Not. Helping.

Heard this on the radio on the drive home yesterday. I still don't know what to make of it.

Berkeley protesters briefly block Oakland freeway

Hundreds of people marched from Berkeley to Oakland Sunday for the second night of demonstrations against a grand jury's decision not to indict a police officer in the chokehold death of Eric Garner.

There were reports of some demonstrators throwing explosives at officers and assaulting each other. A group of demonstrators blocked all eastbound lanes of Highway 24 near 52nd Street at 8:45 p.m. in Oakland.

If this had been all there was to the story, I wouldn't have thought twice about it, except perhaps to comment on the spectre of societal unrest, a volatile political climate for the current party in the White House, and historical precedent (although, for all his faults, Mitt Romney is no Richard Nixon...).

No. Then there was this:

Protesters tonight could be heard yelling, "Fist up, Fight back," and "Turn it up, don't turn it down. Shut it down for Michael Brown."

(Emphasis mine).

That brought me to a full stop. For the older readers, imagine the sound a record needle makes when pulled off the record. For the younger readers, ask your parents. Just think about that line for a second, will you? These people are protesting what they feel are instances where the police have overstepped their bounds. In both cases, we have people resisting officers with physical force and refusing to follow the officers' directions.

Raising your fists? Fighting back? Isn't that what got Mike Brown killed? Even if you believe 100% that Brown was shot in the back by a racist cop, is showing overt menace to someone that potentially might do you harm going to help things? If they honestly believe that cops are just looking for an excuse to kill black people, is inciting them to raise their fists going to help things?

This just struck me as the worst idea in the history of bad ideas. Let's whip this crowd into a frenzy, telling them to attack police officers. Then, when they do attack the police officers - the ones we believe are terrible racists, what exactly is going to happen? Cops are, despite what anyone might tell you, still human. They do have the right to defend themselves. When they do defend against attack - and they will - more people are going to get hurt and/or killed.

Great. You've just agitated for a vicious circle of violence. Wonderful. This can't possibly end poorly, can it?

There are so many thoughts slamming together in my brain over this whole scenario. I can't help but wonder, with a bitter laugh, what the position was of some of these agitators some 20 years ago, when they were staking out Randy Weaver's house on Ruby Ridge. Did they think Weaver was asking for it? Did they think Weaver should have surrendered to the authorities? Or did they buy the ATF's claim that David Koresh started the fire inside the Waco compound? Fast forward - did Erik Scott really have his hand on his gun, like Las Vegas cops claimed?

Not to mention, I have to ask, how many of the professionally offended have personally donated camera time at events where gun control played some part. How many of them might have hinted, intimated, or even outright stated that only the police should own guns? It's the same side of the ideological coin.

The pro-gun control people are watching this go down with bemusement - we're told, over and over, that police are better, smarter, better trained. Ordinary people have no business owning guns; that's for professionals like police officers. "I'm the only one professional enough" and all that. We point out that only police can own new machine guns; that police are allowed to carry guns in all 50 states; that police are exempted from the draconian laws the rest of the population labors under. New York cops don't have to only load 7 rounds; Massachusetts cops can own Glocks; Maryland cops are issued "assault weapons."

I'm certain that those agitating for greater oversight on police will remember all this the next time, right?

Right?

I hope the police remember this, too. I hope they remember which side was hanging them out to dry, using them as the boogeyman. The next time some anti-gun politician wants a "Fraternal Order of Police" seal of approval on their latest gun-grabbing scheme, I hope the cops present said politician with video of "Fists up, fight back" and "Shut it down for Michael Brown." I hope they're tired of being used as props by people that would happily throw them under the bus.

And the agitators. Do they really believe that now is the time for violence? Because things are going to get really ugly for a LOT of people if that's the case. As much as the media is studiously ignoring it, we're seeing racial violence in many of these places - against folks with melanin deficiencies. A Bosnian man was beaten to death after attempting to stop teenagers from destroying his car. A Bosnian woman was pulled from her car and beaten unconscious. Both times the races of the attackers and the attackees did not match.

It doesn't take a political science major nor a student of history to see what's going to happen if this keeps going. There's no good end to any of this. Just lots more dead and broken people. What scares the living hell out of me, though, is what kind of monsters we might reanimate with renewed racial tension.

Let's not lose sight that all civil rights can and will be under attack. More demonstrations turn into riots, things get ugly, people get hurt. People get hurt, people start demanding that Something Must Be Done. That "something" is almost never the right thing. It wouldn't surprise me in the least to hear some nimrod claim we need more gun control so that there won't be more Michael Browns. Oh, wait. Someone already did.

I hope cooler heads will prevail; sadly, I fear that it may be only a hope and not reality.

That is all.

Better Late than Never?

Dunno how I feel about this...

Senators Criticize Growing Militarization of Local Police Departments

Senators on Tuesday criticized federal programs that outfit police departments with military gear, saying they waste funds and sow mistrust between law enforcement and the communities they police.

At a hearing called to examine what critics call police militarization, members of the Senate's homeland-security committee expressed deep skepticism toward some equipment used by local police departments.

The *lone* justification for all this military hardware was ONE police department in Oklahoma that resolved a man barricaded in his own home with an armored vehicle. The justification, mind you, was that the nearest big city with their own armored vehicle was two hours away.

Um, hello?

So you let the guy stew inside the house while the big city armored vehicle arrives. This is not justification for a small town police force to have an MRAP, folks.

Now, I'm heartened that folks on both sides of the political aisle are taking notice of this. It would have been nice if, they had noticed it a little earlier, mind you. Like, say, by 20 years or so. Maybe more. What worries me, of course, is that when both sides work together, we get stupid s**t thrown at us like the Defense of Marriage Act or Prohibition.

It does make you wonder, though. The left has a long history of distrusting the police - from the radicals in the 60s to the support of vile people like Mumia, to the LA riots in the wake of the Rodney King verdict, they rarely are on good terms with "The Man."

Why, then, are they the most vociferous that "only the police should have guns"?


That is all.

Another dispatch from...

(image courtesy of Robb Allen)

That's A Damn Good Question...

Joseph in IL sends in this thought-provoking article.

How does a police department lose a Humvee?

One freezing day last December in the tiny town of Palestine, Ark., a young man climbed into the police department’s Humvee, turned it on, and drove off on a joy ride.

“It never crossed my mind” that anyone would do that, Palestine Police Chief Stanley Barnes said Wednesday of the incident. The Humvee, which the town of fewer than 700 people got for free through a controversial Pentagon program that gives old military equipment to local police departments, doesn’t have keys. But it’s easy to look up how to start one.

Okay, can someone explain something to me? How in blue bloody blazes does a town of 700 people get their hands on a Humvee? It's bad enough that they had one, but that it was stolen and vanished for a week before anyone noticed it was gone? Really?

The town I lived in in MA had a population of several thousand people when I was growing up. We had four full time officers, a couple auxiliary guys, and two squad cars, three if you counted the chief's unmarked. We managed to get by just fine with those three vehicles. You're telling me a town with nearly an order of magnitude fewer people needs a military grade vehicle? Really?

And while they might have gotten the Humvee from a military program designed to hand off older equipment to police forces, here's a few questions: How much does it cost to insure and maintain a Humvee? Wouldn't these vehicles be better off being sold to the general public and actually bring money in? I would imagine the cool factor would be sky-high for a genuine seen-the-elephant military vehicle.

Here's the best part of the whole story, though:

The police department now uses the massive wreck for parts for its other Humvee, which it also obtained from the Department of Defense Excess Property Program (DOD 1033) to help fight crime in the small town.

Got that? A town of 700 people has not one but two Humvees. They have as many Humvees as my town of 4-5K had police cars. With gas at anywhere from $3.50 to $4 a gallon, this town can afford to keep two separate Humvees running - until one got stolen and wrecked, that is. Notice, too, that there's no mention of them actually catching the person responsible. I'm really glad such a crack team of law enforcement professionals warrants two military vehicles to keep their town safe when they can't even keep track of a Humvee.

Notice, too, that "weapons of war" appear to have a place on our city streets, as long as they're commanded by the "right" people.

That is all.

The Only Ones Professional Enough to Throw Our Careers Away...

Wow. Just wow. Joseph in IL sends this head-scratcher in...

Detective shoots partner, drives ‘drunk’ to hospital

A Brooklyn detective got blitzed on his way to a robbery investigation Thursday and drunkenly shot his partner in the hand while showing him his old-school six-shooter, police sources said.

With blood all over the front seat, Detective Jay Poggi, a 31-year veteran, drove Matt Sullivan to the hospital despite a blood-alcohol level that allegedly was above the legal limit, the sources said.

Now, I hate to draw a lot of conclusions based on a story in the NY Post. I'm CERTAINLY hoping there's more to this story than what's written here, because otherwise you have a couple of foolish police officers drinking on the job and playing with guns.

A BAC of 0.113 isn't really that high - could have been a large mixed drink, or perhaps a few beers consumed in rapid succession. Driving at that point is bad, don't get me wrong, but there have been many cases in great excess of the number of lawsuits.

But what in the blue blazes possessing Barney Fife to screw around with a loaded gun? 

That is all.

The Thin Blue Line Only Stretches So Far...

Interesting...

Drunk off-duty police officer attempts to get arresting trooper to let him off

Recently released dashcam video shows an off-duty police officer getting arrested for a DUI and pleading with the fellow officer to let him go. The incident took place on February 16 at around 3 a.m. Florida Highway Patrol (FHP) pulled officer Albert Coriat, 40, over on Florida’s Turnpike in the city of Plantation for making an illegal U-turn.

As reported by WSVN 7 News, after Coriat, a 14-year veteran of the Miami-Dade Police Department, was pulled over he flashed his badge and ID to the FHP trooper and denied being drunk. But according to the FHP report, the trooper detected a “strong odor of alcohol” from Coriat’s breath. The Miami-Dade police officer tried to use his shared law enforcement position with the trooper and asked that he look the other way.

I really don't know about this one. I would like to think that the Highway Patrol officer is being a true professional and actually doing his job, you know, the whole "justice is blind" deal and all that. But I know from my dad and the MA state police that internecine rivalries can be a very real and visceral thing, and it's quite possible that the HP finally got sick of the locals acting like jackasses and thinking they could get away with it. I hope it's the former - that this Highway Patrol officer is one of The Good Guys, and he wants to get criminals off the streets.

There's a part of me that wonders, though, if the FHP officer knew, from having called in the car and talking to the driver, that the other officer was intoxicated - and the dash camera in the FHP vehicle was capturing the entire exchange. Did he follow through with the arrest because it was the right thing to do, or because he couldn't figure out how he could let the guy walk after his own cruiser cam caught the guy stumbling around? I hope it's the former, again.

What's telling, though, is the very last line. The officer arrested for drunk driving? Released from duty - with pay. I'll bet $50 he doesn't lose his job, either - so he's getting a paid vacation for drinking and driving. It's not like he got a ticket for the illegal U-turn and that's what he was protesting - while I'd still admit that it's wrong, there's a lot different from turning down a simple moving violation and looking away from someone that's a danger on the street.

Good on you, Mr. Highway Patrol officer.

That is all.

Another dispatch from...

(image courtesy of Robb Allen)

Retention, Schmetention...

Yep. If you're going to open carry, you need a quality retention holster. That's what they tell me...

Arizona police officer loses handgun during chase

The Tucson Police Department says one of its guns is missing.

Police say an officer who helped locate a purse-snatching and shoplifting suspect following a foot chase on the city's west side Monday discovered that his service weapon had been dislodged from his holster.

The gun was equipped with a weapon light, which makes me wonder if the holster wasn't designed for that exact pistol/light combination or something of that nature. The retention holsters typically issued to police officers are generally excellent, given that they have to hold to, oh, exactly this sort of thing.

Unless, of course, the gun was really left in a bathroom stall and the "lost it while chasing a perp" was the cover... That doesn't seem likely in this case, but I wonder how many firearms were discovered missing "after a chase" were really left behind after a call of nature?

In any case, if you're going to be doing any sort of physical exercise or exertion, make sure your holster is up to the task!

That is all.

Another dispatch from...

(image courtesy of Robb Allen)

It's Not Just Guns...

Only Ones™ get pass on breaking other laws, too...

Deputy wrecks 33 times in 17 years, but union fights for his job

As a law officer in Minnesota, former Todd County Deputy Sheriff Mark Grinstead didn't miss much.

After all, why try to avoid something when it's a lot easier to just hit it?

Grinstead, it must be said, hit many things -- deer, cows, trees, buildings and snow banks, for example. In 17 years, he had 33 wrecks.

Grinstead racked up about $100,000 in losses while patrolling the rural county roads.

33 wrecks in 17 years? That's not even two crashes a year! It is an outrage that this man was fired! The department should be forced to take him back and give him more property to destroy! Now, I don't know about your area, but where I'm from, that kind of driving record -"four crashes in two months and three vehicles in the repair shop" - would get your license revoked for a while.

But not if you're an Only One™! No, in that case, you get to keep driving - and wrecking patrol cars - until the police department gets tired of paying for destroyed property and rebuilding cruisers and rightfully cans your butt. Why on earth hadn't he been disciplined before now? Why hadn't corrective action been taken? Was the plan to - like with drunk drivers - wait until he killed someone with his recklessness?

And, naturally, the union is fighting to give Crashy McCrasherson his job back - because what the world really needs is a cop who can't keep a car on the road...

That is all.

"It Just 'Went Off'!"

A reader sends in this interesting (and by "interesting" I mean "stupid") story out of, where else, Chicago - where only the cops should have guns, right?

Chicago officer's gun discharges in police station

CHICAGO — A supervisor accidentally fired his gun in the Central District police station in the South Loop, hitting a water pipe and causing it to leak for two hours while police waited on city engineers.

The discharge happened about 9:40 p.m., according to police. After the gun went off, police noticed a trickle of water coming from the first-floor ceiling before it turned into a gushing stream.

There's a lot of questions here that, I fear, will never be answered. Why was this officer's gun out of his holster in the station? Is it standard procedure for police officers to draw their duty weapons while sitting at their desks? Why was his finger on the trigger? Is there no safety training in the Chicago PD? He wasn't even pointing it in a safe direction, as it struck a water pipe (I assume overhead). And, lastly, this happens so often, as seen in the comments, that it has its own term: Desk pop.

So, let's recap, shall we? Officer Fife has his duty weapon drawn for no discernible reason. Strike one. He puts his boogerhook on the bang switch. Strike two. He doesn't watch where the muzzle points. Strike three. He pulls the trigger. Strike four. And this happens so often in police stations around the country that there's a term for it. Riiiiight.

Imagine, folks, if this had been a concealed carry permit holder in a coffee shop. Think about the unmitigated glee that would have filled the various newsrooms and editorial boards across the nation if they could have tarred all CCW holders with the brush for this guy. "Reckless!" "Irresponsible!" "Dangerous!" - and worst of all, they'd be right. Instead, because it was a cop, this is completely ignored, found only as a throw-away story on a bulletin board for police officers.

The only consolation is that this cop is going to have his life made a living hell by his co-workers - something tells me that "Rainman" is going to receive a LOT of ribbing about this...

That is all.

In Portland, Criminals Arrest THEMSELVES.

Joseph in IL sends in this story of a stoopid criminal...

Man jailed after sleeping in Portland police car

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — Portland police arrested a homeless man who spent the night sleeping in the back of a patrol car and then couldn't get out.

Sgt. Pete Simpson said an officer was in the Southeast Precinct parking lot Tuesday morning when he heard someone yelling from an unattended police car. In the back seat was Ruben James Turner III, who told the officer he accidentally locked himself inside after deciding to sleep in the vehicle.

I'm guessing there was more to the story. They're throwing an awful lot of charges at someone for sleeping in a patrol car. The report states he went through the glove box and turned off the data computer. Wonder what's happening there?

Of course, there's also the bigger issue of the cruiser being left unlocked and - as evidenced by the article - unattended for a significant amount of time. This dude got into the front seat, rummaged around for a bit, then climbed into the back seat to take a nap, and no one noticed until the next day. I sure hope there wasn't a patrol rifle in the car...

Because Portland, OR police are the only ones professional enough to not secure their automobiles...

That is all.

License To Derp

#1 Blogdaughter sends in a story of a clever crook - and a dumb cop...

Crook busts cop for speeding at 140 mph

A British constable has been suspended after being cited for speeding by a prisoner he was transporting, The Sunday Times reports.

The police officer from the Durham Constabulary in Northern England was transferring the convict from the city of Leeds to a police station in Darlington when they got to talking about the car they were in and the passenger asked how fast it could go.

I don't know. Maybe there's more to this story, but it really sounds like this cop isn't all that bright.140 MPH to satisfy a crook's curiosity? Brilliant move, Bob. It's a good thing this wasn't an armed copper and the guy asked how many rounds his magazine held - Einstein might have fired out the window until the gun was empty.

And then you have to wonder... How did they know that the cop actually hit 140 MPH? Did the crook just tell them that, or did they check the car's black box? Britain is pretty big on spying on their subjects; perhaps they caught the speeding police car on film. It's hard to fathom how this guy thought he'd get away with this, even if the crook hadn't ratted him out.

On the other hand, we know not to try to run from BMW police cars...

That is all.

Molon Lada...

Secret plan to put remote kill switch in every European car revealed

All police chases eventually come to an end, but we may soon see the end of all police chases.

A secret plan requiring that every car that entering Europe be fitted with a system that would allow them to be tracked and disabled remotely by law enforcement has been revealed, The Daily Telegraph reports.

Why, no, this won't be abused at all. Nosirree bob. Not like "no-knock" warrants, APCs for Podunk PD, or drug seizure vehicles. Nope. Not going to be abused. I'm sure that no self-important Officer Roid Rage would ever take it upon himself to target someone that pissed him off and make their life a living hell by disabling their car at random points or anything like that.

To say nothing of the legal ramifications of shutting down a car and having the driver panic - or be unable (or unwilling) to move the car off the road to a safe location. Imagine someone in a high speed chase having their power cut and being unable to work the power steering or brakes, and crashing. What's the liability going to be like on that one?

On a side note, I just have to say:

Really? I'm sorry, if that pulled in behind me trying to get me to pull over, well... Actually, it might work. I would have to pull off to the side of the road so that I didn't wreck my truck laughing at the little car. Of course, if they disabled my truck and I came to a stop too quickly, there's the very real danger that little weiniemobile would wind up in the back of my truck by accident...

I didn't know that Husqvarna made police cars...

That is all.

Another dispatch from...

(image courtesy of Robb Allen)

That Word You Keep Using...

#1 Blogdaughter sends in yet another story of people using words incorrectly...

Sheriff: California transit officer shot to death by colleague was wearing a bulletproof vest

The San Francisco Bay Area transit officer who was accidentally killed by a fellow officer while they searched an apartment was wearing a bulletproof vest when he suffered a single gunshot wound to the chest, an official said.

The bullet struck an area of BART Police Sgt. Tom Smith's body that was not covered by the vest, Alameda County sheriff's spokesman Sgt. J.D. Nelson said Thursday.

The vest wasn't bulletproof, was it now? Now, yes, I understand that "bulletproof vest" is a term much like "waterproof watch", where everyone knows that the item is really ____ resistant, but still, to put it in a headline is rather silly, no? And it gets worse later in the article, where a former San Fran police captain says it's not uncommon for officers to be killed while wearing the vests. Now, yes, it's semantics, but still...

They don't know/aren't saying if the officer that did the shooting had a negligent discharge or improperly identified his target. Neither case is acceptable, period. Look, I know they were going after a potential armed criminal, but that's no excuse for poor trigger discipline or target acquisition. We've given police officers a lot of leeway and a lot of tools for mitigating exactly these kinds of situations, so it's far more heartbreaking to see it still happening.

Either the cop that pulled the trigger was running around in a high-stress environment with his booger hook on the bang switch and tripped, or he improperly identified his target before blasting away (or simply didn't ID the target). Neither possibility exactly covers the officer in glory. Either he's too quick on the trigger or butterfingers, and no matter which is the case, he killed a fellow officer. He'll have to live with that the rest of his life.

It's a terrible scene all around, but perhaps it can be used to train other officers so it becomes less common...

That is all.

Following Up...

Fresh off the BLNN:

11 bikers, 1 cop indicted in NYC highway brawl

NEW YORK (AP) — A grand jury has indicted 11 bikers, including an undercover New York City police detective, on various charges related to a motorcyclist-SUV highway melee.

The indictment Friday says undercover detective Wojciech Braszczok (VOY'-chek BRAZH'-ahk) was charged with gang assault, criminal mischief, riot and other counts.

Indicted is one thing. Fired and jailed is another. I'll be significantly more impressed if he ever faces prosecution. If nothing else, he needs to be fired - this was nothing short of a gross dereliction of duty. The man not only witnessed a number of crimes being committed, he failed to report them. There's a pretty decent case to be made that he actively participated in committing these crimes.

This is significant, especially in the state of New York. We're constantly being told that we don't need to protect ourselves, that the police are there to protect us and keep the peace. For the driver of that SUV and his family, not only were the police not there to protect him, the police were actively taking part in the actions threatening his life. Not only could he not defend himself, he couldn't rely on police protection, either.

Had this been another state, and he defended himself and his family with a firearm, how would this situation have turned out? He's in a vehicle surrounded by people acting violently towards him and his family - they were trying to yank him out of the car when he drove over the bike in front of him. Had he defended himself with deadly force in the form of a 9mm, would the police officer smashing out his back window still have refused to identify himself?


It's hard to accept "you don't need a gun, the police will be there to protect you" when the police themselves are attacking you - with no repercussions.

That is all.

Only The Police Should Have Guns, Part ???

*sigh* Stop me if you've heard this one before. Only the police should [have guns, carry guns, be allowed to bring guns onto school grounds, have standard capacity magazines, etc.] because they are the professionals and they have all this awesome extra training, right? Fresh off the BLNN is this story that begs to differ...

3 children treated after police officer's gun accidentally goes off at California school

CHINO, Calif. – Authorities say a police officer's gun accidentally fired during a school safety demonstration in Southern California and three children were treated for minor injuries.

Tamrin Olden, the Chino Police Department's crime prevention supervisor, says the gun went off at around 11:15 a.m. Wednesday during a safety presentation at Newman Elementary School in the city east of Los Angeles.

Any bets on whether the gun *really* "accidentally" went off, or if it was officer error? I mean, I know here in Massachusetts the police are allowed to carry "unsafe" firearms - Glocks are a common police sidearm, and yet they cannot be sold to non-Law Enforcement because they do not meet the MA Attorney General's sooper seekrit criteria for sale in MA. Even though Glock handguns are in fact on the "Approved Firearms Roster" {spit}.

Newsflash, eggheads. Guns DON'T just "go off". A modern firearm, such as that carried by *any* modern police force needs a rather substantial amount of pressure to be applied to the trigger to release the sear. If no pressure is put on the trigger, that sear isn't going anywhere. Sargent Boogerhook was doing SOMETHING to his firearm, plain and simple - and as a result, three school children were sent to the hospital.

Anyone want the over-under on Officer Boogerhook getting fired? Yeah, I didn't think so. He'll get a nice little paid vacation while they "investigate" (really? They need an investigation? Impound the firearm and check the sear and trigger. Unless there's some magical malfunction that causes it to fire all on its own, there is no "accident" here. This is someone touching a firearm in a way as to cause it to discharge while in a damn school.

I can't carry in a school. In the vast majority of states out there, concealed carry permit holders cannot carry into schools. Yet police can, and here we have an instance where a negligent officer's actions caused harm to schoolchildren. If I injured someone through my own carelessness with my firearm, I would expect at a bare minimum to lose my gun permit and be sued into the poorhouse. Put a badge on me, though, and I get a paid vacation.

I don't mean to pick on the police with these stories. I'm certain that the vast majority are appalled at this story and would most likely enjoy teaching Officer Boogerhook the four rules of gun safety - using a 2 X 4 and a branding iron. But it certainly doesn't help any that I - who has never shot anyone else in the nearly 20 years I have owned a firearm - can't carry on school grounds, but any police officer can. The thought that police automatically have better training than non-cops is patently false and has been proven so reliably through the ages.

What gets me, though, is that concealed carry permit holders are constantly being referred to like we're children in the media. You can't carry a gun in [insert location here] because gun owners are mature enough to handle the awesome power of a firearm. Officer ButterBar McShootie over there, though, is perfectly fine to leave his gun on a toilet tank for a young child to find - oh, and without permissions of any sort, either.

Some animals really are more equal than others...

That is all.

Oh, They'll Never Arrest Anyone for THAT...

Yes, yes they will.

Traffic stop leads to SAFE Act arrest

LOCKPORT, N.Y. (WIVB) - Lockport Police are coming under fire, following the arrest of a gun owner. Lockport Police made an arrest this weekend, when a man had too many bullets in his pistol clip. Police admit there are even some city employees not happy the man was arrested.

“It's not the kind of history I want to make. You know what I mean? But hopefully we can change some things,” said Paul Wojdan, who is facing misdemeanor Safe Act Violation.

Wojdan had a pistol in his glove box with 10 rounds instead of 7 in the magazine. Now, here's the thing. Under the SAFE Act itself, unless a crime is being committed, the police are not allowed to inspect the firearm. From the comments to the article:

"Absent some indication of criminal activity, there is no right to inspect the contents of a magazine to ensure that it meets the requirements under the Safe Act. If an officer has probable cause to believe that a particular magazine is unlawful, he or she may seize and inspect it. If there is founded suspicion of criminal activity, the officer may ask for consent to check the magazine. However, the mere existence of a magazine, which may or may not be legal, does not provide probable cause to believe that any law is being broken.
If the weapon is one for which a permit is required, police will be justified in checking the permit to ensure that the person lawfully possesses the firearm. If a permit cannot be produced, the officer would be legally justified in seizing the firearm and conducting an inventory of its contents. In this case, the inventory would include checking the magazine in order to account for each round. However, if the person produces a permit and there are no indications of unlawful conduct, an inspection of the magazine would be unnecessary. In this case, the weapon should be secured temporarily, in the same condition as it was found, for the duration of the stop and returned to the motorist at the conclusion of the encounter."

So, the only way the police could have checked the magazine would have been if Wojdan hadn't had a permit for the firearm in his glovebox. Since he had the permit, they were not justified in checking the magazine. Of course, that didn't stop them, and now Wojdan has a legal fight on his hands. It should be a slam dunk to prove that the police had no reason to check the magazines and therefore the arrest was no good, but he's still out a good chunk of change in a legal defense.

I love how the chief hints that the police aren't happy with the law - "there's probably some people in this building that are not in favor of this law" - but they went ahead with an illegal search anyways. This is exactly why we need to remove the police exemptions - I wonder how supportive of these new gun laws the police would be if they had to abide by them like the rest of us peons. Personally, I would love to see Glock, Smith & Wesson, et al refuse to sell anything but 7 round magazines to NYPD. Bet we'd see these idiotic laws repealed quickly.

So, as a cautionary example, be extra-careful in New York - not that you weren't already...

That is all.

You Don't Need A Gun, The Police Will Protect You...

What happens when it's the police that are attacking you, though? A whole mess of folks sent this in...

NYPD cop arrested in motorcycle-SUV assault case

NEW YORK (AP) — An undercover detective who investigators said was off duty when he was recorded on video pounding on an SUV as a biker rally spiraled into violence was arrested late Tuesday.

Wojciech Braszczok surrendered to face riot and criminal mischief charges, New York Police Department spokesman John McCarthy said.

So, not only did he wait three days to say anything about the event, he lied about his participation. He claimed that he didn't say anything at the time because he didn't want to blow his cover, but claimed to not have been involved. Hey, dumbass, there were dozens of helmet cameras there and all kinds of people uploading stuff to YouTube. To say nothing of the fact that he was freely associating himself with the kind of element that performs illegal street stunts and gang attacks on innocent motorists.

I guess Lien is lucky that he didn't get shot.

But we're supposed to just blindly put our safety in the hands of the police, right? We are supposed to beat our swords into plowshares and give up our arms, singing Kumbaya and living in a gun-free world, all because the police are the unassailable protectors of life and limb. Except, of course, when they're part of the angry mob smashing your property and curb-stomping your head in because you had the audacity to get in the way of their stunts.

What's most disturbing to me is that this guy is a 10 year veteran of the force. He's not some raw recruit, fresh out of a tour of Afghanistan who came back to the states and became a cop in his early 20s. Not that it would make what he did any less wrong, but it's a lot easier to see how a young guy just starting out might make this mistake easier than someone that has put half a career into police work. 10 years as an NYPD cop should have been long enough for him to have seen when this event went from a group of friends having fun on motorcycles to annoying the general public to assaulting the general public.

I hate to paint with a broad brush, or extrapolate one cop's bad judgement to the entire NYPD. It's interesting to see that he has been arrested; of course, he'll be out in picoseconds and I'll fall over dead of shock if he's actually fired for this. Well, fired for longer than it takes for the union to sue for him to get his job back at least. I'm sure he'll get a few months off with pay, then be quietly reinstated with no time lost. Hopefully they'll tell him to be more careful and not participate in full-on criminal activity on camera any more.

Remember this story, though, the next time some doe-eyed liberal gun grabber tells you that the police will protect you so you don't need a gun...

That is all.

Always Look On The Bright Side of Life...

Arkansas SWAT officers kill man, 107, in standoff

PINE BLUFF, Ark. (AP) — A 107-year-old man was killed after SWAT officers shot back at him during a standoff at a home, police in the southeastern Arkansas city of Pine Bluff said Sunday.

Police were called to the home Saturday afternoon about a disturbance and say officers arrived to find Monroe Isadore had threatened two people by pointing a weapon at them.

You know what? If, at the age of 107, I am killed in an active shooting exchange with a SWAT team, I will consider it a life well-lived... From all appearances, the encounter actually looks like a justifiable use of the SWAT team - they were in negotiations with the man killed, they used a distraction device, they tried to end the confrontation without bloodshed. The age of the man is immaterial - when you start shooting at police officers, you should expect return fire...

107 years old, though, and still able to put a SWAT team in fear for their life? That's a claim very few people will ever get to make. I hope that - should I somehow manage to make it well over a century - I'll still be able to lift a pistol, let alone fire one. If I were a betting man, I'd wager he wasn't in full command of his senses - but that still doesn't mean he's not posing a danger to others around him. Sure, it sounds crazy that the police had to shoot a 107 year old man, but that's the double-edged nature of the firearm - that 107 year old man is just as dangerous as Ray-Ray with his fohtay.

Now, 107 years old and shot by an irate husband...

That is all.

"Only The Police Should Be Allowed To Own Guns"

That's what the anti-freedom crowd says, right? That only the police (and military) should have guns - you know, because they're so much more trained and trustworthy than us mere peon civilians, right?

Yeah, right.

Oklahoma police chief arrested for allegedly pointing gun at wife's head

TAHLEQUAH, Okla. – An Oklahoma police chief has been arrested for allegedly holding a gun to his wife's head during an argument.

Beggs Police Chief Wesley Fish was released from the Cherokee County Jail on bond Tuesday. Undersheriff Jason Chennault says the 48-year-old Fish was arrested Saturday near Lake Cookson after deputies received a call that a man was holding a woman by the throat with a gun to her head.

You know, I'm scratching my head here. I'm trying to figure out just what a POLICE CHIEF thought was going to happen when he held a gun to his wife's head. I mean, the thin blue line is one thing, but damn. There's only one way that's going to go if it gets swept under the rug, and if he had gotten out of that situation without going to jail, I'd measure her lifespan in days.

Glad to see that not every cop is willing to look the other way.

Here's the thing. I didn't post this to bash cops, far from it. He did something stupid; he's going to pay for it, that is exactly how it should be. It's the notion, espoused by those that would disarm us, that only the police have the magical qualifications to possess firearms. Putting on a badge, it would seem, inoculates the wearer from the ZOMG EVIL DEATHKILLRAY that all guns emit. At least that's how MAIG sees it - they're all surrounded by armed police officers, right?

Cops are human, just like the rest of us. Statistically, concealed carry permit holders are even less likely than police officers to commit crimes - they've got more to lose. Going through the police academy doesn't confer superhuman abilities. Police officers are no more - or less - human than the rest of us. They make mistakes just like everyone else. Being a sworn officer of the law doesn't automatically make a person any more trustworthy than any one else.

A predilection for donuts, OTOH...

That is all.

Another dispatch from...

(image courtesy of Robb Allen)

Remember, Only The Police Should Have Guns

So they can leave them in cars to be stolen...

Reward offered for weapons stolen from FBI vehicle in North Carolina

The FBI is offering a $5,000 reward for information leading to high-powered weapons stolen from a federal agent's vehicle in Charlotte.

A Colt M-16 equipped with a Streamlight TRL-2 and a vertical forward hand grip Remington 870 shotgun with pistol grip were seized from an FBI vehicle between the evening hours of August 5 and the early morning hours of August 6, authorities said in a press release. The stolen items also included night-vision equipment and body armor.

I wonder if that's a true M-16. If it is, then whoever took the weapon is going to regret choosing a life of crime, as that's a Fed level crime. I suspect that stealing firearms from an FBI agent isn't the best course of action, either, but having a non-transferable machine gun is a BIG no-no... I'm curious how they're planning on tracking this down - I wonder if they've got any leads, or if they're just going to run fingerprints/etc.

Now, here's the thing. Here in Massachusetts, we're supposed to keep our firearms under lock and key whenever they are not in our direct possession. I suppose the two longarms could have been in a locked case, but I would imagine that - at the very least - you would be looking at having your permit revoked as an "unsuitable" person. Losing two guns because you left them in the trunk of your car wouldn't go over very well in most towns in MA.

Of course, everything is different when it's a police officer in question - even moreso with a Fed - so I'm certain that the agent won't face any repercussions. It's entirely possible that both firearms were in a secured case that was cut out with a blowtorch - or they could have been left in the back seat of an unlocked car. In fact, I'm pretty sure I posted a picture of a police car with the officer's "patrol rifle" sitting on the trunk, completely unattended in a blog post a year or two ago.

In any case, it's the criminal's fault entirely. Let's make that abundantly clear. It's just that the reaction from both law enforcement and the media is so radically different depending on who it is that has firearms stolen from them. When it's one of us, we're "careless" and "should know better"; when it's an LEO it's [cue crickets]. When it's a citizen whose guns are stolen, the police response ranges from "Yeah, we'll get right on that, right after the donut shop closes" to "I'm sorry you've been the victim of a crime. Your gun permit is now revoked". It shouldn't matter who the victim is - cop or not - but it does.

Remember, they're the only ones professional enough to have guns stolen out of their cars...

That is all.

Another dispatch from...

(image courtesy of Robb Allen)

Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others...

Quincy police captain 'blanket denies' domestic assault charge

QUINCY, Mass. —The attorney for a Quincy police captain charged with domestic assault and battery against his estranged, pregnant wife said Capt. Michael J. Miller "blanket denies" the allegation.

According to the Patriot Ledger, Quincy defense attorney Jack McGlone also said Miller's wife declined to press charges when she first contacted police in Plymouth, where she now lives.

So, this guy's a captain in Quincy, and magically his ex-wife initially declined to press charges? They're surprised about this? Isn't this how, oh, 99% of all domestic violence cases shake out? After she got out of the hospital she decided to press charges. You know, after she's had time to talk to people about, oh, domestic violence.

And what does his lawyer have to say about it?

"You're dealing with a captain. They're doting the i's, crossing the t's and they're going above board,” said McGone. “Because of who he is -- if he was just Joe Blow, (it) probably wouldn't have been an issue."

Right, it wouldn't have been an issue at all. Because the cops would have come to the house, taken him out at gunpoint, confiscated any weapons he had, and he would stand a very good chance of never seeing them again. Instead, he gets paid administrative leave and a pretty good chance of them dropping the charges.

Now, what about that Lautenberg Amendment? Granted, the Captain would have to be convicted, which at this point looks about as likely as an actual conservative ever getting elected to office again, but if he is convicted, he will have to give up his right to possess firearms forever. Going to be tough to be a cop that way, isn't it?

More equal than others indeed.

That is all.