'The true Soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because He loves what is behind him.' -G. K. Chesterton
Showing posts with label police. Show all posts
Showing posts with label police. Show all posts

15 December 2014

A Response to Howard Tayler of Schlock Mercenary

I'm breaking my long silence in order to respond to this from Howard Tayler, the creator of Schlock Mercenary, an online web comic. It's entitled Law Enforcement, Violence and Racial Bias. I find it astoundingly one sided and profoundly ignorant. Now, I have read, supported and respected Mister Taylor for many, many years. Even sent him money. I've linked Schlock Mercenary on my blogroll for a long time. Yeah, that's over. It pains me to even say this but I suspect Mister Tayler may be a Social Justice Warrior. Maybe yes maybe no. Only time will tell I suppose. For me I'm going to assume the worst and act accordingly. You will note that he seems to have never taken comments on the post. A typical SJW tactic but I'm sure it's just a coincidence.

Some quick housekeeping. If you want to know my bonafides please peruse my archives under the tag Police. You'll see my writings on a variety of topics, including the Use of Force and Hysterical Incompetence. I have examined and talked about specific incidents and officers, sometimes in great and quite painful detail. I have stories and at least anecdotal evidence for my views. I try very hard to present my opinions in a logical manner, backed up by what I consider best evidence. I am hardly the smartest guy out there, indeed I suspect Mister Tayler is considerably smarter than I but, in my humble opinion, in that screed he exposes his ignorance of the subject matter on which he opines. On the other hand, based on my education and experience, I am at least a passable a subject matter expert on modern policing in America and on the use of force by those same police officers.

 In places I will go through Mister Tayler's post by paragraph, otherwise I'm going to simply write a general response and do my best to cover all the points he brought up. There's virtually zero chance he'll ever read this but on the off chance that a member of the Fascist Ilk should ooze by and notify him of my sacrilege I'm going to address most of this directly to Mister Tayler himself. Mister Tayler's words will appear in Italics. Like wise quotes from sources. All the rest are mine.

I read your post Mister Tayler and thought I'd respond and make a point or two. Since you never turned on the comments for your post I'm just going to have to do it here. I'm going to ask you a question first. You'll probably see it several times in the course of this post.

What have you done or are doing, besides writing that somewhat less than helpful screed, to address the issues you raised? If the answer is anything less than involvement in your local, state and perhaps even national politics and law enforcement so as to have a positive impact on police/race/public relations then I submit that you are part of the problem.

Policing does not take place in a vacuum. Contrary to what seems to be the current  popular opinion, the police do not take policy matters into their own hands or if they do then you do indeed have a broken department. Police departments (or Sheriff, Constable, what have you) operate under civilian control and oversight. Yes, the officers are themselves civilians but that's semantics. It's simply easier to refer to cops and civilians. And yes, I am very familiar with Sir Robert Peel. The politicians either directly set departmental policy or indirectly do so by hiring the Chief Officer and the command staff. In some cases (Sheriffs for example) they are directly elected by the populace. As you can see in either case there is an opportunity to exercise some form of control by the voters at the very least. Are you exercising what control and influence you have? Been to any city council meetings lately? Ever met your Police Chief? Officers? Does your department have a Citizen's Academy? Ride Along program? Volunteer Program? What does your local elected representative know about how the department works and what it's policies and procedures are? What have you done to address the issues you seem to be trying to call attention to? Does your department follow Community Policing guidelines? What is the Use of Force policy for your department and how is it taught? How much continuing professional training do your officers get and how is it mandated? If they do any or all of the above are you interacting with your officers and keeping a watchful eye on your reps? If not, why not?

But first. Let's take a quick peek at the FBI's annual Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted (LEOKA) report for 2013. 
Here's a couple of snippets that tend to support the point I'm about to make;
For rookie and veteran officers going through LEOKA’s Officer Safety Awareness Training, it’s these first-hand accounts that bring the job’s dangers to the fore. “It’s a wake-up call for officers in the class to see and listen to an interview with an offender who has killed a police officer,” said McAllister, who conducts some of the interviews in addition to teaching the eight-hour seminars.
And
 “It makes a huge impact on these guys,” said Lt. Herb Rosenbaum, of the Trussville Police Department near Birmingham, Alabama. “When we’re out on the road, we all have a tendency to fall into a routine. You’ve made a thousand traffic stops and you’ve never been challenged. This brings it back to the forefront.

Officer Safety training is part of every police training curriculum I am aware of. If you know differently please do let me know. I have said on many occasions (and written about if you're still unconvinced to comb through my archives) that modern Officer Safety Training must be revised with more emphasis on common sense solutions to violent encounters and less emphasis on end of the world I'm about to be killed horror stories. But that doesn't mean that officer safety can be done away with and the officer's life ignored.

I used to tell my officers that it was important to remember that in each and every call they went to there was at least one gun present; theirs. A lot of cops are killed every year with their own weapons. Maybe that's something we should remember as well? Like the grand Jury in Ferguson did? Because it's pretty clear that Mister Brown tried to take Officer Wilson's weapon which turned a serious and potentially violent encounter into a lethal force encounter. That was Mister Brown's choice not Officer Wilson's.

Ok. Now take a read through this, "Do Policed Discriminate? Evidence from Multiple-Offender crimes" by Paul Heaton from RAND and Charles Loeffler from Harvard University. From the Abstract;
A large body of prior research examines whether differential arrest rates of minorities reflect disproportionate minority involvement in crime or institutional bias that targets enforcement towards minorities. This research has been limited by difficulties in measuring the extent to which minority offending differs from offending in general. In this paper we exploit the fact that some crimes are committed by groups of both Black and White offenders to estimate the extent to which minority offenders face differential probabilities of arrest. Our research design permits us to control for all observable and unobservable circumstances associated with each offense for this subpopulation. We find that Black offenders are 3% more likely to be arrested than their White counterparts. Although this difference suggests institutional bias against minorities, such bias is insufficient to explain the large racial arrest disparity.(emphasis mine)

Well that's hardly a ringing indictment against institutional racism in modern American policing now is it? Perhaps your training and education in the subject matter causes you to differ? Though I noted that your post was disappointingly thin on detail, facts or references. Not exactly pride inspiring but I'm betting 3% is probably pretty close to the margin of error. What was it you said? Oh yeah.
"I am afraid that our police officers are currently embedded in a culture where a number of factors, including racism, increase the likelihood that they will use lethal force against unarmed black males."
 Maybe not so much.

Now I've met a few DAs I liked. Kinda. But the fact is that most cops don't really like them and they don't really like us. We had a knock down drag out with our local DA when they charged a suspect who broke an officer's leg in a drunken brawl with an Infraction. That's like a traffic ticket. There isn't a DA alive who wouldn't sell their first born for a chance to prosecute an officer for some form of corruption or wrong doing. Frankly, I had a much better relationship with defense attorneys than any DA I ever met. So no, the cops and DAs do not love each other. And oh, in case you missed it, a lot of these cases are going to Grand Juries who are made up of the local citizenry. Quick, make a racist or demeaning comment about them. Here's a link to a paper on Vicarious Liability. If you're going to persist in promulgating the myth that officers and jurisdictions face no peril for the officer's actions perhaps a little light reading is in order.

Yes, in a lot of jurisdictions it's tough to fire a cop. That's both good and bad. If the agency is competent in HR matters they are identifying the problem candidates/officers early enough in the process to weed them out. Most have a probationary period where an officer can be fired for essentially no reason at all. For those who make it through their probationary period unfired it's harder but hardly impossible. It does take persistence and competence though. The first place to look is your elected rep for your fire lighting needs. There is a flip side though. Whistle-blowers. Take a look at the ATF for all you need to know about how they are treated. Employment rights, like California's Peace Officer's Bill of Rights are written specifically to ensure fair treatment of officers by administrations that are more concerned with empire building and less concerned with public protection. Those laws came about precisely because so many agencies were trying to rid themselves of 'meddling priests'. Here's a quick story for you. We had a policy concerning insubordination that basically allowed the Chief to call most anything he didn't like insubordination. It was section 1.06. A few of us got so many for simply saying "No, I won't do that because it's unconstitutional" that we actually started a tongue in cheek club called the 106 Club. We had t-shirts and everything. It said 106 Club. Bad dog, no biscuit. Yep, I was one of them and if not for the protections provided by the POBR I'd have been fired and had no chance to influence my department toward constantly evaluating every situation for it's Constitutionality. It's competence we want out of our elected leaders not blanket power. Please remember that.

I do happen to agree with you about a few things. Officer Involved Shooting reporting is atrocious and uneven and needs to be addressed. I'm betting Officer Involved Shootings aren't under reported in the media though. Of course they pick and choose based on their own biases. Now where have I seen something like that recently? Hmmm. And I also agree that training on use of force is spotty and needs to be a lot better. Heck, I think all police training should be constantly reviewed and updated. There is essentially no such thing as an over trained officer.

And listen. You are hardly an expert on community/police relations so please forgive me if I take your 'diagnosis' for what it's worth (diddly) and seek my answers elsewhere. Arrogance and narcissism do not a subject matter expert make.

I have to present this one in it's entirety here. For context if nothing else.
"I said “factors.” Racism is the big one, but the word “racism” is a heavily overburdened term. It has baggage. When I use it, I’m not suggesting that cops are consciously racist. I’m saying that there is an unconscious bias in place, and it centers upon skin color. I’ve found racism and other biases in my own work, and they’re hard to root out. So when I say “racism” it’s not an accusation. It’s a diagnosis."
Get help. If you're a racist then shame on you. May I suggest you work out your problems on your own? Kindly resist painting the rest of us with your broad, self portrait brush. Especially the half million or so police officers simply trying to do the most difficult job in America as best they can. Hey, here's someone who agrees with me!

And here we come to the true crux of your argument. Victimhood and your attempt to don that cloak onto your own shoulders.
If I were black, I’d be outraged, and terrified, and I would feel helpless to change the system.

I’m white, and frankly, I’m a lot more afraid of police officers than I used to be. I’m outraged, and terrified, and I feel helpless to change the system.
First off you're not black so please check your white privilege and stop it with the SJW White Knighting. Second. You may very well be so delicate that you're feeling outraged and terrified but if you are saying you're helpless to effect change you're either stupid or disingenuous. Buck up Skippy and give your local elected representative a call and talk things over. Maybe take in a council meeting. You're not helpless you just want to be a victim. You have enormous potential influence. If you choose not to use it for the good of society as you envision it that's entirely on you.

 I’m also grieving. I hurt for those who have lost loved ones. I identify with them. I have a daughter Michael Brown’s age. I have a son Tamir Rice’s age. My kids cosplay like Darrien Hunt did.  I’m a little older than Eric Garner, and like him I have asthma, and children. Some might say that it’s a good thing my family and I are white, but that shouldn’t have to be a good thing, and it hurts to know that some might say that.
Again with the inserting yourself into a discussion that is not about you. How about trying for a little less emotional response? No? Too hard?
Ok, I'm going to go through this carefully so please pay attention.
Michael Brown tried to kill Officer Darren Wilson. In my opinion Officer Wilson was either stupid or really poorly trained to put himself in the position that he did but once things went to a struggle for his gun and shots were fired it was Katy bar the door. A suspect who will try and kill an officer is one who will try and kill anyone. Bad approach, justified shoot. Cause for retraining (and maybe the command staff/Chief's jobs) but not for  prosecution. The Grand jury thought so as well. Didn't you hear or do you just not care what the local citizens thought?

Darien Hunt had a sword. Doesn't matter a whit whether or not it was a display sword or dull or whatever. It was a deadly weapon. Period. If they'd let him go and he'd hurt or killed someone else it would have been their fault. Once the officer's made that initial contact they were duty bound to see it through to the end. Hunt ran and according to the officers turned on them with the sword.

Tamir Rice is the real tragedy here. I have to wonder where his parents were and I have serious doubts about the involved officer. 

Eric Garner. Yeah, I hate that one too but, again, once the decision to arrest was made and he resisted they were legally allowed to use enough force to overcome that resistance. Constitutional law, legally entitled to be where they were, reasonable initial contact. If he'd gone with the officers Mister Garner would likely be alive today. And here's another place where you can have an impact. Make your case for outlawing the Carotid Restraint. Hell, I'll help you! And how about some vitriol where it belongs? That law against tobacco was made by Mayor Bloomberg, as vile a liberal SJW as has ever existed. Those officers weren't enforcing a made up statute. It was enacted into law by elected officials put into office by people like you. Or, being totally fair, us. Want officers to exercise discretion on what laws they enforce or how they enforce them? Fine, but kindly refrain from complaints when some decide that laws against activity you find abhorrent shouldn't be enforced or that those violating such should be treated with kid gloves instead of handcuffs. My view is that officers should be absolutely neutral and leave the decision on what should be outlawed to their elected supervisors. Which brings up another round of mirror looking from all of us (including you) who allow such nuisance laws to be on the books in the first place.

In three of the four cases you cited it is clear to me that if the decedent had complied with the officer's orders and submitted/obeyed he'd be alive to sue those officers at this very minute (inherent or incipient medical conditions notwithstanding). The problem with most of these (Tamir Rice being the exception) is you didn't get the result you wanted and to hell with what the evidence and facts said. Here's another clue for ya. The local Grand Juries and/or DA determined that the officers acted within the scope of the law. What, those most involved and with a stake in the outcome get no say at all? If you really want to end police shootings may I suggest you simply disarm the police completely? Or a blanket legal decision by the Supreme Court that all police shootings are unjustified. Because anything short of that is wishful thinking. No police guns = no police shootings. Blanket prosecutions = no police shootings because there won't be any cops left. Win win, right? The clear lesson is do what the nice officer asks and everything will work itself out in the end. That's what civil courts are for you know.

I have friends, some of them quite close, who are police officers. I hold them in high regard. They tackle a demanding, dangerous job with an attitude of selflessness that I admire and aspire to. One of those friends once told me that he’d rather take a punch than throw one, and would prefer to take a bullet than take a life. In his work, he daily seeks to defuse situations so that they do not come down to kill-or-be-killed decisions. His approach demands a skill set that looks like a mash-up of dual PhDs in sociology and psychology along with being a champion of speed chess.
Yes. And no. I agree with everything except the punch and bullet and those are kinda biggies. Remember what I said about a gun being at every scene with an officer present? What your friend is saying is that he'd rather be knocked out and allow a felon to possess his weapon to unknowable ends than defend himself and the public he swore his oath to. Same with taking a bullet. Better to leave the clean up to someone else rather than take his responsibilities seriously. It's called Moral Cowardice. What did Heinlein say about this? "Your life isn't yours to throw away in a vain grab at glory nor it it yours to keep should the situation call for you to spend it." A good officer is one who can recognize the difference when faced with that call not one who baldly announces his intention to abandon his duty and rely on his betters to unscrew his mess. Do your friend and the rest of us a favor. Convince him to seek out a profession better suited to his personality and moral compass. And this is coming from a man who once saved a black man's life by choosing to take him on hand to hand while he was trying to draw a pistol. Yeah, there wasn't any media attention paid to that one. I wonder why. Come to think of it, you didn't mention it either. Didn't know? Neither did anyone else outside the officers I worked with. If you're the least bit intellectually honest you will ponder on that for a bit.

As for the rest, I agree. An officer is one who must keep his or her head in each and every situation they may face. Must. When all is chaos and madness the one person we rely upon keep calm and bring about order and peace is the beat cop. All too often one of us fails but that's because our police forces are made up of fallible humans. We ask them to be perfect but we don't really expect it because we know that's impossible. A good officer is one who constantly strives for that perfection. The solution is to help them and help our agencies to identify good candidates not to roundly scourge all for actions we don't like.

(NOTE: Comments are off, and will remain so. This is a position piece, not an invitation to have a discussion. I’ve written my thoughts, and if they inspire you to write yours, there are lots of better places for you to do so.)
How noble and problem solving of you. A position piece yet. Color me suitably impressed.

So, I'm going to ask of you again. What have you done or are doing to resolve the issues you raised? What standards are your very own local officers trained to? What do they think of their departmental policies concerning their actions in relation to the general public and how that impacts how they're viewed by those they police? What is your local elected representative's views on policing and how can you, working together, ensure reasonable, lawful and effective policing?

All of that to say this.

We don't get the policing we deserve, we get the policing we allow. That may be good. It may be indifferent. It may be bad. But it is a direct result of our actions or, more likely, inaction. I'm going to give you three words I hope you will remember and consider.
Hiring
Training
Retention
All three are areas where many of our police departments and municipalities are failing or are blatantly incompetent. Have a direct impact on any of those three areas and you can change law enforcement across the country. Don't speak to me of helplessness, speak to me of empowerment because I just gave you the ammunition you need for a revolution. I happen to agree that there are an awful lot of areas where law enforcement is failing. Unlike you, I am addressing those things and making an impact where and when I can. Not to mention the 24 years I spent on the inside.

 You are stoking the flames of racial hatred and divide with your nasty little poison post against American policing. Do us all a favor and get yourself both better informed and more involved. Otherwise you're nothing more than just another poo flinging monkey and, Great Ghu, we have enough of those.

Goodbye Mister Tayler. Believe it or not this whole things troubles me greatly and it pains me to do this. Thank you for providing me with entertainment for so many years. I have been a smart ass and at times insulting but I am passionate about this, the profession I devoted my working life (and a good bit of my body) to. I hold no ill will against you. I wish you well in your future endeavors and leave you with this offer. If you should choose to take me up on my challenge to you to get more involved you have only to ask and I will offer you whatever assistance or advice I can provide. All I ask is that you do so with a pure heart and an open mind. And if you remain unconvinced perhaps you will give me the chance to change your mind.

In any case fare well.

Six

18 March 2014

From The Police Story Files

This story is true. Names have been changed to protect the terminally stupid.

So I'm working swings one fine evening, perusing the streets for drunks at just south of 2 AM. I espied an intrepid motorist turn west and head up an eastbound only street. Being a fine example of police officerhood and having extraordinary powers of observation I recognized that this was unusual behavior and that it possibly required further investigation. Cutting down a parallel street I came out behind our antagonist and hit the overhead lights.

Yep, he ran. Shocking I know.

Now this street is arrow straight but ends in a T intersection. Beyond the T is a small parking lot and the shores of Lake El Estero (Literally 'Lake of Questionable Decision Making'). Mister Brilliant Motorist (aka Driver De Intoxicanto or DDI in Six parlance) speeds up and tries to flee my awesomely powerful police cruiser (complete with a speed of light Motorola) in his somewhat ratty Toyota 'Youhavegottobekiddingme' mini pickup powered by what I later learned was an elderly squirrel with a bad cough. Well, not exactly his pickup but more on that later.

Over the course of several blocks DDI manages to coax the plywood, chewing gum and blind faith constructed alleged pickup to as fast as 12 and a half miles per hour in his Bergermeister Beer (Official Motto: Horse Piss Free Since Last Week. We Swear) fueled attempt at vehicular freedom. Problem is traveling at the speed of ooze seemed to have been way too high for him to convince the rubber bands serving as the steering system on the conveyance to turn either left or right. At one point I saw him put his feet on the ground through the floorboard, looking for all the world like a drunken Fred Flintstone, in an attempt at some sort of braking maneuver but, alas, it was to no avail. Across the parking lot he went, leaving a trail of smoking tennis shoe rubber and desperation behind him before going off the bank and into the aforementioned lake.

Have I mentioned that it was a somewhat cool night? Well, it was. Not Global Warming cold but definitely on the chilly side. Plus, the water in that lake has never seen the sunny side of 50 degrees in it's entire existence being taken as it is directly from the frigid waters of the adjacent Monterey Bay (Official Motto: Happily Disappearing Swimmers Testicles Since 1764).

I pulled in behind DDIs launch point, got out and sauntered over (I stopped moseying after the Great Motorcycle Squid Slime Debacle of 1997). I managed to fish out the squirrel with a stick. I didn't detain him as I heard him muttering under his breath something about jamming 'the whole bag of peanuts' up someone's ass. I tended to infer that meant that he was unaware of the actions of his pilot and was just an innocent bystander in the whole sordid affair. Plus it sounded quite painful and I was hoping I'd get to watch.

So. You'd think that by this point our miscreant would have had the time to orient himself and doggie paddle back to shore. Or wade. I mean the depth of that lake is measured in inches, not feet. But no. He was doing his best impression of an Olympic swimmer who has never actually seen water before and has an IQ of 20 and a BA of 2.0.

Me: "So. You gonna come out?"
DDI: MFPJKLGHORBG!!
Me: "You're gonna freeze to death in there and the chances of me going in after you are about that same as you enjoying what that squirrel is going to do to you later."
DDI: TRGBDSUOFGTRW!!
Me: "Ok then."

DDI then attempted to swim away, toward the far side of the lake. And by swim I mean a kind of drunken, retarded flailing about that involved much splashing if not any actual movement through the water. Think angry 3 legged cat in a muddy bathtub full of really cold water. At some point, through his Mad Dog 20/20 obscured vision, he must have noticed the other officers positioned strategically about the periphery of the lake. Finally, after about 5 minutes of denial and synchronized hypothermia, he gave up. He stood, stumbled to the bank and flopped out gasping and shivering. He was, of course, naked. To this day I have no earthly idea where his clothes went. If my experience is any indicator there's some kind of alien clothing transporter powered by cheap booze and activated by the screaming death of brain cells. If I live to be a thousand I will never understand the public nudity proclivities of the severely inebriated. I cuffed him, cast a wary eye out for a squirrel with a paper bag and wrapped him in the yellow emergency blanket from my trunk. The one that oilynakedguyrunningdownthestreet gave me back after I dropped him off at home a few nights previously. Yeah, that blanket. Seemed only fitting somehow. Passing it on to the next drunken nudist in line as it were.

The pickup was removed by a tow truck and as the cardboard that made up the bulk of the thing seemed to have melted off in the frigid waters it was pretty much a total write off.

As I was introducing DDI to the rear seat of my car, and explaining how his troubles were in fact just beginning, I couldn't help myself. I had to ask him why. He wouldn't respond but he did drop me one nugget of interesting information. It seems DDI was a soldier stationed at the Defense Language Institute and he had 'borrowed' his roommates car for a night of merry making, revelry and unscheduled skinny dipping. His roommate who was also a soldier. A soldier who had just completed his language training in Urdu and was currently at the Army's Marksmanship Training Unit undergoing....wait for it....

Sniper School.

"He's gonna kill me" seemed to be the predominant sentiment. I could only agree. 

I advised him to plead immediately, go AWOL, change his name and appearance and take up regular and heavy prayer. I never got subpoenaed for a trial so I gotta assume he took my advice. Either that or his roommate caught up to him. Or the squirrel.

I'd have chosen the roommate. That squirrel was pissed!
Six


05 August 2013

Why I Just Cancelled My Membership In PORAC

 Rant Warning. About a 7 on the scale. Disgust but limited bad words.

PORAC is the Peace Officer's Research Association of California. It's basically a lobbying and legal defense organization that has branched out to include such things as retired issues, medic care coverage, etc. In those capacities it's fine. I haven't had to utilize any of their services but I know others who have and they have done good work championing cops and the work we do. But.

I have noticed over the last few years an increasing emphasis on their lobbying effort and political activism, including but not limited to endorsing candidates and allowing promoting 'causes'. It's a couple of those included in their latest magazine offering that has caused me to speak my mind and cancel my membership.

Here's a link to their site and the E version of the magazine I get delivered once a month. This is from the August issue.Please RTWT.

Let's start with an article by Paul Villa, the Chief Lobbyist/Government Relations  for the Reno Police Protective Association for PORAN (which is an associate member with PORAC) entitled Strange Bedfellows. It's on page 16 of the magazine. Flip through and give it a quick read. I'm not allowed to reproduce any articles in part or whole so I will have to paraphrase but I encourage you to give that a good read. I think I'm Ok with giving you the title to the article strictly for the purposes of clarity.

In that article he goes to some length to acknowledge that the majority of cops are in fact conservative, of one stripe or another. He went so far as to mention a PoliceOne.com survey that found that found a majority of street officers were opposed to gun control. Here's a link to that survey. He also acknowledges that puts us at odds with mainstream democratic/liberal policies. Ok, fine so far and accurate. He then makes the point that they (he says us but I don't count myself as among his supporters) will take the opposite tack and appeal to Democrats when wages and benefits are under scrutiny. He refers to Republicans in a derogatory manner in regards to fiscal policy. Note the language in that paragraph where the PoliceOne poll is mentioned and the differing way he refers to Dems and Reps. He whines about being questioned as to why they never endorse any Republicans. And here's the payoff.

Mister Villa then goes on, in the very next paragraph, to aver that those of us in the police business hold our pay and benefits above everything else, including the Second Amendment. And that is why they routinely endorse big D candidates in spite of acknowledging that those very same politicians often make the job of policing harder. He goes on to make the argument that he's really bi-partisan and just wants to find a reasonable solution to modern policing but in my mind he has already admitted that he's sold his soul for twenty pieces of silver. In the next to last paragraph he drives that point home when he again alleges that fiscal issues take precedence over other matters when it comes to political endorsements. Essentially he's saying that fiscal conservatives need not apply.

Mister Villa is of course wrong and if he's not then may The Good Lord preserve us all. My priority, both on the job and in my evaluation of political candidates, was police work first with financial considerations taking a distant second place. Most of the cops I know felt the same. We fought for our contracts hard but win or lose, the job was the most important thing in our professional lives. It's precisely the kind of thinking espoused by Mister Villa that got us into this mess in the first place. Me first and to hell with everyone else is anathema to all law enforcement professionals hold dear and to see such printed in the pages of a magazine dedicated to those same men and women makes my blood boil. If it's only about the paycheck it's time to find another line of work and if you believe it's your primary responsibility as a lobbyist for cops to deliver money and only money then you are doing your employers and the general public a huge disservice. Mister Villa, go sell life insurance you venomous, mealy mouthed, boot licker. Make endorsements based on the public and law enforcement good and let the chips fall where they may. Your cops will both understand and support such efforts. Making the job easier and the public safer is job number one and don't you ever forget it. And you cops in Reno (and all of Nevada for that matter) better take a long, hard look at your Chief Lobbyist and start asking some hard questions lest you end up like your California brethren, living in a liberal wasteland. You're uncomfortably close right now if that little tidbit has escaped you.

But wait, we're not done yet. Let's skip ahead to page twenty shall we? There we find the article that caused me to throw my hard copy of the magazine across the room lest I be contaminated by it's mere touch. It's entitled Back to Basics: Another View by Dan Milchovich DPA, a retired Captain from Inglewood PD.

Again, I highly recommend you RTWT as it's a pretty nasty piece of work. It's clear from inference that Captain Milchovich is a card carrying low information voter of the first stripe. I'm going to take just  aminute here to refute some of his garbage.

1. You're arguing the wrong point which was that Congress and it's staffers were going to come under the auspices of ACA (aka Obamacare). That was the law but Obama has now 'fixed' that. Once again the political elite have found a way to insulate themselves from laws they expect the rest of us to follow. Funny how often that happens.

2. Wrong. See above. And if you're wondering how the ACA is going to affect insurance premiums wonder no more.

3. It's not  moot at all. If they have no skin in the game they have no incentive to find reasonable solutions. Here, read this and answer these questions. Where are all those SS contributions going and where will the money to pay off just the current obligations come from?

4. And? The problem here is that we have incentivized political life by making it all about the pay and benefits as opposed to it being, you know, about the public service. You and Mister Villa from PORAN appear to be cut from the same liberal political cloth. Considering a run for public office perhaps? Let's tie Congressional pay to the Average Yearly Income for Americans, kick politicians out of their retirement system and require them to live under all the rules they require us to abide by. Then we can both sit back and watch the exodus of those who are more concerned with accumulating wealth than doing the People's work and maybe we can get this ship righted again.

5. Again. And? Do you support an opt out provision for Social Security? If so then what's your point? If not then why not? How much exactly are you personally willing to sacrifice to ensure SS doesn't go bust?

6. Are you kidding me? Here, take a look at this and tell me how great that program is and how we should be funding it with taxpayer money.

7. Oh really? The real questions are how much is too much and who gets to decide that? I don't think I'm too comfortable leaving those decisions in the hands of people like you, Captain.

8. And here we go. Gun Control. This is an either/or proposition and damn you for posting your lunatic ravings under your former title, Captain. Either you support the Constitution and the Bill of Rights or you don't. If it's the former then sit down and shut up. You're just wrong. If it's the latter then you failed as a police officer and served under dishonorable terms. I think I know which side of the line you fall on in this debate and it disgusts me. And you end with this quote from Jefferson;

"An honest man can feel no pleasure in the exercise of power over his fellow citizens."

Do you understand how hypocritical you sound? You are arguing for the very thing Jefferson was warning against in a post espousing disarming Americans in violation of the second Amendment to the Bill of Rights. You're either disingenuous, stupid or a liar. Perhaps a nice combination of all of the above?

Bah. You make me ashamed to have ever worn the same uniform Captain. May my forefathers forgive me and my my children forget you were ever called an American.

So. I have sent off the following letter to PORAC in an e-mail;
A**** G*******
Membership
Retired

I just received my August issue of the PORAC magazine and I find that in the interest of maintaining my integrity and ethics I must resign from PORAC effective immediately.

I read with horror the articles from Paul Villa, entitled Strange Bedfellows and Dan Milchovich, entitled Back to Basics: Another View. In one the writer maintains that pay and benefits trumps all other considerations and in the other we are treated to a liberal screed full of nonsense and false information. Both are final straws for me.

I have witnessed the turn of PORAC, indeed much of law enforcement lobbying, from what's good for the general public to what's good for law enforcement bottom lines in general and Democratic politicians in particular. In both cases the missing element is the California Taxpayer. I cannot believe that the hardworking man and woman in California (and Nevada apparently) gets such short shrift from an organization ostensibly about protecting working cops so we can deliver a better service to those we are sworn to serve and protect. I am appalled.

Cancel my membership in RPORAC effectively this date; 8/5/2013. I will no longer support your organization in any way, shape or form. In fact I will speak out against your narrow minded and anti Tax Payer public policies at every turn. You will not turn my honorable service into something unethical and wrong. I will no longer be among PORACs supporters. Rather I will be a watchdog against your excesses and attempts to thwart public will through your political activism and pressure

Six
(I signed with my real name)

I'll let you all know how they responded though I anticipate it will be unsatisfying.



21 April 2013

A Passionate Defense Of The Boston Cops - An Open Thread And An Invitation

(Title change. Because I can)

I did a rant about the perceptions of police actions in Massachusetts recently. You can find it if you scroll down just a bit. I encourage you to read that post and especially the comments. One of those commenters, Jacksonian Grouch, has taken me to task, challenged me and invited me to hold a conversation.

"When you're ready to have an adult conversation about this, send up a post that has a bit more depth."

I'm not sure what he means by a bit more depth but Ok, I'll bite. Here's your chance to weigh in on this topic on the site of a retired police officer.

Please read my post and all the comments and then, if you would be so kind, comment here. I promise not to delete comments and will respond to everyone who leaves me one. It may take me a day but I will respond. Commenters are free to engage with each other. Civility is temporarily set aside for this thread so have at it and give me your best shot. Tell your friends, all are welcome. Be aware, I also have friends and some of them both agree with me and are frighteningly smart so you critics have been warned. Links are also welcome but no video or pictures in comments. I can't spare the bandwidth. You might also peruse my tags list, especially the one labeled police to get some background on both my experience and views on modern policing. You might be surprised.

This is a very big event in modern American history and it deserves to be bandied about, studied and understood. I'll make my own position clear. The Mass cops did a magnificent job in their handling of the bombing, the aftermath and the pursuit of and capture of both suspects. I include the FBI in that though it pains me to make that admission. As a police veteran I understand their actions, mindset and what they wanted to accomplish. More importantly I understand why they reacted the way they did and took the actions they did.

A cop's first priority is public safety. Period. Yes, we have made mistakes in the past and continue to do so on an anecdotal basis. Guilty as charged and I have addressed this very issue when I talked about Hysterical Incompetence among my brethren. But none of that changes the fact that preservation of life is number one among our lists of things to do. When an officer is in active pursuit of a felon (note that word please, felon) he has an awful wide lawful latitude on things he can do to apprehend that felon. That includes pursuing him into a private home absent either a search or arrest warrant. An officer may also enter a home in Exigent Circumstances absent a search warrant if conditions on the ground warrant it, mostly in the pursuit of that public safety I talked about earlier. We can also (I say we because it's easier for me to write that way though I am at present retired) give lawful orders at crime and catastrophe scenes that may result in arrest if they are disobeyed. Yes, I understand that those of a more libertarian bent both hate and dispute that idea but it's true nevertheless. We can bar entry to an area and likewise evacuate the same if conditions meet the criteria. What is that criteria? It depends. Natural disasters, fires (Google Oakland Hills fire), petroleum refinery explosions, crime scenes, etc. The list is long and really depends on the situation, the conditions, the resources available and the agency(s) responsible. Let's examine Watertown/Boston for a moment.

We have two bombs that go off at the Boston Marathon, killing three and wounding more than 150, many critically. Law enforcement commences a massive investigation and suspects are identified by face. Pictures are released hoping for a break. See, we understand that the general population is our best resource. Someone will almost certainly know or see our suspects and let us know where they are. In the meantime we gather evidence, begin to make our case and make plans in the event we get a break.

The suspects did what many felons do, they went to ground in the hopes that the pursuit would pass them by so they could either escape or strike again. Given what we now know about our felons, making plans for a continuation of the violence seems like it was probably a pretty good idea since that's what happened. Fast forward a few days. Now we have our felons shooting an officer and carjacking an innocent's car. That's as much as shouting to the police "Hey, here we are! Come and get us!" The police accept the challenge and the active pursuit of violent felonious criminals in the act begins anew. Shots are fired from the fleeing vehicle and bombs are tossed willy nilly across the landscape. And a large landscape it is. Miles of streets. The felons are finally cornered and a gunfight breaks out. Another officer is critically wounded. That makes two gunned down in a very short period of time in an active and ongoing crime. One felon is killed after officers exchange fire with the two brothers and still try to take him alive. The second felon flees.

Have I mentioned that these two brothers are bombers armed with both IEDs and firearms? We an dispense with the definition of terrorist of you like but that doesn't change what they were. Armed enemy combatants committing a continuing act of War against the United States of America and her citizens. But I digress.

The active crime scene is now huge. It runs from Cambridge to Watertown and all the surrounding environs , including the city of Boston. The cops don't know if the fleeing felon is wounded or not but they can't make that assumption. He could be anywhere his feet or a convenient vehicle can take him and the longer he's loose the further away he could be. They also know he's been armed so they can safely assume he's both still armed and ready to kill. Again. He has already done so 4 times and tried many, many more. This isn't a pursuit of Billy Bob who just hit his ex and ran off into the neighborhood. It's not sumdood who stuck up the corner Stop&Rob when it all went to hell and he had to flee. This is an active (there's that word again) combatant who has killed and shows every sign that he's eager for a confrontation so he can kill again. He's killed both police and civilians (Yes, I know we're also civilians. Work with me here) and shows no compunction about killing even children.

What do our police do in such a chaotic and dangerous environment? What would you do? Remember, this is an active crime scene with a mad bomber running loose who has already killed 4 and wounded scores. There are explosions and shots being fired. It's an ongoing massive and violent clusterfuck and it's now your job to unfuck it. Lives are at stake here. Many lives. You must act immediately and forcefully to bring this to a successful and hopefully casualty free conclusion but act you must. Right now not hours later or tomorrow or the day after. Right. Fucking. Now. That's your job and what your community both hired you for and expects of you. Don't be wishy washy here. Don't fidget and stall for time. It's here now, it's huge, people are fucking dying right fucking now for for God's sake do something and do it quick!!!! But Lord help you if you're wrong because then We Will Crucify You!!!!! Yep, that's what a scene like that looks like for those men and women on the sharp end. Something to bear in mind kids.

So act they did. They exercised their lawful authority to control an active crime/disaster scene. They temporarily locked down the scene, put on their big boy pants and went in after this psychopathic terrorist knowing that the next bomb might be going off in their faces. They threw up a cordon and stopped all forms of public transportation. Except for the taxis. Did you know that? Some taxis ran for those trapped in places other than their homes. Then they went door to door (but didn't do mass entries in spite of what some might say), house to house, street by street searching for our remaining murderous, violent, psychopathic felon. It took time but such a search usually does. They were pugnacious, courageous, swift and daring. They were also compassionate. They did all in their power to bring that scene to a quick and safe conclusion. Yes, in the end it took a citizen investigating a suspicious circumstance about his boat to capture the felon alive but that's not the cop's fault. I've seen escapees watch the cordon for holes and weaknesses to allow them to move from hiding spot to hiding spot. In the end it avails them nothing as was the case here. The casualties were limited to two cops and both of our felons. No innocents were injured in the course of these events (that I am aware of).

If you want to understand how the police actions were viewed then just watch the interviews with those affected and the videos of them community lining the streets to thank those brave officers for the job they did. Now contrast and compare the actions of those American police officers with the Indian cops response to Mumbai. Here's the money quote:

The two gunmen fled the scene and fired at pedestrians and police officers in the streets, killing eight police officers. The attackers passed a police station. Many of the outgunned police officers were afraid to confront the attackers, and instead switched off the lights and secured the gates.

Compare that to this:

After more than 200 rounds were traded over several minutes, some officers were out of ammunition and charged the brothers’ position with their police car. The vehicle was disabled by gunfire from the Mercedes. Kitzenberg said he saw one of the shooters toss a metallic object — possibly a pressure-cooker bomb similar to the ones used in the marathon attack — in the direction of the police line. It rolled a few yards before detonating harmlessly.

And make no mistake here, these two murderous brothers were after a Mumbai like outcome. They didn't get it because our police officers stood up and in effect told them 'Over our dead bodies' and then backed that up with their blood.

The funniest thing about all of the criticism I've seen is that I get the clear indication that the cops could not have been right no matter what they did. If their response had been wishy washy and someone had been killed, say in a hostage situation,  they'd have been as roundly criticized if not more so. The truth is that in some eyes the police cannot win. We understand that and the very best among us act in accordance with their education, training and moral/ethical compass and just do the right thing regardless of the naysayers. They're called Street Cops and I love them dearly for it.

And lest we forget, police administration, the courts and every personal injury and defense lawyer in the country. Admin will sell you out in a hot second for a general pass from the media for the organization, the courts will censure and even jail you depending on how big a hard on the local DA has for convicting a cop and  defense attorneys will literally salivate themselves to death if you made an error. What all that means is that every decision you made and every action you took will be scrutinized in the light of safety by those who were not there and wouldn't understand even if they were. And it'll go on for weeks, years, decades after the fact. That means that if those folks who were subject to the lockdown or any other action of those Mass cops doesn't like it redress is only as far as the IA desk and the nearest attorney's office.

So there you have it. My reaction to the actions of those officers in Mass and my simple explanation for why they did what they did. I am hardly the first or last authority in these matters so if I have made errors please point them out and if correct I will amend them. The floor is now yours. You may agree. You may disagree. I hope you will respond carefully and thoughtfully. I really hope you will not only offer criticism but also explain, given what the officers at the scene either knew or suspected, what you would have done differently and why. Because criticism without alternates is really just kvetching because you hate cops and they're always wrong. I really hope that's not what's going on here.

The very idea that those cops acted unconstitutionally and as jackbooted thugs worthy of the SS and the Gestapo really burns my ass. These are brave and worthy officers acting within the strictures of the law and in the best traditions of their service. You want to discuss? You got it. Let's discuss.
(After some cross talk with TinCanAssasin I have come to the conclusion that those words are unnecessarily confrontational and may serve to turn off some that may otherwise wish to engage in this discussion. My purpose here is to both defend good police work as I see it and to address the gulf that currently exists between citizen and cop by talking about how such work is done, why and the thinking that goes into critical events like this one, not to be seen as simply a by rote apologist for my profession. A gulf that seems to be growing almost daily. If we can have a frank and open discussion here then perhaps others can and will as well. The first step to understanding is the ability to relate and see another point of view.)

Six


19 April 2013

Some Folks Need To Get A Grip - A Rant

It's over. One is dead and the other is in custody. The cops were unbelievably magnificent. I know this is quick but if you'd indulge me for a minute I'd like to touch on what has rapidly become a sore spot for me concerning those very cops. It's really bugging me.

In perusing my blogroll and the various links and musings I have unfortunately run across more than a few who have decided that the events in Watertown, Boston and their environs constituted an occupation worthy of the Waffen SS. Yes, at least one site and it's commenters used those very words. Waffen SS. Just allow that to wash over you for a moment. Please excuse my word usage here but I'm seeing red at the moment. I really shouldn't be posting on this topic at this moment but I am a man of deep feelings and I refuse to pull punches when I think they're appropriate and necessary. The F word will be used liberally.

This wasn't a case of an armed robbery gone wrong and a suspect running loose. It wasn't a domestic violence gone bad with a significant other on the lam. It wasn't a car jacking. We used to have a name for those guys; Common Decent Criminals. Yes they are dangerous. Yes they often times killed including firing on those officers pursuing them and occasionally stray passersby. But they weren't terroristic animals who would place a bomb next to an 8 year old boy. They didn't routinely throw bombs out of a moving car willy nilly. They didn't desire to rack up the highest body count before they were finally killed in an orgy of evil, death and violence. They weren't actively working for the forces of evil arrayed against all we love and hold dear. They weren't the Enemies of America. These two scumbags were.

This was two guys who wanted to kill the maximum number of people possible and then die themselves. Want to remember what Chechen terrorists are capable of? Here ya go.  The police reacted swiftly and appropriately. Locking down the scene was the right thing to do. This wasn't a local cordon it was a desperate attempt to cut off, find and neutralize two of the most desperate and dangerous foes one can imagine. Errors weren't allowed. Miscalculations carried the highest imaginable penalties. Cutting off transportation was the right thing to do. Requiring people to stay in their homes and businesses was the right thing to do. Calling in every available officer and piece of equipment was the right thing to do. It's called Calling In The Clans and if was absofuckinglutely the right thing to do.

This was a pig pile writ large and it was absolutely and positively the right thing to do. Witness the near total lack of civilian casualties. Witness the superb use of force control. Yes, it's horrifying to see a modern American city in total lockdown but it was still the right thing to do. Welcome to the 21st Century and what a nearly perfect police response to active terrorist shooters looks like.

Ask the people of Mumbai if what we saw in Boston was excessive. Those who survived anyway. How many of them would have welcomed such an immediate and forceful response from their own police forces with open arms and tears of joy? The Mumbai cops were a pathetic joke and people were killed because of it. It's not oppression it's fucking WAR and that war is in our neighborhoods even as we speak. It's not a fucking army of occupation taking over and running roughshod over the Constitutional rights of the people. Give me a fucking break. Yes it is bad. No it is not unconstitutional or evil of reminiscent of the Third fucking Reich. And the cops have sent a very clear message to our enemies. We ain't Mumbai. You screw around over here and we'll hunt your asses down and do it quick.

This, this very thing is one of the biggest reasons we have the Second Amendment and why I support it so vehemently. But we don't go hunting the bad guys. We hunker down and protect ours and allow the men and women we have hired and sworn in to do the job we have asked them to do. I want to see the lights and hear the sirens and watch as my police officers march to the sound of the guns. Isn't that what we expect them to do? This isn't common crime its an act of War and the responding Massachusetts police were fucking magnificent. I have never been prouder of my brothers and sisters in blue and fuck anyone who doesn't like it.

Listen, anyone who has even casually perused my blog and writings knows that I don't hesitate to criticize my fellow police officers when warranted. No one is a bigger critic of police corruption and incompetence than I am. But this incident contained none of that. This was a job well done with the correct outcome. The only people who were killed and injured were the terrorists and the cops. What more can we ask? If the blood of two cops is insufficient then I don't know what to say. I hate that one of my brothers was killed with another fighting for his life in the hospital but if you ask any officer worth his or her salt they'd tell you that it was worth the sacrifice. I have said many times that if the situation calls for it then an officer is obligated to take the bullet and even die in the performance of their duties. That happened here exactly. This response should be applauded not sneered at by imbeciles and those who wouldn't understand what a tactical requirement and textbook deployment looks like if it was spelled out in their primary reader. The Mass cops were swift, careful, courageous, decisive and on the ball. The scene commander was more than competent. The responders did all the right things without ever shooting someone they weren't supposed to even with two of their own down. I salute each and every one of those cops and hold my own honor short simply because I wasn't there standing by their sides. I am in awe of them all.

So. I have again removed a couple of blog links. No, I didn't leave them a comment. I have no patience for fools and refuse to engage them in useless argument. If you are one of those who look at the police response in Boston and Watertown as something Orwellian or Totalitarian then please just leave me the hell alone. I don't want to know you and for damn sure I don't want to be associated with you in any way. I'll take the blog down first. Yes, I am that angry at the moment. My brothers and sisters in Law Enforcement and the Military who also responded did an absolutely wonderful job in the most difficult and chaotic environment one could imagine. If you can't see that then just fucking piss off.

Six

Update:  "some officers were out of ammunition and charged the brothers’ position with their police car." 
 "While Tamerlan Tsarnaev was firing a pistol with the other hand, police tackled and tried to subdue the 200-pound amateur boxer."
Yeah, sure sounds like jackbooted thugs to me.
ht: Ace

E.O.W. 4-18-2013 Godspeed MIT Officer Sean Collier


MIT Officer Sean Collier. 26 years old. Your duty is done. Your honor is intact. We will miss you so terribly. May God take you into his loving embrace and comfort all those who loved you. I am honored to have once worn the same uniform and to call you my brother. Your sacrifice will not be in vain. We will prevail and we will send those who would do evil to our people to the very depths of Hell.

Six

27 February 2013

2 Officers Killed In Santa Cruz California

Just a few miles north of my old hometown. The shooter was also killed after a 30 minute foot chase.

Detective Sergeant Loran 'Butch' Baker
Detective Elizabeth Butler

Car Guy called me to let me know today. He knew Sgt. Baker. A tough day for my brothers and sisters. Our thoughts and prayers go out to them and all their loved ones and friends.

End Of Watch 2-26-13.
Rest In Peace.

Six



11 February 2013

Take A Deep Breath

Christopher Dorner. Let's just call him That Asshole shall we? I have a few words to say on the subject though I am going to leave the politics alone. Language warning.

First, he's a scumbag murderer. I really don't give a crap what his complaints and allegations are. Once you go down the path of killing innocents every other single thing you say or whine about is irrelevant. As a veteran and retired cop I utterly reject Dorner and all he is and has ever done. That said.

Yes, I read his screed. In fact, I'm still having trouble trying to scrape his particular brand of narcissistic criminal insanity out of my brain. It's a testament to a disturbed mind. I saw racism, paranoia, a persecution complex and delusions. It in no way explains nor excuses what he's done. It does give some insight into his mental processes though. His complaints go back to grade school for crying out loud. No reasonable person holds a grudge for petty stuff from fifth grade (or whatever it was) unless you're an obsessive/compulsive. No one uses a long list of perceived slights, interpersonal failures and job issues as an excuse to mass murder unless you're a sociopath with homicidal tendencies. This is a guy who is never wrong, never fails and when things don't go exactly as he believes they should and he is/does gets angry and casts blame on whoever he perceives as being responsible for his troubles. He has no ability to self examine and no desire to ever do so. The problem is the world not him. Look at what he says about himself. Rambo was a sissy next to this guy. He's loving the attention and feeding his ego with the idea that he's a hero. Sadly, that's being reinforced by those so deluded by hate that they are cheering on someone who is a cold blooded murderer. Are we really that far gone?

Let me address the LAPD. I have known and worked beside more than a few LAPD officers. I've said this many times before. Yes, the LAPD is responsible for more negative court rulings and case law relating to infringements on citizen rights and outright lawlessness than any other agency in the United States. It has more than it's fair share of Hysterical Incompetents and bad actors. It has a culture unlike any other in the country's history, much of it frankly bad. But consider. LA  proper has about 4 million people being policed by a force of about 10,000 officers. Contrast that with New York which has roughly double the population and about 35,000 officers. They do things differently in LA. Some of the time that is a bad thing but a lot of the time it's good. Officers in LA are taught to be aggressive, but they are often too aggressive. See my previous post on Hysterical Incompetence and compare and contrast with the spate of  negligent (and criminal) shootings in the wake of this fiasco. They see a lot and it tends to create a Them vs Us mentality. That's not just with citizens either but extends to anyone who isn't LAPD. I've had many negative official interactions with off duty LAPD officers. But I've also had some great contacts and opportunities to train with some of the best cops I've ever had the honor of associating with. The good officers are as unbelievably good as the bad ones are incredibly bad. No agency is perfect and the LAPD is certainly no exception but that doesn't excuse a thing Dorner has done. Has the LAPD done this guy wrong? I don't know but I kinda doubt it. Go and read Aaron Worthing's fisking of the Dorner manifesto here. Then ask yourself who That Asshole really is and why some are supporting him. I'm not excusing anything LAPD has done but let's keep a little perspective here. They do a lot of stuff to hammer them for but this ain't one of them.

I've worked with guys like him before. So have you probably, or at least you know some. That Guy. The one you just know is either going to spectacularly step on his dick or flame out in an orgy of furious bridge burning. The difference is none of them decided that mass murder was the solution to their problems. Dorner did. That's what makes him not That Guy but That Murderous Asshole.

Now. To my law enforcement brothers and sisters.  
Take a deep breath and fucking relax!
Dorner is a punk, pure and simple. He is not death incarnate nor an unstoppable killing machine from the depths of hell wrapped in power armor and carrying The Emperor's missing Lightsaber. He's a former Navy officer (who most emphatically was not a SEAL) and a failed police officer. Let's compare and contrast with a certain blog owner shall we? I spent 9 years in the Army or Army National Guard. Four years of that was with an Infantry Division. Two years of that was with a Light Infantry Division. I promise you I have run more, rucked more and shot more than That Asshole could dream about. Then I spent 24 years as a cop (Not four, 24). I attended all manner of shooting schools including FBI SWAT school. Yeah, kinda high speed/low drag if not exactly BUDS or SF. I promise you I have fired many, many thousands of rounds in practice and training. More than That Asshole could possibly imagine if he were twice as delusional as he is. I went to basic and advanced police sniper school. Not wanna be sniper school but one taught by John Plaster. I've been the top shooter at virtually every school and academy I've ever attended, pistol, rifle, carbine and shotgun. Compared to That Asshole I am The Master Chief and yet I'm not a pimple on the ass of any good combat soldier much less the elite, both military and civilian. He's a wanna be. Remember that. He is not better than you except in his own delusional mind. He's a fat asshole who desperately wants to be seen as an unstoppable avenging angel so he can gain notoriety and scare and intimidate you. Do Not Let Him. He's just another pathetic loser and when he finally either gets his ass handed to him by someone who is not afraid or offs himself like the coward he really is he'll bleed red just like any other murderous bastard. Stop overreacting and shooting people who are innocents. If you do this you are also an asshole and need to be shown the door along with a criminal subpoena. He doesn't have MANPADS, he isn't omniscient and he possesses not a whit of combat magic. He's just another fucking asshole guys. Treat him as such. Use what you've been taught, watch your ass and take him down when you get the chance but pleasepleaseplease stop shooting people who are not The Asshole. Yes, you are risking your lives but that's right there in the job description. If you can't handle it then turn in your badge and fucking go away. I am getting awful tired of being smeared alongside you hysterics and so are many of the guys and gals you work with.

For the rest of us all we can do is be watchful and careful. Take this as a good reminder to train and carry. If you haven't yet buy a gun and then train train train and carry carry carry. Society is slowly burning down around us (though that conflagration seems to be picking up intensity at an alarming rate) and in the end each of us is responsible for our safety and that of our loved ones.

And for anyone out there looking for a hero let me assure you it ain't That Asshole. It's this guy and all the men and women out there just like him.

That is Staff Sergeant Clinton Romesha. Medal Of Honor. That is what honor, bravery and fidelity looks like. He is what we as warriors aspire to. He is who we desire to emulate and follow. SSG Romesha and the eight men who lost their lives at COP Keating. May God bless them all and may we all prove to be as worthy when our own time to face the elephant comes.

Six

28 January 2013

We Are The Police And The Police Is Us

With Angus healing and time on my hands whilst I tend to him I need to get back into the fight. I've been mulling this one over for a few days now.

The current gun control, armed teachers and guards in schools, etc. argument misses an important point. Who are the police and what is their primary function?

It is commonly accepted within police circles that Sir Robert Peel is the father of modern policing. He incorporated the principals by which all western police organizations adhere (or at least pay lip service to). Here are the Nine Principals Of Policing as laid out by Peel (emphasis mine):
  1. The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.

  2. The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police actions.

  3. Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observance of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.

  4. The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.

  5. Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.

  6. Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient.

  7. Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence

  8. Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.

  9. The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.
Let's set aside the basic mission of the police for a moment and concentrate on who is ultimately responsible for the safety of persons and property here in America. If you read those Nine principals what I hope strikes you is the idea that our very concept of law enforcement and self defense, aside from residing in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, rests largely on these ideas, primarily number 7 that I have highlighted. Let's read that again.

The police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence. 

I always get such a warm feeling when I read those words. It's a very large concept for such an innocuous sentence. What Peel was saying is that every citizen is responsible for the enforcement of our laws. Ok. Let's go back to those principals and see what they say about duties and mission.

If we are the police and the police is us then it stands to reason that we are not only responsible for doing our duty to the whole, that is the nation state, by defending it and those weaker citizens who can't defend themselves but also to defend ourselves. It's not just a right, it's the duty of every citizen.

Let's go a step further. In addition to "We are the police and the police is us" I'd add "We are the military and the military is us". We have a Citizen Military including Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force and Coast Guard). Throw in that Citizen Militia the Second Amendment talks about and we see that the tools of democracy are supposed to be right where the founders wanted them and the Constitution envisioned them. In the capable grip of the citizenry. We're talking about Weapons here, not the right to protest or speak or even to vote for the representative of our choice. The means of defense of country and self reside where they always have. In the hands of The People. By statutory and customary authority.

Back to the mission of the police and even the military. What are they supposed to do really? They are supposed to prevent crime and disorder in the case of the police and to defend the nation and our vital interests abroad in the case of the military. Note there's no mention of defense of the individual. It's accepted that defense of the whole does in fact render defense to the individual from widespread harm whether from internal or external forces but that's macro. What of the micro? On the individual scale both the founders and those who have shaped our society envisioned that the individual citizen was responsible for their own safety and that of their immediate family and community. Read through Posse Comitatus (Common Law). Here's the money quote;
Posse comitatus is the common law or statute law authority of a County Sheriff or other law officer to conscript any able-bodied man to assist him in keeping the peace or to pursue and arrest a felon, similar to the concept of the Hue and Cry". Originally found in English common law, it is generally obsolete; however, it survives in the United States, where it is the law enforcement equivalent of summoning the militia for military purposes.

Nothing extraordinary in any of that of you're an American. The concept of a Posse and assisting a police officer is ingrained in our collective psyches. I've used it myself in my police career without hesitation. Again "We are the Police and the police is us". Talk to Sheriff David Clarke if you think that idea is dead. That's a man I both understand and would work for in a hot second.

The courts, including the Supreme Court, have recognized that the police have no duty to protect the individual. Go back to the police mission as outlined by Peel. The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder. The conclusion is both inescapable and obvious. We are individually responsible for our own safety.

What then of guns, the tools of personal protection. If we are indeed the police and the military it stands to reason that the tools available to them are the very tools that must be available to us. We cannot separate the citizen from the cop or soldier because we are them and they are us.

Yet we hear a constant drumbeat of "Only the police and military should have X guns and Y accessories". Ok fine. I'll stipulate that for the sake of argument. All that does is strengthen the Second Amendment argument against Infringement because, as I believe I've written once or twice here, We Are Them. We are the Police and We are the military. We. Us. American Citizens. The sure and certain road to tyranny and a true police state is abrogating this concept and that is precisely what the left is currently trying to do. Make the police and military separate entities from the general citizenry. Us versus Them. Here's proof. In virtually every piece of gun control legislation put forth post 1968 there's a provision exempting active and/or retired law enforcement. It's just another trick to try and divide one group of citizens from another. 

If the modern tools of the police and military are withheld from the People and given only to the select then we have created a system of three classes; Armed, Unarmed and the Elite upon whom no law is enforceable. That's a path to servitude for the majority. Even omitting hot button words like slavery, tyranny, socialism and the like we're still left with one inescapable conclusion. If the People are no longer the police and the military and they are no longer us then loss of essential liberties to those who can wield such force will follow like night after day. Pretending otherwise is either lying or Three Monkeying.

Finally I'd like to remind the "We must do something now" crowd of the last of Sir Robert Peels Principals. The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it. If that is the standard we hold our police to, and I fervently hope it still is, then I submit that end result we are looking for is the absence (or at least diminution) of crime and acts of violence against the whole of society and not to simply do something, even if it's wrong, in the vain hope we'll hit the right target. Yes, the individual is largely left to his or her own devices but as long as they have the lawful right to defend themselves and the needed tools then we as a free and democratic society have done all that we can. All that we should. Good policing is quiet policing.

It's been proven time and again that gun bans neither reduce nor eliminate criminality but placing the means and trust for defense in the hands of the citizenry does. The current gun ban call put forth by Dianne Feinstein is a case in point. The rules of logic and intent still apply. If the fix doesn't actually work and demonstrably won't be widely obeyed there must be another reason it's being put forth. Incompetence or malicious intent. It's either disingenuous or it's nefarious. Criminals by definition do not obey the law. Legislation like this serves only to further sever the already tenuous link between the free citizenry and those who see the Constitution as a nuisance. Between those actively advocating for a police state and those opposed. Between Liberty and Tyranny. It really is just that simple. If the politicians on the left and their enablers really wanted a solution to crime and violence they'd loudly remind us of our duties as citizens and then step back and let us get on with it. Really, we've already gone past the point where the politicians are us and we are them else we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

We are the police and the police is us. Such a simple and beautiful concept. That's what this whole argument really boils down to in my view. Either we are the arbiters of our own fates or we are not. Are we individually sovereign or are we not? That's the only real question that needs to be asked and answered. The rest is a smokescreen, a way to get the camel's nose under the tent and that is the imminent danger. Because sure as hell, once he gets that first taste there's nothing on earth that will get him back out again short of force. I'm still hoping we can avoid that. I really, really am.

I love Peel's Nine Principals. I used to read them constantly at work to remind me of what my job was all about. The connection between me and those I served. Between the cop on the beat and the Minute Man at home. The concept and willingness isn't dead it's just been forgotten by those who damn well should know better. Don't ever forget my friends, we are all Citizen with all those rights and duties incumbent on us. Don't give an inch. Find your inner cop, your inner soldier, your warrior spirit, and defend!

Six



29 December 2012

It Doesn't Work That Way

I know I said I wasn't going to post until after the New Year but this is really bugging me.

The talk everywhere has been on Meet The Press and David Gregory waving a banned 30 round magazine at Wayne LaPierre. Liberals and the media (BIRM) have been trying desperately to excuse him and have basically made our point for us. Banning has never, doesn't and will never work. On anything. But there's a point that is being missed in the prosecute/don't debate.

DC police says they didn't give him permission. ATF says they may have or maybe they didn't. Doesn't really matter. The fact is that no police officer can give permission to break the law. Period. I made a comment at Paw Paw's House about this. Can you imagine?

Reporter. "The officer totally gave me permission to break the law. It's totally not my fault. I had no intention to commit any crime. I'm allowed. I'm just doing journalist stuff."

Officer. "Yes Chief, I told the guy he could drive 100 mph through that school zone. He's a reporter and was doing a segment on speeding and dangerous driving. No intent there."

NHTSA.  "Well, one of our investigators may have given Mister Reporter permission to drive 75 mph over the speed limit in a school zone. Or maybe not. We'll investigate and get back to you on that. But even if we or the officer did it's clear there was no intent there."

Chief. "We'll open an investigation on Mister reporter and get back to you Common Folks later. Maybe."

No. Can't be done. Stop arguing about it and asking who gave him permission. No permission was allowed or could lawfully be given. Specific Intent isn't required in this case. I know the law is stupid but it is the law. Either it applies to everyone or it doesn't but no one could give Gregory permission to do what he did. No one. The best they could have done (and certainly what Gregory should have done) is to have an officer bring the magazine to the studio and do all the handling and displaying. Would have made his point better anyway.

Just to repeat myself and drive home this point to all the reporters and their toe licking lackeys. A police officer cannot give you permission to break the law. Let's say you go on a search warrant ride along and after all the bad guys are in handcuffs an officer gives you the okay and you grab a cellophane baggy of a white powdery substance in your grubby paw. You take it outside and wave it in front of the camera doing your best Jaded Crime Reporter schtick on air. Turns out it indeed ends up being a gram of Cocaine. Guess what? That's right Scooter, you just committed the crime of possession of a controlled substance for all the world to see and your butt should end up in the slammer. In a perfect world. No intent is required. Simple possession is enough. Probably wouldn't get prosecuted (depending on the DA and how bad he wants to be seen as tough on crime and how close the next election is) but that's not because you didn't break the law. Just like Gregory did. Either prosecute him or admit the laws are different for some animals and don't but please stop trying to find excuses. Your ignorance and bias is showing.

The stupidity. It burns.

Six

19 December 2012

A Concept And A Proposal

Ok, I've always believed that if one offers a criticism he must also offer a solution. I talked about arming teachers in a previous post and I'm gratified to see that it is in fact happening in certain places. Most notably Texas. I applaud Lone Star Handguns and it's owner, Josh Felker. Well done Sir.

But this approach isn't going to go over as well in other places, especially those controlled by folks more hostile to the idea of an armed non-police presence in their schools. We need an alternative, one acceptable to a broader slice of society in it's current guise. I offer a modest concept and proposal I call the Volunteer School Safety Officer Program. VSSOP for short because I'm both prior military and retired police and we do love our acronyms. VSSOP a way to provide an armed police presence at every school in the nation on a daily and cost effective basis. Bear in mind three things. The emphasis is on local involvement and control and your local agency is going to have to grow at least a little. We can find the money we just have to find the will. In addition this isn't going to work in all places. Some will find the idea both alarming and undesirable. Some will decide it's unworkable. One size does not fit all. Lastly. Yes, there will be hurdles to jump, full time personnel to train and hire and funding to be found. Nothing requiring herculean or extraordinary efforts, just routine bureaucratic issues, the kind we deal with every day. This is just a general proposal and will have to be tailored to each individual locality to best serve the needs of it's citizens.

Warning. Those of you of a more Libertarian bent may find this proposal a little too statist. I understand and appreciate that. I ask only that you consider it from the point of view of those people and places that will not, indeed cannot accept the concept of an armed teacher. For them some solution must still be found. It may not be this one but the conversation is worth having in my opinion.

Ok, that said here's how it could work.

Most law enforcement agencies have a Civilian Volunteer Program, a Reserve Officer Program, a Citizen's Academy or some combination of all three. Volunteerism is a significant part of many agencies public service programs and offer a low cost way to give greater service. Research program like VIPS, Volunteers In Police Service, to see what I mean. Reserve Officer Programs let an agency put more cops on the street for a much reduced cost over full time officers. Citizen's Academies let the agency educate the general public on police procedures, policies and the Criminal Justice System in general. Policies, procedures and training plans are already in place and working right now for each of these programs. We know how to do this and are generally pretty good at it. Funds may come from the localities general fund, the department's budget or, given the current perceived crisis, federal grants. These programs are established, competent and working.

Let's take the idea to the next level, the Volunteer School Safety Officer Program.

First this must be a local program. That is, your staffing will be drawn from the immediate area where the officers will be utilized, generally at the City/Town or County level. It will be administered, supervised and commanded by the agency in charge of local law enforcement. Again that may be City/Town, County or in some remote cases State agencies. The chain of command is already extant. The program can be run through an existing Community Policing program with the training and supervisory assets already in place.

Second, we need that staffing. Volunteers will be sought who live locally (this can be extended for definitions of local depending on the rural nature of the municipality). Extra attention will be given to those who already possess the required skill sets like retired police officers, retired military, veterans, etc. Police agencies are well equipped and experienced in hiring police recruits so have the necessary skills and know how to do the hiring and the lengthy and encompassing background checks on all applicants. The applicant winnowing process is also well known and well proven. We'll then have a pool of qualified and motivated candidates that have passed an extensive background check complete with physical agility testing, a medical health physical and a thorough psychological screening. These officers will be part of the local law enforcement agency. Answerable to, controlled by and employed as volunteers by them. There are hundreds of thousands of highly trained and motivated folks out there who will volunteer for such a program tomorrow if invited. All we have to do is decide.

Third. Since this will be an armed service we need to address training. If the selection process goes well most of the candidates will already have much of the desired skills and training and will need only refresher courses but in all cases a detailed training curriculum will be in place to ensure thorough and uniform skills acquisition. Again, many agencies can rely on their existing plans for training their civilian volunteers and reserve officers with updates to reflect the increased responsibility and nature of the program. Academies that currently offer police officer training can be quickly and easily ramped up to offer a one stop training environment that both agencies and interested civilians can utilize. We in law enforcement have been doing this stuff for a very long time. We understand training requirements, needs, uniformity and liability very well. Every state already has in place a government commission that sets standards and has oversight for all police training. In California for example it's POST, Peace Officer's Standards and Training. California even allows interested civilians to attend an Academy unaffiliated with a police department in the hope of being hired by a smaller, less well funded agency. Many applicants for our VSSOP will be so motivated. It's all regular, expected and well established. Nothing new here.

Fourth. We need to equip our volunteer officers. Since all our training, command and control and the authority our officers will have come from a certified police agency their equipment will be procured through that same agency. Issued by and returned to them before and after every shift. That will give the agency effective control and accountability and ease the fears of states and localities that have stricter gun laws. Positions can be either uniformed or plain clothed depending again on the local needs and desires. Uniforms will be unique from those worn by full time, sworn police personnel for differentiation. Plain clothes will be approved by the parent organization. With the advent of Obama Care, medical insurance shouldn't be an issue however a blanket policy covering all affected participants may be purchased by the law enforcement agency perhaps in partnership with the school district. The same goes for a life insurance policy because, as I'll talk about in a bit, this may be quite necessary.

Fifth. How do we deploy this volunteer police force? The local agency will be the responsible for assigning shifts based on needs and manpower availability and keeping track of hours. Legislation may be needed to change allowable volunteer work hours or bypass state employment law. Nothing impossible or even unusual about any of that. Officers will be assigned to the same school with no unauthorized or unapproved overlap. This will allow our VSSOP officers to know each other by face and name as well as assigned students, school staff and parents. VSSOP officers will be present every school day and in cases where field trips are included may accompany as authorized, requested or required. Staffing will require enough VSSOP officers to fill all required vacancies and any sick or injured time. The employing agency will provide a marked vehicle for the VSSOP officers which he/she/they will park in a public place in the school parking lot at the beginning of each school day. Runouts and excess to needs vehicles will be ideal for this.

Sixth. The employing agency will have direct control over the program. The VSSOP officers will be supervised and evaluated by that agency and answerable to it's chain of command. The chief law enforcement officer will have ultimate authority over the program and all participants. This will allow the agency to have immediate and intimate oversight and the ability to quickly identify sub par officers and remove them from the program swiftly. I envision a sergeant as supervisor with day to day accountability and a staff officer in overall command but based on agency staffing requirements.

Ok, that's the basics. I've left out specifics because, as I said, each individual program will have to be tailored to the needs of the employing agency and it's state commission on peace officers. I don't envision officers with full police powers and that's not even required. In essence this will be an extension of the Reserve Officer and School Resource Officer concepts with a little VIPS thrown in. Since Reserves have limited arrest powers anyway VSSOP doesn't need to be any different. The differences will be in employment and the mind set of the VSSOP officers. VSSOP officers will be assigned as SCHOOL OFFICERS ONLY! No assignments to traffic control, patrol or any other non school related activity. Their one and only task is school safety. They may be asked to intervene in immediate school issues such as fights between students or counseling but only until a uniformed, full time patrol officer or SRO arrives on scene. Then it's back to their normal duties. They must be screened for, trained for and willing to march to the sound of the guns and take proactive action. That means to engage an active or potential shooter. Active Shooter requirements will be the expected course of action. No matter the personal cost. They will be the first line of defense and their selection and training must reflect that reality.

To my brothers and sisters in law enforcement. This can work. It's based on programs and concepts we already employ. The sheer numbers and size of the program, when taken on a national scale, are staggering but when broken down into the smaller portions required for local implementation it's completely within our competencies. I am completely serious about this, to the point that I am willing to set up and initially oversee a start up with an interested agency. On my own dime. I will come to your agency, write up the selection, training and staffing requirements as well as all policies and procedures required in line with your own and your state's. I'll cover all my own costs including lodging, food, vehicle and miscellaneous. I have administered COPS, Volunteer and Citizen's Academy programs. I have been involved with training cops for years, everything from Crime Prevention, to firearms to accident investigation. I understand the training and staffing environments and the problems, liabilities and issues that follow. I am also willing to consult with your own staff on the concept, again, totally free of cost to you.

Yes, there will be unforeseen obstacles. With new programs there always are. But nothing we cannot overcome with determination and a healthy dose of cooperation and savvy. I have omitted training and even hiring specifics in this precis precisely because each agency is different and will require it's own unique solutions and implementation. We are at a crossroads in this country. We can find real world solutions to the immediate and obvious needs of those we are sworn to serve and protect or we can watch as our country slides into chaos and a state of limited liberty. We have a voice. The only real question is how and if we'll use it. We can protect our children.

If anyone is interested or has questions about the concept or my qualifications you can contact me by e-mail at warriorclasssix@yahoo.com. I will provide you with every bit of help I can.

Six