What Do You Want from Cops?

Via Secondcitycop.

It’s time for the American public to decide what we want from law enforcement. Warriors? Counselors? Guardians? Priests? Social workers? Magicians? Do we want the cheapest cops possible? Or, do we want well-trained and well-screened cops who are equipped with every tool needed for every possible eventuality? As long as cops get recruited from the human race, they’re going to be exactly human, with everything that means. Or do we want the beat cop from grandaddy’s hometown, with nothing but a smile, a wheelgun and one set of cuffs?

Really, we want it all. Admit it, we do – and we want it all without paying for any of it.

Every officer needs to be an empathetic, well-spoken, SEAL-trained ninja, with double majors in psychology and social work, who considers the job a calling, and has no bills to pay, no nerves to fray, and enforces the law completely objectively while also using discretion at all times, unless it’s going to result in arresting – or not arresting – the wrong person at the wrong time, for the wrong thing, in the opinion of every member of the public.

If that person existed, he wouldn’t work for you. So we’ve got to deal with what exists, and what exists are humans.

Go read it all A letter to the American public: Why you must decide what you want from cops.

This is so very true, I’m enough of a leader that I can, to an extent, put myself in another’s boots. But I cannot know everything that goes through a cop’s (or a soldier’s) mind. I understand enough to understand that I don’t understand, and this is the real-world basis of Matthew 7, 1 and 2:

Judge not, that ye be not judged.

For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

I can judge electricians and linemen, I know their jobs well enough and have years of experience, but cops, especially street cops in big cities, I can empathize (and I do) but I don’t know what they go through.

The linked article is pretty good, I think, but it is not 5 years in the environment. And this is the problem we see so often where we see someone who had a half-second to decide, judged over hours and days my (mostly) lawyers and managers who at best haven’t done the job in years, sitting in airconditioned offices. They will never know, they simply can’t. Probably not as much as I can.

That doesn’t mean that cops never screw up, they do. You get exactly a human being. Like me, they make mistakes every day, and the higher the stress, the more they make. And if you’re shorthanded and work them until they’re stupid, it’ll get still worse.

Answers are few and far between, the main one being that we the public must decide what we want from cops, just as the article says.

Inquisition Against ‘Climate Change Disbelievers’: and More

Harvey-Proctor-George-BellSomething here that we, and the Brits, had best start thinking about, read the articles, and then we’ll talk.

Beginning in 1478, the Spanish Inquisition systematically silenced any citizen who held views that did not align with the king’s. Using the powerful arm of the government, the grand inquisitor, Tomas de Torquemada, and his henchmen sought out all those who held religious, scientific, or moral views that conflicted with the monarch’s, punishing the “heretics” with jail sentences; property confiscation; fines; and in severe cases, torture and execution.

One of the lasting results of the Spanish Inquisition was a stifling of speech, thought, and scientific debate throughout Spain. By treating one set of scientific views as absolute, infallible, and above critique, Spain silenced many brilliant individuals and stopped the development of new ideas and technological innovations. Spain became a scientific backwater.

As an old adage says, those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. So we now have a new inquisition underway in America in the 21st century—something that would have seemed unimaginable not too long ago.

Treating climate change as an absolute, unassailable fact, instead of what it is—an unproven, controversial scientific theory—a group of state attorneys general have announced that they will be targeting any companies that challenge the catastrophic climate change religion.

Speaking at a press conference on March 29, New York Attorney General EricSchneiderman said, “The bottom line is simple: Climate change is real.” He went on to say that if companies are committing fraud by “lying” about the dangers of climate change, they will “pursue them to the fullest extent of the law.”

The coalition of 17 inquisitors are calling themselves “AGs United for Clean Power.” The coalition consists of 15 state attorneys general (California, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington State), as well as the attorneys general of the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands. Sixteen of the seventeen members are Democrats, while the attorney general for the Virgin Islands, Claude Walker, is an independent.

The inquisitors are threatening legal action and huge fines against anyone who declines to believe in an unproven scientific theory.

The inquisitors are threatening legal action and huge fines against anyone who declines to believe in an unproven scientific theory.

Schneiderman and Kamala Harris, representing New York and California, respectively, have already launched investigations into ExxonMobil for allegedly funding research that questioned climate change. Exxon emphatically denounced the accusations as false, pointing out that the investigation that “uncovered” this research was funded by advocacy foundations that publicly support climate change activism.

via 16 Democrat AGs Begin Inquisition Against ‘Climate Change Disbelievers’

Also this morning:

“Credible and true” is how the police described the evidence against former Tory MP Harvey Proctor. He had been taken in and questioned under the aegis of ‘Operation Midland’ – Scotland Yard’s investigation into allegations of a historic Westminster paedophile ring which serviced the needs of gay politicians throughout the 1970s and 80s, and then apparently kept their sordid assignations secret by murdering some of the boys who did the servicing. To be accused of being a serial child-murder and of the sexual abuse of children is a serious thing. You would expect the police to act on such an allegation, especially if they judged the evidence to be not only sufficiently credible to pass the file to the CPS, but true enough to secure a conviction.

But the investigation was halted, and the case against Harvey Proctor has been dropped. Having trashed the man’s name and splashed it about all over the media on the strength of one solitary, anonymous and uncorroborated allegation from decades ago, the Met told Harvey Proctor that he was no longer a suspected serial child-murderer and paedophile, and that everything was now just fine and dandy, thank you very much. The evidence that was once deemed to be both credible and true is now seemingly neither.

Harvey Proctor’s accuser was a man called ‘Nick’ (his real identity has not been disclosed). As a result of these allegations, Harvey Proctor has lost his livelihood and home. “I have been pilloried and the Metropolitan Police Service has enabled and allowed me to be wrongly depicted as a paedophile, child abuser and child murderer on the back of a liar,” he said. “Nothing the police do or say, no weasel words of regret, can remove that indelible stain. I hope they are proud of themselves for irreparably ruining my life.” Whatever he now does; however he proceeds; whichever way he turns, Harvey Proctor’s name will be forever associated with the whiff of paedophilia.

via Archbishop Cranmer

And again this morning

George Bell was Bishop of Chichester from 1929 to 1958. I first came across him when working on Churchill, who clearly found the good bishop a great trial. On one level this might seem odd, since Bell was one of the earliest opponents of Nazism, and at a time when public policy in the UK was one of trying to find accommodation with Hitler, Bell’s view was that his system was so evil that that would be impossible. He worked closely with ‘confessing churches’ in Germany which refused to join the official Reichkirche, and he worked tirelessly to help Jewish refugees, especially those who were Christian converts who were often not helped by anyone else. Bell also supported those in Germany who wanted to overthrow Hitler, and the last letter the great Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote was to Bell. One might, therefore, have imagine that the great anti-appeaser, Churchill, would have admired Bell, and perhaps even have recommended him for the See of Canterbury upon William Temple’s sudden death in 1944; he didn’t and he didn’t. Why?

T.S. Eliot described Bell as a man of ‘dauntless integrity’ – and that was his undoing in Churchill’s eyes. Bell detested Nazism with every fibre of his being, but he did not think barbarism should be fought with barbarism. He was an early, consistent and vocal opponent of area bombing – which brought him public opprobrium and the hostility of Churchill – and lost him the chance of Canterbury.

via All along the Watchtower

The thing is, in all cases, these are witch hunts, staged for political purposes. In the last two cases, the allegations, although they strike me as very unlikely, could be true. But so what? The defendants are dead, they are no longer in human jurisdiction, and we (British or American) have no extradition treaty with either God nor Devil.

Find Law tells us:

The 6th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution sets out many rights for defendants during a criminal prosecution, including the right of the accused to confront their accusers. The relevant text of the Confrontation Clause of the 6th Amendment reads as follows: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to be confronted with the witnesses against him.

The 14th Amendment has made the 6th Amendment’s right to confrontation applicable to state court as well as federal court.

The confrontation clause guarantees criminal defendants the opportunity to face the prosecution’s witnesses in the case against them and dispute the witnesses’ testimony. This guarantee applies to both statements made in court and statements made outside of court that are offered as evidence during trial.

How does that work out when you are dead? Here, in a PDF we may also read this:

The right of an accused to face one’s accusers is regarded as an old and venerable tradition. The history of the right to confrontation can be traced back to Roman law. The Roman Governor Festus is reported to have made the following comments regarding a prisoner: ?It is not the manner of the Romans to deliver any man up to die before the accused has met his accusers face to face, and has been given a chance to defend himself against the charges.”1 Thus, early Roman law recognised that the law does not convict a man before he is given an opportunity to defend himself face-to-face with his accusers.2 For centuries, the English also practised a form of confrontation that required an open and face-toface system, described as ?altercation”.3 Indeed, the justice of bringing accusing witnesses before the accused has been acknowledged for at least 1,500 years.4 Therefore, the right to confrontation has a lineage that can be traced back to the beginnings of Western legal culture.

It seems to me, that what connects all these cases, and many more, it firstly: to deny people the right to a fair trial, by publically denouncing them even before indicted, and sometimes, as in Bishop Bell’s case by the denouncing done by the police themselves, even though they had essentially no case. Where else do we see this type of misbehavior? Yes, you have it one, on our college campuses, where to be innocent of (especially) sex crimes is not enough, because one is guilty unless one can prove otherwise, which is completely antithetical to the rule of law, not to mention polite society. It is the war of all on all.

Thomas Hobbes said:

“To this war of every man against every man, this also in consequent; that nothing can be unjust. The notions of right and wrong, justice and injustice have there no place. Where there is no common power, there is no law, where no law, no injustice. Force, and fraud, are in war the cardinal virtues.

“No arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death: and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.”

That is the course we are, increasingly, on.

Honesty is the Best Policy

More later, perhaps. But for now….

A woman driver is speeding along the highway, when suddenly she gets stopped by a police car which instructs her to pull over.
 
Woman: “Is there a problem, Officer?”
 
Officer: “Ma’am, you were speeding.”
Woman: “Oh, I see.”
Officer: “Can I see your license please?”
 
 
Woman: “I’d give it to you but I don’t have one.”
Officer: “Don’t have one?”
Woman: “Lost it 4 times for drunk driving.”
Officer: “I see…Can I see your vehicle registration papers please.”
Woman: “I can’t do that.”
Officer: “Why not?”
Woman: “I stole this car.”
Officer: “Stole it?”
Woman: “Yes, and I killed and hacked up the owner.”
Officer: “You what?”
Woman: “His body parts are in plastic bags in the trunk if you want to see.”

Continue reading at: Honesty is the Best Policy | Oyia Brown

The Left’s Burning Cities

Breitbart.com

Breitbart.com

I suppose it’s time to say something about Baltimore, not that I have anything overly pertinent to add. I have noticed though (as has David French, in the linked article) that what is going on is really nothing more than two of the Democratic Party’s prized identity political groups: public employee unions, and welfare recipients, having a disagreement.

In Baltimore, as the National Guard steps in, curfews are imposed, and business owners pick up the pieces from their burned-out, looted stores, let’s not forget why one more American city has been torn apart by racial violence. Blue America has failed at social justice. It has failed at equality. It has failed at accountability. Its competing constituencies are engaged in street battles, and any exploration of “root causes” must necessarily include decades of failed policies — all imposed by steadfastly Democratic mayors and city leaders.

Are the riots caused by the Baltimore Police Department’s “documented history” of abuse? Which party has run Baltimore and allowed its police officers to allegedly run amok? Going deeper, which American political movement lionizes public-employee unions, fiercely protecting them from even the most basic reform? Public-employee unions render employee discipline difficult and often impossible. Jobs are functionally guaranteed for life, and rogue officers can count on the best representation money can buy — courtesy of Blue America.

Continue reading The Left’s Burning Cities | National Review Online.

As always seems to be the case, people despair when they don’t have the self-respect that a job, almost any job, engenders. We innately know, deep within in us, the difference between earning something and simply being given it. And frankly, it’s hard to imagine a much more hostile place, in America, than the city of Baltimore to start a business that would provide jobs. Michael Tanner noticed this as well:

The unemployment rate in Baltimore in February was 8.4 percent, compared with just 5.5 percent nationally. In the Sandtown–Winchester/Harlem Park area, which is near the center of the unrest, more than half of the people did not have jobs, according to a February 2015 report from the Justice Policy Institute and the Prison Policy Initiative.

One reason for this is the city’s — and the state’s — unremitting hostility to business. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce reports that only seven states and the District of Columbia have a worse business climate than Maryland. The state’s tax burden is huge and growing. According to the Tax Foundation’s State Business Tax Climate Index, Maryland ranks a dismal 40th in terms of business taxes, and an even worse 45th in terms of personal-income taxes. According to this report, Maryland is one of just a few states where the personal-income tax creates “an unnecessary drag on economic activity.” The state’s small businesses face the nation’s seventh-highest marginal tax rates.

As if that were not bad enough, the city of Baltimore adds one of the highest property taxes among comparable cities. Despite a recent modest reduction in property-tax rates, Baltimore still has a tax rate more than twice the rate of most of the rest of the state. A recent study by the Minnesota Center for Fiscal Excellence and the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy ranked Baltimore twelfth out of 53 major cities in terms of high property taxes. When the city taxes are combined with state taxes, Baltimore ends up with the ninth worst tax burden out of 50 major American cities.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/417619/poverty-despair-and-big-government-michael-tanner

Not where I would start a business, would you? And so, the cycle will continue, until it doesn’t of course, because at some point the politicians will run out of other people’s money.

And at that point, real poverty will ensue. When people find out that they have nowhere to spend their welfare benefits, not even MacDonald’s, what will happen? I don’t know, and doubt anyone else does either,.

I suspect, if we are lucky, Detroit does

 

The (Not so) Thin Blue Line

So, have seen the video from DC yesterday?

Reports say the driver crashed the barricade at the beginning and then led police on a pursuit toward the capitol. Well, OK. But it looks to me as if she didn’t crash that barricade very hard, given that I see little damage to the car. Not as much, in fact as hitting a deer at 20 mi/hr would cause, and the airbags didn’t go off either, which would put the speed at <5 mph.

miriam

Here’s the driver. She was the lady on the right of the picture. She was a 34 year old dental hygienist, with a history of mental issues. The one-year-old child in her backseat was unharmed. That’s all I know. I doubt we’ll ever know much more.

But to tell you the truth, I see little in that video that couldn’t be someone who took a wrong turn in DC, which is a maze of security barricades any more and bumped one of them. And perhaps panicked when no less than half a dozen police officers pointed guns at her. The pursuit didn’t look all that proficient either, by the way. Not that I’m any expert, mind you, it’s not my field. But it did look to me that if one of those officers had sauntered over and talked to her, they might have been able to defuse it, but I could easily be wrong.

At the end of the chase they ran her off the road, and as she was exiting the vehicle (I presume against orders) they shot her dead. As far as I can tell from the reports she wasn’t armed, for whatever that’s worth. I’m inclined to think they could have waited a second or two before firing the volley but, it seems American police don’t do that any more. They seem to be quicker on the trigger than Wyatt Earp on one of his nasty days.

And another thing

Just how many thousands of police are on duty any given day in Washington, I mean, I know there are a bunch of different police departments and all but, that short video showed at least two dozen cruisers. Every time a story like this happens it looks like enough police to shut down the Warsaw Ghetto in 1942. Seems to me Washington has some crime that some of these officers could be working on when the aren’t chasing dental hygienists across town.

Nor does it really say anything good to me about our government that this incident shut down the entire capital city for at least an hour, including the Congress, which got to “shelter-in-place” . While I don’t think Congress should be out fighting crime in the street, it seems a bit extreme to shut the whole place down for what was pretty quickly shown to be a fairly minor incident. But that’s just what I think.

On the other hand

This is completely nuts, from Fox News

A police officer who dropped off his daughter at her Phoenix elementary school was asked by the school’s principal not to wear his uniform to the school because other parents were concerned that he was carrying a gun, MyFoxPhoenix.com reported.

Scott Urkov is a police officer for the Coolidge Police Department. The department told him not to comment to media inquiries, but immediately after he received the no-uniform request, he posted on Facebook.

“Nothing like your kids school calling and asking if I could not come to pick up my daughter in uniform cause parents were concerned when their kids came home telling them there was a man at school with a gun, “ he posted. “Are you freaking kidding me?”

A district spokeswoman told the station that “some parents” voiced concern about seeing a fully armed police officer on the school’s campus. The spokeswoman apologized that Urkov perhaps took the discussion the wrong way.

“It was not the intent of the principal to offend him,” the spokeswoman said.

It may or may not have been the intent of the principal to offend him but, he did, and he offended me as well.

Some day we are going to have to figure out that police officers are people, not automatons, they have a very tough job, and mostly (overwhelmingly, really) they do a very good job. Like anything else, we talk about it when they do something wrong, or stupid, and somebody gets hurt. And often, like all of us, they are simply doing what they have been trained to do, if it not the right thing, it’s not their fault but the fault of their leaders, and us.

And speaking of defective training

Yep, it’s that time again, when cops start holstering and unholstering Glocks, and bad things happen.

Let’s see, 1 century of training police to keep their finger on the trigger (on DA/SA revolvers and pistols), plus 1 “trigger-safety” or Save Action™ (meaning, “no safety”) pistol, plus 1 retention holster that expects the user to keep his or her finger in or near the trigger, plus,  one cop who failed to pay attention in safety briefings = about 1200 feet per second you can’t call back.

Coatesville, PA (Valley Township PD): Do I wrestle the suspect, or draw?

The police officer decided the answer was “both,” and learned to her pain and suffering why that is not the “school solution”. The original headline of the story said “Police officer shot,” and now it has been updated to reflect that she shot herself.

Continue reading  Cops and Cauterization

Just another day in law enforcement: Some good, some bad, and some who knows.

 

 

 

%d bloggers like this: