer(s). It is, of course, better than being dead or suffering a permanently disfiguring or disabling injury, but the “penalty” for successfully fighting for your life is still formidable.
Crowds of any kind, particularly those with an agenda, such as political rallies, demonstrations, picket lines, etc are good examples of “stupid places.” Any crowd with a high collective energy level harbors potential catastrophe. To a lesser degree, bank buildings, hospital emergency rooms, airports, government buildings, and bars (particularly crowded ones) fall into the same category. All should be avoided. When they can’t be avoided, we should make it a practice to spend only the minimum time necessary there and then quickly get out.
“A superior gunman is best defined as one who uses his superior judgment in order to keep himself out of situations that would require the use of his superior skills.”
Words to live by more than ever, in these troubled times. Kudos to those cops for keeping their cool under very trying circumstances. I doubt I’d have done as well.
Obviously, it’s a matter of degree and circumstance. A couple of kids talking smack to sound tough, or a violent street gang just looking for an excuse – any excuse. Sometimes, as proposed in the essay, we find ourselves in a bad geographical area. Wrong turn off the freeway, followed by car trouble…
Massad Ayoob famously stated if you feel the need to carry into a bar, perhaps you need to consider a different watering hole. Perhaps. Watering hole choice is usually voluntary. (I see this as ‘not using the seat belt; not getting into an accident’ thinking. Just because it’s not a dive bar doesn’t mean bad things won’t happen. – Guffaw)
This all goes back to basics – situational awareness and mindset. We don’t always have control, and may have to wait for others to act for us to respond – morally and legally.
And THAT’S the hell of it…
(hee hee!) Bet you thought this post was about THIS guy! Nope.
(From Free North Carolina)
Defense: What the president calls “my military” is being cleansed of any officer suspected of disloyalty to or disagreement with the administration on matters of policy or force structure, leaving the compliant and fearful.
We recognize President Obama is the commander-in-chief and that throughout history presidents from Lincoln to Truman have seen fit to remove military commanders they view as inadequate or insubordinate. Turnover in the military ranks is normal, and in these times of sequestration and budget cuts the numbers are expected to tick up as force levels shrink and missions change.
Yet what has happened to our officer corps since President Obama took office is viewed in many quarters as unprecedented, baffling and even harmful to our national security posture. We have commented on some of the higher profile cases, such as Gen. Carter Ham. He was relieved as head of U.S. Africa Command after only a year and a half because he disagreed with orders not to mount a rescue mission in response to the Sept. 11, 2012, attack in Benghazi.
I found this particularly of interest, as it wasn’t some screed from WND or Alex Jones, but from IBD!
While I’m philosophically libertarian (small L), I’m not certain the current national Libertarian Party embodies my personal views. Or that of the party I first registered for in 1976…
But, I get Laura’s point.
I’d an email exchange with a democratic socialist (who is a dear friend and reads this blog) following Gov. Johnson’s faux pas, who said she had been considering voting for him, but, now was forced to consider Secretary Clinton.
Jokingly, I responded it was too bad she was choosing the lesser of three weevils.
Her response was Vote for Cthulhu! Why pick the lesser evil?
I fear she is doing precisely that!
(In a World where many elected officials take an oath, but have no idea what The Constitution even means (or are committing perjury), and won’t stand for the Pledge of Allegiance or the National Anthem (their right, of course…) )
(Of course, there is always the Chicago Cubs’ manager – on my sidebar (bumper sticker sales for charity!)
(As posted by Brock Townsend)
Via comment by Quartermain on Clinton’s Censorship Tactics Aren’t Working Agains…
Barbro Sörman, a feminist politician said rapes aren’t that bad when non-Western men do them
In yet another strange twisting of logic, Swedish feminists say they would rather be raped by migrants and refugees rather than saved from rape by local men. They also say rape is worse when Swedish men do it rather than when the immigrants they love so much do it. What a strange, socially engineered world we have entered in the 21st century.
Earlier this year, when around 200 Swedish White Knights attacked rape-fugees to defend Swedish women, these girls spun up a really neat collective hamster rationalization and attacked the men who were defending their honor instead of rapists. Here’s what they did:
Feminists created the hashtag #inteerkvinna (translated as #notyourwoman) where they spewed their hatred over racism, fascism, white men and many other things that can be loosely tied to the events with some cognitive dissonance. In short, they made a collective tantrum on social media over the fact that white European men are standing up to the rape-fugees.
It has been said women invite, men invade. Call it a societal shit test in which women have evolved psychological and sociological behaviors that test to see which group of men has the stronger seed, the invaders or the locals. So far, the invaders are winning and will be the ones women increasingly support and breed with, as they continue to select for brutes instead of nice boys.
The feminists even went so far as to say “It’s YOU I’m afraid of” to Swedish men, the same men who are unbelievably the descendants of Vikings now completely de-balled by their own government. A Swedish feminist politician named Barbro Sörman said it’s “worse” when Swedish men rape than when the wonderful refugees do it:
I think inclusion and political correctness have finally reached critical mass. Sexual assault by someone using their religion as motivation is preferable to being saved from said assault by your own countrymen.
Say WHAT Now?!
I lived in my parent’s house after high school, and into college. The University was about a mile-and-a-half North, and an easy walk. Things became ‘complicated’ when I dropped-out after a year, and was on academic probation. (long-time readers will remember Joe Cool?). My parents then required rent and employment (I had been working the entire time), and two years later (age 20) I moved out simultaneously with starting at a community college.
I thought I was a failure.
Ultimately, I completed community college (3.615 GPA,with high distinction, don’t ya know!), got my Associates Degree (Administration of Justice), and entered life. It’s amazing how the realities of financial obligation and low paying jobs motivate! During the recession (1975). No decent jobs.
BUT, somehow I survived. I paid my own way through college (no loans, no parent money), worked then entire time (mostly in private security) and paid rent – sometimes even on time! 😛
The idea of moving back into my parent’s home was anathema to me. My father’s passing in 1977 further reinforced the concept (I didn’t have a good relationship with my stepmother).
For the first time in modern history the most common living arrangement for young adults is living in their parents’ homes. (18 to 34)
I wonder how this happened? Poor employment opportunities? Low pay? Bad economy? I suspect the liberals will blame it on the debt based on Bush’s wars. And the banks.
And the conservatives will blame the race-baiting, anti-colonialist communist administration currently in residence in the White House.
But I blame government. ALL of it. Between inflation, costly inefficient government programs and the cost of education requiring student loans. And Fabian socialists forging dishistory and uneducated youth since the early 1900’s. They work glacially.
It’s who I am.
h/t Theo Spark
Is this a valid comparison?
from Free North Carolina (in part)
Bronze Star and Purple Heart recipient Captain Humayun Khan died heroically. But his exceptional courage in Iraq and his Muslim father’s post-Democratic convention histrionics on TV do not erase the security threat posed by killer warriors of Allah infiltrating our troops.
Don’t take my word for it. Ask all the forgotten Gold Star moms and dads who have lost their children because politically correct pushovers at the Pentagon looked the other way at the Muslim military menace.
Don’t take my word for it. Just re-read the ignored warnings issued by Muslim soldier Nidal Hasan, the vengeful mass murderer who gunned down 13 service members—including a pregnant private first class who lost her life and her child—and wounded more than 30 others at Fort Hood in 2009.
More @ V DARE
Let me see. Not only are we not vetting Muslim immigrants into the United States, but we are looking the other way in the name of political correctness in our military – to their detriment!
Isn’t giving aid and comfort to our enemies defined as something heinous? I can’t remember…
As reminded to us by Tamara
“We have a lot of people outside our house, yelling and shouting profanities,” he said. “I yelled at them, ‘Please leave the premises.’ They were showing a firearm, so I fired a warning shot and, uh, we got somebody that got hit.”
“Someone was shot?” the operator asked.
“Well, I don’t know if they were shot or not, ma’am,” he told her. “I fired my warning shot like I’m supposed to by law. They do have firearms, and I’m trying to protect myself and my family.”
This dude messed up by the numbers, killed a man, and wrecked his life and his family’s life, in addition to those of his victim and his victim’s family, all because he was stupid and believed a lot of the sort of BS self-defense advice you pick up from well-meaning ignorant morons in gun stores and on the internet.
Folks, self defense with a firearm is no joke. This is life and death stuff right here; it literally does not get more serious than that. With great power comes great accountability.
I think it was Jeff Cooper who said warning shots were tactically unsound. First, they alerted the bad guys as to your exact location. Second, they wasted a possibly valuable round of ammunition. He recommended generally against them, but if one absolutely had to, put one into a solid backstop or an advancing assailant. THAT should get their attention!
My initial CCW instructor taught us to remember every round sent downrange is a potential million-dollar lawsuit.
REMEMBER those Four Rules (see sidebar)
(Guffaw in AZ does not dispense legal advice. Find your own lawyer, and get training and liability insurance!)
(Here we are, revisiting a common theme in this blog. It’s as if they are not listening!)
I was fully prepared (okay, 85% prepared) to post last night for today, as this morning I was to be occupied during my blogging time-frame. Another medical procedure. Sigh.
Another endoscopy. A camera-down-the-throat (and biopsy) to see the ‘progress’ of my esophageal erosion due to chronic acid reflux. Which might lead to cancer and/or surgery.
Otherwise, I probably wouldn’t be doing it!
This was set-up by my primary physician, as she saw I was suffering from this condition, and wanted to see the progression of the disease.
SO…I was referred to a specialist who saw me six weeks ago, and scheduled this procedure. One day, outpatient, a few hours. Roomie J will be driving, as I will be rendered unconscious by propofol (the Michael Jackson drug) for the procedure.
Last time I had this done, the clinic-de-jour called me (and sent me a letter) a month in advance to ask me questions about medical power-of-attorney, organ donation, that kind of icky stuff. And advised me there would be an intake charge. Up front.
I was grateful for the heads-up, as being on disability I don’t have lot’s of spare cash lying around for unexpected expenses. I still wasn’t thrilled at the charge, of course.
But this time, the different facility (I changed doctors as the previous guy seemed to want to get as much Medicare money out of me as possible) had not called or sent a letter. I assumed (NEVER do that – D. Brown) that if there were a charge, they would bill me.
They called me yesterday afternoon at 1630 hours (I was to be at the hospital at 0700 this morning) and advised me there would be a charge of over one hundred dollars! They would not bill me, and if I didn’t have the funds, I would have to reschedule!
Of course, I don’t have the money. And the caller had NO IDEA why I was upset, that this was in the very least an inconvenience and poor customer service!
THEN, she hung-up on me!
But not before telling me to reschedule I had to call my specialist’s office – THEY couldn’t do that! At 1630 in the afternoon.
(I did rant, but used no foul language.)
Fortunately, my doctor’s office was still open.
SO…it’s been rescheduled for August 16.
PS – While I was writing this, the hospital called to see where I was. I advised them of yesterday’s conversation and the rescheduling. Must I do everything?
Some Yale University students are demanding changes to the English Department curriculum: specifically, they don’t think it should feature so many English poets who were straight, white, wealthy, and male.
“It is your responsibility as educators to listen to student voices,” the students wrote in a petition to the faculty. “We have spoken. We are speaking. Pay attention.”
The “Major English Poets” sequence, a mandatory two-course commitment for English majors, is particularly problematic, according to the students. These classes cover Geoffrey Chaucer, Edmund Spenser, William Shakespeare, John Donne, John Milton, Alexander Pope, William Wordsworth, and T.S. Eliot. It’s not the most diverse line up, to be sure, but it’s the one that best reflects history the way it actually happened. Inarguably, these are the most influential poets in the English language.
But students think this sequence “creates a culture that is hostile to students of color.”
I don’t know where to begin on this. Seriously.
Let’s ask the Incas, or the Aztecs or the Sioux. Or the Australian aboriginal peoples. Or the Bantu.
Did predominantly White cultures subjugate, control and kill these people?* Yes. Have we spent the last one hundred + years or more trying to preserve primitive cultures, history, culture, etc. as a direct reaction to what happened before? Of course.
Is that enough? Maybe not.
But, eliminating Whiteness is not an answer. Show us the great Bantu poets and we will include them in poetry curricula!
Oh! Don’t forget to petition the Romans about the Etruscans or the Carthaginians.
Sorry, can’t do that – no one is left…
Perhaps they should consider attending a university in Zimbabwe?
*Did persons of the same color ALSO subjugate, control and kill these people? Yep.
© Office of the Inspector General
Senator Wyden Puts A Hold On Intelligence Authorization Bill To Block FBI Warrantless Surveillance
from the there-goes-that-wyden-guy-again dept
As we’ve discussed, some surveillance/law enforcement hawks have tried to rush through a law to expand the power of national security letters (NSLs) to paper over the long standing abuse of NSLs, by saying that they can use those documents (which have basically no oversight and don’t require a warrant) to collect a ton of private info, including email info and web browsing histories. The rushed vote on this — stupidly citing the Orlando attacks, despite the fact it would have done nothing to stop that — failed but just barely. Basically, if Senator Dianne Feinstein were able to attend the vote, it likely would have passed. The support for it was one vote shy, and then Sen. Mitch McConnell changed his vote for procedural reasons to be able to bring it back for a quick follow up vote.
Now, as Congress rushes towards that vote, Senator Ron Wyden stepped up today to use his power as a Senator to put a hold on the entire Intelligence Authorization bill. He gave a short floor speech explaining his reasons.
I certainly appreciate the FBI’s interest in obtaining records about potential suspects quickly. But Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judges are very capable of reviewing and approving requests for court orders in a timely fashion. And section 102 of the recently-passed USA FREEDOM Act gives the FBI new authority to obtain records immediately in emergency situations, and then seek court review after the fact. I strongly supported the passage of that provision, which I first proposed in 2013. By contrast, I do not believe it is appropriate to give the government broad new surveillance authorities just because FBI officials do not like doing paperwork. If the FBI’s own process for requesting court orders is too slow, then the appropriate solution is bureaucratic reforms, not a major expansion of government surveillance authorities.
The fact of the matter is that ‘electronic communication transaction records’ can reveal a great deal of personal information about individual Americans. If government officials know that an individual routinely emails a mental health professional, or sends texts to a substance abuse support group, or visits a particular dating website, or the website of a particular political group, then the government knows a lot about that individual. Our Founding Fathers rightly argued that such intrusive searches should be approved by independent judges.
It is worth noting that President George W. Bush’s administration reached the same conclusion. In November 2008, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel advised the FBI that National Security Letters could only be used to obtain certain types of records, and this list did not include electronic communication transaction records. The FBI has unfortunately not adhered to this guidance, and has at times continued to issue National Security Letters for electronic communications records. A number of companies that have received these overly broad National Security Letters have rightly challenged them as improper. Broadening the National Security Letter law to include electronic communication transaction records would be a significant expansion of the FBI’s statutory authority.
And unfortunately, the FBI’s track record with its existing National Security Letter authorities includes a substantial amount of abuse and misuse. These problems have been extensively documented in reports by the Justice Department Inspector General from 2007, 2008, 2010 and 2014. As one of these reports noted, “the FBI [has] used NSLs in violation of applicable statutes, Attorney General guidelines, and internal FBI policies.” No one in the Senate should be surprised by this pattern of abuse and misuse, because this is unfortunately what happens when federal agencies are given broad surveillance powers with no judicial oversight. In my judgment, it would be reckless to expand this particular surveillance authority when the FBI has so frequently failed to use its existing authorities responsibly.
Of course, to some extent, this is little more than show. It’s pretty clear that McConnell has the votes to get this passed, which is why Wyden has now taken the dramatic step of putting a hold on the bill. But the 60 votes here are usually what is necessary to break a hold (which remains a widely used, but informal, Senate rule). So in the end this won’t mean much, but we’ve been here before again and again and again. And by now it should be clear: When Ron Wyden says that the government is abusing laws to spy on Americans, he’s not lying. We shouldn’t then paper over that abuse and give the FBI or the NSA or anyone else greater powers to spy on Americans. Because they use that power and they don’t tend to use it wisely and judiciously.
Can anyone explain, seriously, why the emergency powers that allow the FBI to do the search in an emergency and then get the warrant after are somehow too problematic? Or why the FBI can’t go and get a warrant at all? It’s a petty quick process for them these days. This whole effort seems designed solely to wipe out what little oversight there is of the FBI and its use of national security letters. (Techdirt.com)
AND, how much coverage of this was out there in the “press” (again, in air quotes)?
More importantly, why doesn’t the American Public care?