Or is it another example of people being stupid?
For one minute I would like for all non-law enforcement people to try, just try, and put your self into their shoes. You have pulled over a person for what ever reason, maybe it’s a bad guy you know about or just some poor bastard late for church. But you have to be on high alert incase it is a bad guy. You always have to be on high alert. For 10 hrs a shift you have to be completely aware of all that is going on around you and then put yourself into the middle of the fight.
Now that you have imagined for just one minute what it must be like to be a cop, put yourself into the police officer's, mentioned below, shoes. You have a guy pulled over and another person comes running out asking questions. Maybe the pastor is wearing a collar or a robe that identifies him as a pastor, but maybe not.
So let’s treat the pastor as a normal guy, which is how a pastor should be treated by anyone in authority.
"Sir, please walk away, this is none of your business." says the officer
"He is one of sheep. It is my job to worry about him." says the pastor
Well if the pastor continues to harangue the officer then it is time force him to go away. If he puts up a fight or runs to get 40 of his friends, well its full on go time.
This is personal responsibility at its height. What possible thing does that pastor have to do with this situation? NONE, nothing what so ever. If it is a grown ass man who is being talked too, ticketed, or arrested then no one, including his parents have nothing to do with the situation.
Want to know what they can do? They can wait patiently and if the worst happens such as arrest, they can go bail the person out of jail.
REMEMBER PEOPLE, it is not the cops job to judge you, it is his or her job to site you for breaking the law. The time to argue whether you did it or not is in court. YOU WILL NEVER WIN AN ARGUEMENT WITH A COP!!! At least an on duty cop.
Your only hope is that if you are polite and respectful that he might show mercy and just give you a warning. Treat a police officer with respect and 9 times out of 10 he will treat you the same way. Act like an asshole and it wont matter what job you have, your ass will either be receiving a ticket, an ass wuppin, or jail. All of which you deserve for being stupid.
Police Taser Pastor 'Helping' Driver in Traffic Stop
Thursday , July 02, 2009
WEBSTER, Texas — Police used a Taser on a pastor and pepper spray to disperse his congregants Wednesday after the pastor allegedly interfered with a traffic stop in the church parking lot.
Congregants say they were in the Iglesia Profetica Peniel church for an early morning prayer when pastor Jose Elias Moran went to assist the stopped driver, a church member, by asking the police what had happened.
An incident report on the Webster police department's Web site said Officer Raymond Berryman tried to calm Moran and arrest him. But police say he pushed the officer, went inside the church and returned with 40 other congregants.
The congregants say Moran fled into the church when the officer grew angry and began to yell, and Moran's family disputes that the pastor touched the officer.
Moran's son Miguel said 30 witnesses saw the officer turn aggressive and repeatedly kick the church door. Several members were hit with pepper spray and children were present, Miguel Moran said.
"They treated him as if he were a drug dealer or murderer, but he is a pastor that tries to help the community," Moran said. "The police always want to be right but they are not."
Moran's wife, Maria, said she tried to help her husband after he was hit with the Taser but police threatened to arrest her.
"My husband has a heart condition and with electrocution who knows what could've happened," Maria Moran said, referring to the Taser's electrical shock.
"A pastor has to tend to his flock," she said. "That is all he was doing."
Speaking from a hospital bed Wednesday night, Moran told The Associated Press he planned to hire an attorney to file charges against the officer. He was being held at the hospital overnight for additional tests.
Police did not immediately return calls seeking comment and more details of the incident. Police Sgt. James Lovel did not specify Moran's status, except to say he was in custody and negotiations for bail were taking place Wednesday night.
Webster is a suburb southeast of Houston.
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Harold Fish's Murder Conviction Thrown Out!!!
This is great news for Harold and great news for victims of crazy people.
Retrial ordered in fatal shooting of hiker
by Michael Kiefer - Jun. 30, 2009 03:08 PMThe Arizona Republic
The Arizona Court of Appeals on Tuesday threw out a murder conviction of a hiker who claimed self-defense when he shot a man to death on a hiking trail north of Payson in May 2004.
Harold Fish, 62, was convicted of second-degree murder in June 2006 for shooting Grant Kuenzli, 43, after Kuenzli ran at him waving his arms because Fish had fired a warning shot into the ground to scare away Kuenzli's aggressive dogs. He was sentenced to 10 years in prison.
But the Court of Appeals sent the case back to Coconino Court Superior Court to be retried because the trial court judge had not given adequate instruction on what constituted self defense.
And the panel of appellate judges scolded Coconino County Superior Court Judge Mark Moran for not answering a jury request to define the word "attack." The panel remarked that the jury may not have understood that someone can commit aggravated assault on another person without actually touching him.
Fish's contention was that Kuenzli's three dogs ran at him and put him in fear for his safety. He fired a shot into the ground in front of the dogs and scared them away. But then Kuenzli ran at him shouting and waving his arms and refused to stop.
The panel also noted that the lower court had "sanitized" evidence of prior incidents in which Kuenzli had become enraged and had frightened people during encounters with the dogs. Many times, in criminal trials, such "prior bad acts" are excluded. But in this case, the appellate judges felt it was relevant, especially since there were no witnesses to the event.
The appeals court also felt that Moran could have allowed the defense to classify dogs as potentially "dangerous instruments," furthering Fish's self-defense claims.
Two weeks after Fish's trial began, the Arizona State Legislature rewrote the state's self-defense statutes to force prosecutors to better disprove self-defense claims. And although the Fish case was a catalyst for the law, it could not be applied retroactively. That change in the law, however, coupled with the strong wording of the ruling may factor into whether the Coconino County Attorney decides to retry the case or whether Fish goes free.
Retrial ordered in fatal shooting of hiker
by Michael Kiefer - Jun. 30, 2009 03:08 PMThe Arizona Republic
The Arizona Court of Appeals on Tuesday threw out a murder conviction of a hiker who claimed self-defense when he shot a man to death on a hiking trail north of Payson in May 2004.
Harold Fish, 62, was convicted of second-degree murder in June 2006 for shooting Grant Kuenzli, 43, after Kuenzli ran at him waving his arms because Fish had fired a warning shot into the ground to scare away Kuenzli's aggressive dogs. He was sentenced to 10 years in prison.
But the Court of Appeals sent the case back to Coconino Court Superior Court to be retried because the trial court judge had not given adequate instruction on what constituted self defense.
And the panel of appellate judges scolded Coconino County Superior Court Judge Mark Moran for not answering a jury request to define the word "attack." The panel remarked that the jury may not have understood that someone can commit aggravated assault on another person without actually touching him.
Fish's contention was that Kuenzli's three dogs ran at him and put him in fear for his safety. He fired a shot into the ground in front of the dogs and scared them away. But then Kuenzli ran at him shouting and waving his arms and refused to stop.
The panel also noted that the lower court had "sanitized" evidence of prior incidents in which Kuenzli had become enraged and had frightened people during encounters with the dogs. Many times, in criminal trials, such "prior bad acts" are excluded. But in this case, the appellate judges felt it was relevant, especially since there were no witnesses to the event.
The appeals court also felt that Moran could have allowed the defense to classify dogs as potentially "dangerous instruments," furthering Fish's self-defense claims.
Two weeks after Fish's trial began, the Arizona State Legislature rewrote the state's self-defense statutes to force prosecutors to better disprove self-defense claims. And although the Fish case was a catalyst for the law, it could not be applied retroactively. That change in the law, however, coupled with the strong wording of the ruling may factor into whether the Coconino County Attorney decides to retry the case or whether Fish goes free.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Man stabbed after attempted carjacking at Taco Bell
Man stabbed after attempted carjacking at Taco Bell
by Christopher Cash - Jun. 29, 2009 10:04 PM The Arizona Republic
A group attempting a carjacking stabbed a man in Phoenix Monday afternoon.
The man pulled into a Taco Bell parking lot near 43rd Avenue and Indian School Road around 5 p.m. due to car troubles and was approached by three men and one women, said Phoenix Police Department Lt. John White.
One carried a weapon and demanded the victim's car, White said.
The man tried to flee and was stabbed in the back. He suffered non-life threatening injuries.
The suspects did not take the car and fled on foot.
by Christopher Cash - Jun. 29, 2009 10:04 PM The Arizona Republic
A group attempting a carjacking stabbed a man in Phoenix Monday afternoon.
The man pulled into a Taco Bell parking lot near 43rd Avenue and Indian School Road around 5 p.m. due to car troubles and was approached by three men and one women, said Phoenix Police Department Lt. John White.
One carried a weapon and demanded the victim's car, White said.
The man tried to flee and was stabbed in the back. He suffered non-life threatening injuries.
The suspects did not take the car and fled on foot.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
This is why you carry in a restaurant
Police Hunt Suspects After Fatal Shooting at New Mexico Denny's
Sunday, June 21, 2009
KASA FOX 2
June 20: As many as four masked men armed with rifles and handguns rushed into the restaurant killing an employee.
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — Police on Sunday were searching for at least two more suspects they believe killed a teenage worker during a robbery at a packed Denny's and committed 10 more armed robberies in Albuquerque this past year.
Two suspects were arrested within minutes of the crime Saturday on suspicion of murder, kidnapping, robbery and child abuse because there were at least five children in the restaurant, Albuquerque Police Officer Nadine Hamby said.
Hamby said the men who were arrested are in their late 20s to early 30s and are from South America, but she did not know where specifically. She said police were working with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to verify the men's identities.
Hamby said at least four masked men with rifles and handguns rushed into the northwest Albuquerque Denny's around 9:30 a.m. Saturday and demanded money.
A teenage female employee was fatally shot during the robbery. Police have not yet identified her.
One restaurant employee told police a manager was forced to open the cash register and the robbers took an undetermined amount of cash.
Hamby said police believe the men committed 10 similar robberies in the Albuquerque area in the past year, but no one was shot in those incidents. She would not provide further details.
She said about 35 detectives, who were in the area as part of a special operation targeting robberies, responded to the restaurant and found two of the suspects quickly.
Hamby said police were trying to help the roughly 100 people who were in the restaurant at the time get any emotional or psychological help they may need.
"They've been through a traumatic experience," she said.
Witnesses described the scene inside the restaurant as chaotic, with people getting down on the floor when they heard a bang.
"Four masked men came in with guns," customer Brian Thompson told KRQE News in Albuquerque. "Two went toward the back. That's all we could see because we all hit the ground."
Sunday, June 21, 2009
KASA FOX 2
June 20: As many as four masked men armed with rifles and handguns rushed into the restaurant killing an employee.
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — Police on Sunday were searching for at least two more suspects they believe killed a teenage worker during a robbery at a packed Denny's and committed 10 more armed robberies in Albuquerque this past year.
Two suspects were arrested within minutes of the crime Saturday on suspicion of murder, kidnapping, robbery and child abuse because there were at least five children in the restaurant, Albuquerque Police Officer Nadine Hamby said.
Hamby said the men who were arrested are in their late 20s to early 30s and are from South America, but she did not know where specifically. She said police were working with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to verify the men's identities.
Hamby said at least four masked men with rifles and handguns rushed into the northwest Albuquerque Denny's around 9:30 a.m. Saturday and demanded money.
A teenage female employee was fatally shot during the robbery. Police have not yet identified her.
One restaurant employee told police a manager was forced to open the cash register and the robbers took an undetermined amount of cash.
Hamby said police believe the men committed 10 similar robberies in the Albuquerque area in the past year, but no one was shot in those incidents. She would not provide further details.
She said about 35 detectives, who were in the area as part of a special operation targeting robberies, responded to the restaurant and found two of the suspects quickly.
Hamby said police were trying to help the roughly 100 people who were in the restaurant at the time get any emotional or psychological help they may need.
"They've been through a traumatic experience," she said.
Witnesses described the scene inside the restaurant as chaotic, with people getting down on the floor when they heard a bang.
"Four masked men came in with guns," customer Brian Thompson told KRQE News in Albuquerque. "Two went toward the back. That's all we could see because we all hit the ground."
This Could Have Been You Instead of a Cop
Tucson police kill man, say he pulled gun
by Associated Press (June 24th, 2009 @ 6:36pm)
TUCSON, Ariz. - Tucson police say a man pulled a gun on an off-duty officer who had stopped to help motorists, and the officer fatally shot him early Wednesday.
Police say Officer Rico M. Acevedo has been placed on paid leave - standard procedure in such incidents.
Tucson police spokesman Sgt. Fabian Pacheco says Acevedo and another officer were driving home in their own vehicles after their shifts ended at midnight when they spotted a car apparently crashed on an Interstate 10 frontage road. Two men and two women were standing nearby. The officers stopped to help.
Pacheco says one of the men pulled a gun and tried to carjack Acevedo, striking him in the face with the weapon. Acevedo pulled his own gun and fatally shot the man, who was identified by authorities as 28-year-old Paul J. Hoppler.
Police say Hoppler was pronounced dead at the scene.
by Associated Press (June 24th, 2009 @ 6:36pm)
TUCSON, Ariz. - Tucson police say a man pulled a gun on an off-duty officer who had stopped to help motorists, and the officer fatally shot him early Wednesday.
Police say Officer Rico M. Acevedo has been placed on paid leave - standard procedure in such incidents.
Tucson police spokesman Sgt. Fabian Pacheco says Acevedo and another officer were driving home in their own vehicles after their shifts ended at midnight when they spotted a car apparently crashed on an Interstate 10 frontage road. Two men and two women were standing nearby. The officers stopped to help.
Pacheco says one of the men pulled a gun and tried to carjack Acevedo, striking him in the face with the weapon. Acevedo pulled his own gun and fatally shot the man, who was identified by authorities as 28-year-old Paul J. Hoppler.
Police say Hoppler was pronounced dead at the scene.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs
WOW, I always wanted the perfect analogy and here it is. I am not a police officer, a Marine, or a soldier, I am just an old Air Force Aircraft Electrician, but I am prepared to defend my home, friends, and neighbors. I am a Sheepdog.
For a long time now I have had a hard time articulating my thoughts on self defense to people who did not believe owning a gun and/or possibly taking a bad persons life was worth anything in the world. I felt guilty when I said a criminal doing bad things deserved what ever he got. I almost felt that I was as bad as the bad guy but always new that my intentions were good. Why did I feel guilt for my beliefs? Because I just didn't know how to express them in a way that did not sound hostile. How does one say, I am all for peace and at the same time have a Glock under the shirt with full intent to use it if necessary. I could discuss it with my friends but to a staunch passive minded person I just couldn't put it into words. Dave Grossman has done that for me.
When you are done reading, decide what type of person you are and what type of person you want to be. Nothing is set and it is never too late to start training and take person responsibility for your own safety and that of your families.
On Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs - Dave Grossman
By LTC (RET) Dave Grossman, author of "On Killing."
http://www.gleamingedge.com/mirrors/onsheepwolvesandsheepdogs.html
Honor never grows old, and honor rejoices the heart of age. It does so because honor is, finally, about defending those noble and worthy things that deserve defending, even if it comes at a high cost. In our time, that may mean social disapproval, public scorn, hardship, persecution, or as always,even death itself. The question remains: What is worth defending? What is worth dying for? What is worth living for? - William J. Bennett - in a lecture to the United States Naval Academy November 24, 1997
One Vietnam veteran, an old retired colonel, once said this to me:
"Most of the people in our society are sheep. They are kind, gentle, productive creatures who can only hurt one another by accident." This is true. Remember, the murder rate is six per 100,000 per year, and the aggravated assault rate is four per 1,000 per year. What this means is that the vast majority of Americans are not inclined to hurt one another. Some estimates say that two million Americans are victims of violent crimes every year, a tragic, staggering number, perhaps an all-time record rate of violent crime. But there are almost 300 million Americans, which means that the odds of being a victim of violent crime is considerably less than one in a hundred on any given year. Furthermore, since many violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders, the actual number of violent citizens is considerably less than two million.
Thus there is a paradox, and we must grasp both ends of the situation: We may well be in the most violent times in history, but violence is still remarkably rare. This is because most citizens are kind, decent people who are not capable of hurting each other, except by accident or under extreme provocation. They are sheep.
I mean nothing negative by calling them sheep. To me it is like the pretty, blue robin's egg. Inside it is soft and gooey but someday it will grow into something wonderful. But the egg cannot survive without its hard blue shell. Police officers, soldiers, and other warriors are like that shell, and someday the civilization they protect will grow into something wonderful.? For now, though, they need warriors to protect them from the predators.
"Then there are the wolves," the old war veteran said, "and the wolves feed on the sheep without mercy." Do you believe there are wolves out there who will feed on the flock without mercy? You better believe it. There are evil men in this world and they are capable of evil deeds. The moment you forget that or pretend it is not so, you become a sheep. There is no safety in denial.
"Then there are sheepdogs," he went on, "and I'm a sheepdog. I live to protect the flock and confront the wolf."
If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive citizen, a sheep. If you have a capacity for violence and no empathy for your fellow citizens, then you have defined an aggressive sociopath, a wolf. But what if you have a capacity for violence, and a deep love for your fellow citizens? What do you have then? A sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking the hero's path. Someone who can walk into the heart of darkness, into the universal human phobia, and walk out unscathed
Let me expand on this old soldier's excellent model of the sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs. We know that the sheep live in denial, that is what makes them sheep. They do not want to believe that there is evil in the world. They can accept the fact that fires can happen, which is why they want fire extinguishers, fire sprinklers, fire alarms and fire exits throughout their kids' schools.
But many of them are outraged at the idea of putting an armed police officer in their kid's school. Our children are thousands of times more likely to be killed or seriously injured by school violence than fire, but the sheep's only response to the possibility of violence is denial. The idea of someone coming to kill or harm their child is just too hard, and so they chose the path of denial.
The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog. He looks a lot like the wolf. He has fangs and the capacity for violence. The difference, though, is that the sheepdog must not, can not and will not ever harm the sheep. Any sheep dog who intentionally harms the lowliest little lamb will be punished and removed. The world cannot work any other way, at least not in a representative democracy or a republic such as ours.
Still, the sheepdog disturbs the sheep. He is a constant reminder that there are wolves in the land. They would prefer that he didn't tell them where to go, or give them traffic tickets, or stand at the ready in our airports in camouflage fatigues holding an M-16. The sheep would much rather have the sheepdog cash in his fangs, spray paint himself white, and go, "Baa."
Until the wolf shows up. Then the entire flock tries desperately to hide behind one lonely sheepdog.
The students, the victims, at Columbine High School were big, tough high school students, and under ordinary circumstances they would not have had the time of day for a police officer. They were not bad kids; they just had nothing to say to a cop. When the school was under attack, however, and SWAT teams were clearing the rooms and hallways, the officers had to physically peel those clinging, sobbing kids off of them. This is how the little lambs feel about their sheepdog when the wolf is at the door.
Look at what happened after September 11, 2001 when the wolf pounded hard on the door. Remember how America, more than ever before, felt differently about their law enforcement officers and military personnel? Remember how many times you heard the word hero?
Understand that there is nothing morally superior about being a sheepdog; it is just what you choose to be. Also understand that a sheepdog is a funny critter: He is always sniffing around out on the perimeter, checking the breeze, barking at things that go bump in the night, and yearning for a righteous battle. That is, the young sheepdogs yearn for a righteous battle. The old sheepdogs are a little older and wiser, but they move to the sound of the guns when needed right along with the young ones.
Here is how the sheep and the sheepdog think differently. The sheep pretend the wolf will never come, but the sheepdog lives for that day. After the attacks on September 11, 2001, most of the sheep, that is, most citizens in America said, "Thank God I wasn't on one of those planes." The sheepdogs, the warriors, said, "Dear God, I wish I could have been on one of those planes. Maybe I could have made a difference." When you are truly transformed into a warrior and have truly invested yourself into warriorhood, you want to be there. You want to be able to make a difference.
There is nothing morally superior about the sheepdog, the warrior, but he does have one real advantage. Only one. And that is that he is able to survive and thrive in an environment that destroys 98 percent of the population. There was research conducted a few years ago with individuals convicted of violent crimes. These cons were in prison for serious, predatory crimes of violence: assaults, murders and killing law enforcement officers. The vast majority said that they specifically targeted victims by body language: slumped walk, passive behavior and lack of awareness. They chose their victims like big cats do in Africa, when they select one out of the herd that is least able to protect itself.
Some people may be destined to be sheep and others might be genetically primed to be wolves or sheepdogs. But I believe that most people can choose which one they want to be, and I'm proud to say that more and more Americans are choosing to become sheepdogs.
Seven months after the attack on September 11, 2001, Todd Beamer was honored in his hometown of Cranbury, New Jersey. Todd, as you recall, was the man on Flight 93 over Pennsylvania who called on his cell phone to alert an operator from United Airlines about the hijacking. When he learned of the other three passenger planes that had been used as weapons, Todd dropped his phone and uttered the words, "Let's roll," which authorities believe was a signal to the other passengers to confront the terrorist hijackers. In one hour, a transformation occurred among the passengers - athletes, business people and parents. -- from sheep to sheepdogs and together they fought the wolves, ultimately saving an unknown number of lives on the ground.
There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of evil men. - Edmund Burke
Here is the point I like to emphasize, especially to the thousands of police officers and soldiers I speak to each year. In nature the sheep, real sheep, are born as sheep. Sheepdogs are born that way, and so are wolves. They didn't have a choice. But you are not a critter. As a human being, you can be whatever you want to be. It is a conscious, moral decision.
If you want to be a sheep, then you can be a sheep and that is okay, but you must understand the price you pay. When the wolf comes, you and your loved ones are going to die if there is not a sheepdog there to protect you. If you want to be a wolf, you can be one, but the sheepdogs are going to hunt you down and you will never have rest, safety, trust or love. But if you want to be a sheepdog and walk the warrior's path, then you must make a conscious and moral decision every day to dedicate, equip and prepare yourself to thrive in that toxic, corrosive moment when the wolf comes knocking at the door.
For example, many officers carry their weapons in church.? They are well concealed in ankle holsters, shoulder holsters or inside-the-belt holsters tucked into the small of their backs.? Anytime you go to some form of religious service, there is a very good chance that a police officer in your congregation is carrying. You will never know if there is such an individual in your place of worship, until the wolf appears to massacre you and your loved ones.
I was training a group of police officers in Texas, and during the break, one officer asked his friend if he carried his weapon in church. The other cop replied, "I will never be caught without my gun in church." I asked why he felt so strongly about this, and he told me about a cop he knew who was at a church massacre in Ft. Worth, Texas in 1999. In that incident, a mentally deranged individual came into the church and opened fire, gunning down fourteen people. He said that officer believed he could have saved every life that day if he had been carrying his gun. His own son was shot, and all he could do was throw himself on the boy's body and wait to die. That cop looked me in the eye and said, "Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself after that?"
Some individuals would be horrified if they knew this police officer was carrying a weapon in church. They might call him paranoid and would probably scorn him. Yet these same individuals would be enraged and would call for "heads to roll" if they found out that the airbags in their cars were defective, or that the fire extinguisher and fire sprinklers in their kids' school did not work. They can accept the fact that fires and traffic accidents can happen and that there must be safeguards against them.
Their only response to the wolf, though, is denial, and all too often their response to the sheepdog is scorn and disdain. But the sheepdog quietly asks himself, "Do you have and idea how hard it would be to live with yourself if your loved ones attacked and killed, and you had to stand there helplessly because you were unprepared for that day?"
It is denial that turns people into sheep. Sheep are psychologically destroyed by combat because their only defense is denial, which is counterproductive and destructive, resulting in fear, helplessness and horror when the wolf shows up.
Denial kills you twice. It kills you once, at your moment of truth when you are not physically prepared: you didn't bring your gun, you didn't train. Your only defense was wishful thinking. Hope is not a strategy. Denial kills you a second time because even if you do physically survive, you are psychologically shattered by your fear helplessness and horror at your moment of truth.
Gavin de Becker puts it like this in Fear Less, his superb post-9/11 book, which should be required reading for anyone trying to come to terms with our current world situation: "...denial can be seductive, but it has an insidious side effect. For all the peace of mind deniers think they get by saying it isn't so, the fall they take when faced with new violence is all the more unsettling."
Denial is a save-now-pay-later scheme, a contract written entirely in small print, for in the long run, the denying person knows the truth on some level.
And so the warrior must strive to confront denial in all aspects of his life, and prepare himself for the day when evil comes. If you are warrior who is legally authorized to carry a weapon and you step outside without that weapon, then you become a sheep, pretending that the bad man will not come today. No one can be "on" 24/7, for a lifetime. Everyone needs down time. But if you are authorized to carry a weapon, and you walk outside without it, just take a deep breath, and say this to yourself...
"Baa."
This business of being a sheep or a sheep dog is not a yes-no dichotomy. It is not an all-or-nothing, either-or choice. It is a matter of degrees, a continuum. On one end is an abject, head-in-the-sand-sheep and on the other end is the ultimate warrior. Few people exist completely on one end or the other. Most of us live somewhere in between. Since 9-11 almost everyone in America took a step up that continuum, away from denial. The sheep took a few steps toward accepting and appreciating their warriors, and the warriors started taking their job more seriously. The degree to which you move up that continuum, away from sheephood and denial, is the degree to which you and your loved ones will survive, physically and psychologically at your moment of truth.
For a long time now I have had a hard time articulating my thoughts on self defense to people who did not believe owning a gun and/or possibly taking a bad persons life was worth anything in the world. I felt guilty when I said a criminal doing bad things deserved what ever he got. I almost felt that I was as bad as the bad guy but always new that my intentions were good. Why did I feel guilt for my beliefs? Because I just didn't know how to express them in a way that did not sound hostile. How does one say, I am all for peace and at the same time have a Glock under the shirt with full intent to use it if necessary. I could discuss it with my friends but to a staunch passive minded person I just couldn't put it into words. Dave Grossman has done that for me.
When you are done reading, decide what type of person you are and what type of person you want to be. Nothing is set and it is never too late to start training and take person responsibility for your own safety and that of your families.
On Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs - Dave Grossman
By LTC (RET) Dave Grossman, author of "On Killing."
http://www.gleamingedge.com/mirrors/onsheepwolvesandsheepdogs.html
Honor never grows old, and honor rejoices the heart of age. It does so because honor is, finally, about defending those noble and worthy things that deserve defending, even if it comes at a high cost. In our time, that may mean social disapproval, public scorn, hardship, persecution, or as always,even death itself. The question remains: What is worth defending? What is worth dying for? What is worth living for? - William J. Bennett - in a lecture to the United States Naval Academy November 24, 1997
One Vietnam veteran, an old retired colonel, once said this to me:
"Most of the people in our society are sheep. They are kind, gentle, productive creatures who can only hurt one another by accident." This is true. Remember, the murder rate is six per 100,000 per year, and the aggravated assault rate is four per 1,000 per year. What this means is that the vast majority of Americans are not inclined to hurt one another. Some estimates say that two million Americans are victims of violent crimes every year, a tragic, staggering number, perhaps an all-time record rate of violent crime. But there are almost 300 million Americans, which means that the odds of being a victim of violent crime is considerably less than one in a hundred on any given year. Furthermore, since many violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders, the actual number of violent citizens is considerably less than two million.
Thus there is a paradox, and we must grasp both ends of the situation: We may well be in the most violent times in history, but violence is still remarkably rare. This is because most citizens are kind, decent people who are not capable of hurting each other, except by accident or under extreme provocation. They are sheep.
I mean nothing negative by calling them sheep. To me it is like the pretty, blue robin's egg. Inside it is soft and gooey but someday it will grow into something wonderful. But the egg cannot survive without its hard blue shell. Police officers, soldiers, and other warriors are like that shell, and someday the civilization they protect will grow into something wonderful.? For now, though, they need warriors to protect them from the predators.
"Then there are the wolves," the old war veteran said, "and the wolves feed on the sheep without mercy." Do you believe there are wolves out there who will feed on the flock without mercy? You better believe it. There are evil men in this world and they are capable of evil deeds. The moment you forget that or pretend it is not so, you become a sheep. There is no safety in denial.
"Then there are sheepdogs," he went on, "and I'm a sheepdog. I live to protect the flock and confront the wolf."
If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive citizen, a sheep. If you have a capacity for violence and no empathy for your fellow citizens, then you have defined an aggressive sociopath, a wolf. But what if you have a capacity for violence, and a deep love for your fellow citizens? What do you have then? A sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking the hero's path. Someone who can walk into the heart of darkness, into the universal human phobia, and walk out unscathed
Let me expand on this old soldier's excellent model of the sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs. We know that the sheep live in denial, that is what makes them sheep. They do not want to believe that there is evil in the world. They can accept the fact that fires can happen, which is why they want fire extinguishers, fire sprinklers, fire alarms and fire exits throughout their kids' schools.
But many of them are outraged at the idea of putting an armed police officer in their kid's school. Our children are thousands of times more likely to be killed or seriously injured by school violence than fire, but the sheep's only response to the possibility of violence is denial. The idea of someone coming to kill or harm their child is just too hard, and so they chose the path of denial.
The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog. He looks a lot like the wolf. He has fangs and the capacity for violence. The difference, though, is that the sheepdog must not, can not and will not ever harm the sheep. Any sheep dog who intentionally harms the lowliest little lamb will be punished and removed. The world cannot work any other way, at least not in a representative democracy or a republic such as ours.
Still, the sheepdog disturbs the sheep. He is a constant reminder that there are wolves in the land. They would prefer that he didn't tell them where to go, or give them traffic tickets, or stand at the ready in our airports in camouflage fatigues holding an M-16. The sheep would much rather have the sheepdog cash in his fangs, spray paint himself white, and go, "Baa."
Until the wolf shows up. Then the entire flock tries desperately to hide behind one lonely sheepdog.
The students, the victims, at Columbine High School were big, tough high school students, and under ordinary circumstances they would not have had the time of day for a police officer. They were not bad kids; they just had nothing to say to a cop. When the school was under attack, however, and SWAT teams were clearing the rooms and hallways, the officers had to physically peel those clinging, sobbing kids off of them. This is how the little lambs feel about their sheepdog when the wolf is at the door.
Look at what happened after September 11, 2001 when the wolf pounded hard on the door. Remember how America, more than ever before, felt differently about their law enforcement officers and military personnel? Remember how many times you heard the word hero?
Understand that there is nothing morally superior about being a sheepdog; it is just what you choose to be. Also understand that a sheepdog is a funny critter: He is always sniffing around out on the perimeter, checking the breeze, barking at things that go bump in the night, and yearning for a righteous battle. That is, the young sheepdogs yearn for a righteous battle. The old sheepdogs are a little older and wiser, but they move to the sound of the guns when needed right along with the young ones.
Here is how the sheep and the sheepdog think differently. The sheep pretend the wolf will never come, but the sheepdog lives for that day. After the attacks on September 11, 2001, most of the sheep, that is, most citizens in America said, "Thank God I wasn't on one of those planes." The sheepdogs, the warriors, said, "Dear God, I wish I could have been on one of those planes. Maybe I could have made a difference." When you are truly transformed into a warrior and have truly invested yourself into warriorhood, you want to be there. You want to be able to make a difference.
There is nothing morally superior about the sheepdog, the warrior, but he does have one real advantage. Only one. And that is that he is able to survive and thrive in an environment that destroys 98 percent of the population. There was research conducted a few years ago with individuals convicted of violent crimes. These cons were in prison for serious, predatory crimes of violence: assaults, murders and killing law enforcement officers. The vast majority said that they specifically targeted victims by body language: slumped walk, passive behavior and lack of awareness. They chose their victims like big cats do in Africa, when they select one out of the herd that is least able to protect itself.
Some people may be destined to be sheep and others might be genetically primed to be wolves or sheepdogs. But I believe that most people can choose which one they want to be, and I'm proud to say that more and more Americans are choosing to become sheepdogs.
Seven months after the attack on September 11, 2001, Todd Beamer was honored in his hometown of Cranbury, New Jersey. Todd, as you recall, was the man on Flight 93 over Pennsylvania who called on his cell phone to alert an operator from United Airlines about the hijacking. When he learned of the other three passenger planes that had been used as weapons, Todd dropped his phone and uttered the words, "Let's roll," which authorities believe was a signal to the other passengers to confront the terrorist hijackers. In one hour, a transformation occurred among the passengers - athletes, business people and parents. -- from sheep to sheepdogs and together they fought the wolves, ultimately saving an unknown number of lives on the ground.
There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of evil men. - Edmund Burke
Here is the point I like to emphasize, especially to the thousands of police officers and soldiers I speak to each year. In nature the sheep, real sheep, are born as sheep. Sheepdogs are born that way, and so are wolves. They didn't have a choice. But you are not a critter. As a human being, you can be whatever you want to be. It is a conscious, moral decision.
If you want to be a sheep, then you can be a sheep and that is okay, but you must understand the price you pay. When the wolf comes, you and your loved ones are going to die if there is not a sheepdog there to protect you. If you want to be a wolf, you can be one, but the sheepdogs are going to hunt you down and you will never have rest, safety, trust or love. But if you want to be a sheepdog and walk the warrior's path, then you must make a conscious and moral decision every day to dedicate, equip and prepare yourself to thrive in that toxic, corrosive moment when the wolf comes knocking at the door.
For example, many officers carry their weapons in church.? They are well concealed in ankle holsters, shoulder holsters or inside-the-belt holsters tucked into the small of their backs.? Anytime you go to some form of religious service, there is a very good chance that a police officer in your congregation is carrying. You will never know if there is such an individual in your place of worship, until the wolf appears to massacre you and your loved ones.
I was training a group of police officers in Texas, and during the break, one officer asked his friend if he carried his weapon in church. The other cop replied, "I will never be caught without my gun in church." I asked why he felt so strongly about this, and he told me about a cop he knew who was at a church massacre in Ft. Worth, Texas in 1999. In that incident, a mentally deranged individual came into the church and opened fire, gunning down fourteen people. He said that officer believed he could have saved every life that day if he had been carrying his gun. His own son was shot, and all he could do was throw himself on the boy's body and wait to die. That cop looked me in the eye and said, "Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself after that?"
Some individuals would be horrified if they knew this police officer was carrying a weapon in church. They might call him paranoid and would probably scorn him. Yet these same individuals would be enraged and would call for "heads to roll" if they found out that the airbags in their cars were defective, or that the fire extinguisher and fire sprinklers in their kids' school did not work. They can accept the fact that fires and traffic accidents can happen and that there must be safeguards against them.
Their only response to the wolf, though, is denial, and all too often their response to the sheepdog is scorn and disdain. But the sheepdog quietly asks himself, "Do you have and idea how hard it would be to live with yourself if your loved ones attacked and killed, and you had to stand there helplessly because you were unprepared for that day?"
It is denial that turns people into sheep. Sheep are psychologically destroyed by combat because their only defense is denial, which is counterproductive and destructive, resulting in fear, helplessness and horror when the wolf shows up.
Denial kills you twice. It kills you once, at your moment of truth when you are not physically prepared: you didn't bring your gun, you didn't train. Your only defense was wishful thinking. Hope is not a strategy. Denial kills you a second time because even if you do physically survive, you are psychologically shattered by your fear helplessness and horror at your moment of truth.
Gavin de Becker puts it like this in Fear Less, his superb post-9/11 book, which should be required reading for anyone trying to come to terms with our current world situation: "...denial can be seductive, but it has an insidious side effect. For all the peace of mind deniers think they get by saying it isn't so, the fall they take when faced with new violence is all the more unsettling."
Denial is a save-now-pay-later scheme, a contract written entirely in small print, for in the long run, the denying person knows the truth on some level.
And so the warrior must strive to confront denial in all aspects of his life, and prepare himself for the day when evil comes. If you are warrior who is legally authorized to carry a weapon and you step outside without that weapon, then you become a sheep, pretending that the bad man will not come today. No one can be "on" 24/7, for a lifetime. Everyone needs down time. But if you are authorized to carry a weapon, and you walk outside without it, just take a deep breath, and say this to yourself...
"Baa."
This business of being a sheep or a sheep dog is not a yes-no dichotomy. It is not an all-or-nothing, either-or choice. It is a matter of degrees, a continuum. On one end is an abject, head-in-the-sand-sheep and on the other end is the ultimate warrior. Few people exist completely on one end or the other. Most of us live somewhere in between. Since 9-11 almost everyone in America took a step up that continuum, away from denial. The sheep took a few steps toward accepting and appreciating their warriors, and the warriors started taking their job more seriously. The degree to which you move up that continuum, away from sheephood and denial, is the degree to which you and your loved ones will survive, physically and psychologically at your moment of truth.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Lies and Misinformation
It is best to read my previous blog titled, ‘New Bills That Need Your Support”, before you read this one.
Here is a link to the Bill that is being discussed below and a paragraph taken from the fact sheet. Remember the paragraph as it is important to this post. http://www.azleg.gov/DocumentsForBill.asp?Bill_Number=sb1113
1. Allows a CCW permit holder to carry a concealed handgun into the on-sale retail premises where food is sold for on-site consumption prepared in a kitchen located on the premises, unless the licensee posts a sign at the primary entrance or entrances prohibiting the possession of weapons on the premises.
I do not take one source of information as fact or truth, ever. Sometimes it gets my hopes up, but often I find it can not be validated by any other source. I always try to provide sources for the statements I make on this blog and when I can not I state it as my opinion.
Misinformation and writer bias can come in different ways though. An article can have all the facts but still be biased by the way the facts are presented. It can also use quotes from idiot people who state things as if they are fact and since it is quoted apparently the author does not have to substantiate the person’s claims. I have found this to be true in The Arizona Republic article: “Gun measure riles restaurant, bar owners in Arizona” written by Amy B Wang. http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/06/22/20090622guns0622.html#reply17787244
This is going to be a long post because I am going to tear up this article. So schedule some time before you start reading.
The article starts off with a negative against the bill which makes sense after reading the title. But why not start off with what the actual bill states? Why not give the facts of the bill then go into why some bar owners are against it and God forbid, why some would be for it. I live in a dream world I know.
First quote:
"People realize alcohol and guns don't mix," said Al McCarthy, owner of Duke's Sports Bar & Grill in Scottsdale. "This is going back to the Wyatt Earp days of the Wild Wild West."
Warthog’s response:
This is very true. Guns and alcohol do not mix. That is why the bill states that the person carrying the gun can not be drinking. It is also my understanding that this bill is only meant for restaurants that serve mostly food, i.e. Applebee’s, Chili’s , Outback, etc.
Second quote:
McCarthy, who has been in the restaurant industry for 18 years, insisted that bars and restaurants were probably "one of the safest commercial places in your neighborhoods."
Warthog’s response:
You have got to be kidding me that the author put this quote in. Warthog says, “I am almost always right some of the time, except when I am not.” Makes about as much sense, doesn’t it? Now, let’s break it down. When I think of restaurants, bars, and violence I have to call bullshit on Mr. McCarthy. I am thinking Red Fish and Teakwood’s right of the bat. These two Restaurant/bars had shootings and people killed. I do not know the ratio of food to alcohol sales but Red Fish is a seafood restaurant with a separate bar, while Teakwood’s is a sports bar. This does not even mention the fact that adding bars to the equation automatically proves the above statement false as no where else are there bouncers needed. It is also not a valid argument as Bars (places one does not go mainly for food) would still not allow firearms. Now, let’s think about other areas around our home and try to think of more dangerous places. Hell, I can’t really think of one other then maybe a covenant store. You all know the ones that have shady looking people hanging around.
Third Quote:
"We're used to dealing with problem makers," he [McCarthy] said. "We get rid of them."
Warthog’s response:
Still think this guy is confused about the difference between a bar and a restaurant. I also point to the fact that bouncers are not armed so no matter how big the guy is he still goes down against the great equalizer the gun. I also refer back to another one of my blog posts: http://arizonashooter.blogspot.com/2009/05/suzanna-gratia-hupp-what-second.html
Now, I don’t think Luby’s sells alcohol so it would have been legal in Arizona, but this could and has happened at other restaurants. Mr. McCarthy, how would you get rid of someone like the man above? Wait, I already know. You would call the police. I appreciate that; make sure you tell them to bring a lot of chalk for all the dead bodies.
I am done with the quotes. This article is filled with stupid quotes that continue to argue the same point that alcohol and guns do not mix. Well no shit and that is not the point of the bill. No one wants to be able to do shots, literally shoot someone. Well, no one I know.
On to the CYA part of the story which is the proponent side of the story, which offers a quote from Priscilla Johnson, general manager of a Denny’s:
"People come in all the time with guns," said Johnson, whose Denny's is one of a few in the national restaurant chain that serves alcohol. "Not like, 'Hey, I got a gun,' you know, but you can see it in their jacket."
Warthog’s response:
AND NO ONE GETS KILLED? HOW CAN THAT BE? YOU’RE A LIAR MRS. JOHNSON, YOU HAVE TO BE AND EVERYONE KNOWS PEOPLE WITH GUNS ALMOST ALWAYS WANT TO KILL OTHER PEOPLE SOMETIMES.
So as you can see I lied about being done with the quotes. My journalistic integrity is out the window. Maybe I will get an offer from the New Times.
Here is my favorite quote of the article. I have mixed in the description as well.
Quote:
Bill Smith, whose management company Smith Hospitality Group owns or operates several Phoenix-area establishments, said he didn't know any restaurant owner in favor of the bill.
His company manages Rawhide, a Chandler theme park and eatery modeled after the Wild West, where fake "shootouts" with toy guns frequently take place.
"That's another reason you don't want people carrying guns in there," Smith said. "What worse way to get them completely carried away than for some inebriated guy to walk out on Main Street out there with a loaded weapon and call some guy out? That is a dismal scenario.
Warthog’s response:
Apparently Mr. Smith thinks adults with guns turn very quickly to idiot children and want to have shootouts with real guns. Mr. Smith, read the damn law, you can not drink if you are carrying a gun and if someone is going to break that law then they sure as hell are not going to pay attention to the law saying they are not supposed to have the gun in the store in the first place.
Last quote (I promise):
[From Mr. Smith:] "I just think with all the down-going in the economy now, there's got to be something more important to concentrate on than allowing people to bring guns into restaurants."
Warthog’s response:
It is never a bad time to talk about people individual right to protect themselves, their families, and those innocents around them. It is the bad economy that makes right now the best time to talk about removing the burden of over zealous laws that put people in danger rather then making us safer.
Conclusion:
When it comes to the people being quoted, and the supposed majority of bar owners and managers who do not wish to allow guns into their restaurants, it is their right to be afraid. However, it is not their right to leave us defenseless. So read the law people. If you wish to ban guns from your restaurant all it takes is a cheap sign at the door. This will allow people to make the decision of where they want to spend their money. Frankly, I will choose the place that allows me to put my life in my own hands before the place that doesn't.
This article really pissed me off and having reread it again and again, I think that Amy Wang was just being lazy and did not bother to do her homework. If she wanted to really sand bag the bill then she could have done a better job of it.
Laziness does not excuse the lack of investigation and facts into the matter. I would love to see the statistics to back up any of the claims made. Using other peoples words to write an article does not make it okay to lie and misinform. We Arizonans, for the most part, are all able to look at the facts of a case and make our own decisions. Give us the facts and let us figure it out. Leave the bias bullshit to the New Times.
Here is a link to the Bill that is being discussed below and a paragraph taken from the fact sheet. Remember the paragraph as it is important to this post. http://www.azleg.gov/DocumentsForBill.asp?Bill_Number=sb1113
1. Allows a CCW permit holder to carry a concealed handgun into the on-sale retail premises where food is sold for on-site consumption prepared in a kitchen located on the premises, unless the licensee posts a sign at the primary entrance or entrances prohibiting the possession of weapons on the premises.
I do not take one source of information as fact or truth, ever. Sometimes it gets my hopes up, but often I find it can not be validated by any other source. I always try to provide sources for the statements I make on this blog and when I can not I state it as my opinion.
Misinformation and writer bias can come in different ways though. An article can have all the facts but still be biased by the way the facts are presented. It can also use quotes from idiot people who state things as if they are fact and since it is quoted apparently the author does not have to substantiate the person’s claims. I have found this to be true in The Arizona Republic article: “Gun measure riles restaurant, bar owners in Arizona” written by Amy B Wang. http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/06/22/20090622guns0622.html#reply17787244
This is going to be a long post because I am going to tear up this article. So schedule some time before you start reading.
The article starts off with a negative against the bill which makes sense after reading the title. But why not start off with what the actual bill states? Why not give the facts of the bill then go into why some bar owners are against it and God forbid, why some would be for it. I live in a dream world I know.
First quote:
"People realize alcohol and guns don't mix," said Al McCarthy, owner of Duke's Sports Bar & Grill in Scottsdale. "This is going back to the Wyatt Earp days of the Wild Wild West."
Warthog’s response:
This is very true. Guns and alcohol do not mix. That is why the bill states that the person carrying the gun can not be drinking. It is also my understanding that this bill is only meant for restaurants that serve mostly food, i.e. Applebee’s, Chili’s , Outback, etc.
Second quote:
McCarthy, who has been in the restaurant industry for 18 years, insisted that bars and restaurants were probably "one of the safest commercial places in your neighborhoods."
Warthog’s response:
You have got to be kidding me that the author put this quote in. Warthog says, “I am almost always right some of the time, except when I am not.” Makes about as much sense, doesn’t it? Now, let’s break it down. When I think of restaurants, bars, and violence I have to call bullshit on Mr. McCarthy. I am thinking Red Fish and Teakwood’s right of the bat. These two Restaurant/bars had shootings and people killed. I do not know the ratio of food to alcohol sales but Red Fish is a seafood restaurant with a separate bar, while Teakwood’s is a sports bar. This does not even mention the fact that adding bars to the equation automatically proves the above statement false as no where else are there bouncers needed. It is also not a valid argument as Bars (places one does not go mainly for food) would still not allow firearms. Now, let’s think about other areas around our home and try to think of more dangerous places. Hell, I can’t really think of one other then maybe a covenant store. You all know the ones that have shady looking people hanging around.
Third Quote:
"We're used to dealing with problem makers," he [McCarthy] said. "We get rid of them."
Warthog’s response:
Still think this guy is confused about the difference between a bar and a restaurant. I also point to the fact that bouncers are not armed so no matter how big the guy is he still goes down against the great equalizer the gun. I also refer back to another one of my blog posts: http://arizonashooter.blogspot.com/2009/05/suzanna-gratia-hupp-what-second.html
Now, I don’t think Luby’s sells alcohol so it would have been legal in Arizona, but this could and has happened at other restaurants. Mr. McCarthy, how would you get rid of someone like the man above? Wait, I already know. You would call the police. I appreciate that; make sure you tell them to bring a lot of chalk for all the dead bodies.
I am done with the quotes. This article is filled with stupid quotes that continue to argue the same point that alcohol and guns do not mix. Well no shit and that is not the point of the bill. No one wants to be able to do shots, literally shoot someone. Well, no one I know.
On to the CYA part of the story which is the proponent side of the story, which offers a quote from Priscilla Johnson, general manager of a Denny’s:
"People come in all the time with guns," said Johnson, whose Denny's is one of a few in the national restaurant chain that serves alcohol. "Not like, 'Hey, I got a gun,' you know, but you can see it in their jacket."
Warthog’s response:
AND NO ONE GETS KILLED? HOW CAN THAT BE? YOU’RE A LIAR MRS. JOHNSON, YOU HAVE TO BE AND EVERYONE KNOWS PEOPLE WITH GUNS ALMOST ALWAYS WANT TO KILL OTHER PEOPLE SOMETIMES.
So as you can see I lied about being done with the quotes. My journalistic integrity is out the window. Maybe I will get an offer from the New Times.
Here is my favorite quote of the article. I have mixed in the description as well.
Quote:
Bill Smith, whose management company Smith Hospitality Group owns or operates several Phoenix-area establishments, said he didn't know any restaurant owner in favor of the bill.
His company manages Rawhide, a Chandler theme park and eatery modeled after the Wild West, where fake "shootouts" with toy guns frequently take place.
"That's another reason you don't want people carrying guns in there," Smith said. "What worse way to get them completely carried away than for some inebriated guy to walk out on Main Street out there with a loaded weapon and call some guy out? That is a dismal scenario.
Warthog’s response:
Apparently Mr. Smith thinks adults with guns turn very quickly to idiot children and want to have shootouts with real guns. Mr. Smith, read the damn law, you can not drink if you are carrying a gun and if someone is going to break that law then they sure as hell are not going to pay attention to the law saying they are not supposed to have the gun in the store in the first place.
Last quote (I promise):
[From Mr. Smith:] "I just think with all the down-going in the economy now, there's got to be something more important to concentrate on than allowing people to bring guns into restaurants."
Warthog’s response:
It is never a bad time to talk about people individual right to protect themselves, their families, and those innocents around them. It is the bad economy that makes right now the best time to talk about removing the burden of over zealous laws that put people in danger rather then making us safer.
Conclusion:
When it comes to the people being quoted, and the supposed majority of bar owners and managers who do not wish to allow guns into their restaurants, it is their right to be afraid. However, it is not their right to leave us defenseless. So read the law people. If you wish to ban guns from your restaurant all it takes is a cheap sign at the door. This will allow people to make the decision of where they want to spend their money. Frankly, I will choose the place that allows me to put my life in my own hands before the place that doesn't.
This article really pissed me off and having reread it again and again, I think that Amy Wang was just being lazy and did not bother to do her homework. If she wanted to really sand bag the bill then she could have done a better job of it.
Laziness does not excuse the lack of investigation and facts into the matter. I would love to see the statistics to back up any of the claims made. Using other peoples words to write an article does not make it okay to lie and misinform. We Arizonans, for the most part, are all able to look at the facts of a case and make our own decisions. Give us the facts and let us figure it out. Leave the bias bullshit to the New Times.
Monday, June 22, 2009
Arizona Concealed Carry Law
The latest and greatest new gun law or bill to come out lately is the bill to allow all Arizonians the right to carry a weapon concealed. It is more a repeal of a law then a new law all together, as our right to bear arms is in both our National Constitution and our State Constitution. So this Bill, if voted in, will become a law saying that the law that was passed before it is no longer valid and therefore we as Arizona residents can again use the rights guaranteed by not one but two Constitutions. CONFUSED? Yeah, I believe that is the intent.
My first thoughts when hearing about this bill was that I did not agree with it. Why? Because I thought that allowing any idiot to carry concealed would put both him and others in danger. There is a certain stigma that one feels when they open carry and an even bigger one when someone carries concealed. The CCW class takes a commitment and offers some sort of training and proficiency testing. This is small, but it is something.
I got passed my first thought quickly and moved to my second thought. IT IS OUR RIGHT. Done, finished, over. So, I started thinking about my initial feelings and how could those concerns be diminished without infringing on someone’s rights.
Education was my answer or rather School. Have gun safety become a mandatory class just as Drivers Education was mandatory in my school. I believe we have a right to demand that all people who own or use a firearm know what the hell they are doing. This can only be done one or two ways without infringing on some ones rights.
The first way is what I stated above, education by the schools. The second is a law that said people had to have a license to own a gun, but it was like a driver’s license. Basically, you had to take a safety class AND show safety proficiency with a firearm. This would have to be signed off by a licensed professional instructor. You would get a license and that license would allow you to buy what ever and do what ever. The license would be checked but would not be documented with any firearms purchase.
Now, the second idea does infringe a bit into people privacy as I am opposed to anyone knowing that you might own a gun in any way. That is why I prefer the first suggestion. It would mean that ALL Americans knew how to handle a gun safely. Whether they actually follow what they have been taught is another matter, but again we can see that a lot of people don’t drive within the rules and they have all been tested that they know the rules.
I hope this spurs debate and I look forward to hearing everyone’s opinions on this subject. Law enforcement opinions extremely welcome, as the news portrays the Police as being the biggest opponents of the bill.
My first thoughts when hearing about this bill was that I did not agree with it. Why? Because I thought that allowing any idiot to carry concealed would put both him and others in danger. There is a certain stigma that one feels when they open carry and an even bigger one when someone carries concealed. The CCW class takes a commitment and offers some sort of training and proficiency testing. This is small, but it is something.
I got passed my first thought quickly and moved to my second thought. IT IS OUR RIGHT. Done, finished, over. So, I started thinking about my initial feelings and how could those concerns be diminished without infringing on someone’s rights.
Education was my answer or rather School. Have gun safety become a mandatory class just as Drivers Education was mandatory in my school. I believe we have a right to demand that all people who own or use a firearm know what the hell they are doing. This can only be done one or two ways without infringing on some ones rights.
The first way is what I stated above, education by the schools. The second is a law that said people had to have a license to own a gun, but it was like a driver’s license. Basically, you had to take a safety class AND show safety proficiency with a firearm. This would have to be signed off by a licensed professional instructor. You would get a license and that license would allow you to buy what ever and do what ever. The license would be checked but would not be documented with any firearms purchase.
Now, the second idea does infringe a bit into people privacy as I am opposed to anyone knowing that you might own a gun in any way. That is why I prefer the first suggestion. It would mean that ALL Americans knew how to handle a gun safely. Whether they actually follow what they have been taught is another matter, but again we can see that a lot of people don’t drive within the rules and they have all been tested that they know the rules.
I hope this spurs debate and I look forward to hearing everyone’s opinions on this subject. Law enforcement opinions extremely welcome, as the news portrays the Police as being the biggest opponents of the bill.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Great-grandma dared cop to Tase her, so he did
Thanks for this Mike.
Watch the time stamp. 7 minutes go by.
Obey the law. I will not make excuses for the cop but a full seven minutes goes by with him taking her abuse. He is twice her size and I wonder if his thought process after trying to grab her arm was this. If I fight with this woman and we fall I can seriously injure her. I can tase her and she falls in the grass.
This is a direct result of her actions, not a disgruntled cop who wanted to pick on an old lady. She should have known better then to act that way and her lying afterward shows the character of this woman. I commend the officer for his patience and for being put into such a horrible position. Sorry that this women has now made you a national pariah
Watch the time stamp. 7 minutes go by.
Obey the law. I will not make excuses for the cop but a full seven minutes goes by with him taking her abuse. He is twice her size and I wonder if his thought process after trying to grab her arm was this. If I fight with this woman and we fall I can seriously injure her. I can tase her and she falls in the grass.
This is a direct result of her actions, not a disgruntled cop who wanted to pick on an old lady. She should have known better then to act that way and her lying afterward shows the character of this woman. I commend the officer for his patience and for being put into such a horrible position. Sorry that this women has now made you a national pariah
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals upholds gun law and spits on Constitution
Cause of my angst:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gun-rights3-2009jun03,0,1976638.story
Note: It is not the writer or this news source that is the cause. I found many sources but picked the liberal one to show I read everything.
Alright folks, I am freaking out here. Maybe I am just some dumb trailer trash POS who thought he new some things cuz I read a few books and paid attention in school. I thought the the Constitution and The Bill of Rights were for all Americans and set the basis of our great country. Now I am reading that The Bill of Rights does not apply to the states? HOW THE HELL DOES THAT WORK??? We all live in states right? Well, except for those people who live in DC. So how can a state impose a law that supercedes my supposed rights?
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gun-rights3-2009jun03,0,1976638.story
Note: It is not the writer or this news source that is the cause. I found many sources but picked the liberal one to show I read everything.
Quote:
“The Supreme Court has rebuffed requests to apply the second amendment to the states,” U.S. Circuit Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote, upholding lower court decisions last year to throw out suits against Chicago and its suburb of Oak Park, Illinois.
-
-
Warthog:
Alright folks, I am freaking out here. Maybe I am just some dumb trailer trash POS who thought he new some things cuz I read a few books and paid attention in school. I thought the the Constitution and The Bill of Rights were for all Americans and set the basis of our great country. Now I am reading that The Bill of Rights does not apply to the states? HOW THE HELL DOES THAT WORK??? We all live in states right? Well, except for those people who live in DC. So how can a state impose a law that supercedes my supposed rights?
I just read the Constitution and The Bill of Rights all the way through in one sitting. Don't think it was the first time, but might be.
Am I reading this wrong? Please read it to yourself, feel free to verify I copied and pasted correctly. But I understand the below article to state: The Constituition is the supreme Law of the Land and every State is bound by it. Is that not what it says?
Article. VI.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
http://www.constitution.org/constit_.htm
I need help from you guys. Talk me down off the ledge people. Seriously, is everything, I believed and fought for, some foolish naive bullshit that can be thrown to the side at any moment? I know our politicians have been shitting on it for years but now its being openly said? What compels a person to force laws on people that make them vulnerable and weak? Why do they feel the need to make us dependant on them? Can they not be satisfied with being in charge of productive hardworking law abiding citizens? What is this codependent relationship they long for? They need us to need them, therefore they cause our need. Its ridiculous.
New Bills that Need Your Support
The following bills are no brainers in my humble opinion. I find all Gun Control Laws unconstitutional so any bill giving our rights back are good to me. Actually, isn't it ridiculous that we have to pass bills to counter act illegal bills?
House Bill 2474 , sponsored by State Representatives John Kavanagh (R-8) and Frank Antenori (R-30), would permit law-abiding citizens to keep a firearm locked in their privately owned vehicle when parked on their employer’s publicly accessible parking lot. HB2474 passed by an overwhelming vote in the House, 41-10-9. Please contact your State Senators TODAY and respectfully urge them to support and vote yes on HB2474 before session comes to an end, which would kill the bill.
http://www.azleg.gov/DocumentsForBill.asp?Bill_Number=hb2474
Warthog: This bill needs to be passed so I can stop breaking the law. I have no idea how it is lawful for someone to say that keeping my gun in my car is against the law anywhere. Do you even know if your company has a policy against it?
Senate Bill 1243, sponsored by State Senator Russell Pearce (R-18), would clarify the statutory definition of defensive display of a firearm. SB1243 is awaiting a Senate committee assignment. This clarification of defensive display of a firearm is a valuable addition to your right to self-defense.
http://www.azleg.gov/DocumentsForBill.asp?Bill_Number=sb1243
Warthog: Imagine this scenario. You are filling your car up with gas when three young punks (you know their punks cuz they are dressed like punks) start walking up to you from three different directions. You slide your jacket back to give you free access to you firearm, while also letting the punks get a good view of what is in store for them, and they suddenly get a brain and decide to go mess with someone else. Well, you were spotted doing this by someone at the gas station who decides to call the cops. Instead of saying, "I just saw three punks surround a man and he showed his weapon and they fled!!!" the person says, "A man just displayed a weapon to three young men, scaring them and me. He just took off in a Red Starlet with license plate 6SNAFU2, he was heading East." You suddenly get pulled over at gun point and arrested. The charge?
Aggravated Assault.
http://www.azleg.gov/DocumentsForBill.asp?Bill_Number=hb2474
Arizona Statute 13-1203.A.2 states that: A person commits assault by intentionally placing another person in reasonable apprehension of imminent physical injury. Arizona Statute 13-1204.A.2 states that: A person commits aggravated assault if the person commits assault as defined in section 13-1203 if the person uses a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument.
You did all of the above to those poor misunderstood kids who just wanted to give you a hand by making your wallet lighter, or give you exercise by forcing you to walk home after they stole your car, or making your wife rich when she cashes in your insurance policy after you die.
REMEMBER, THE FIRST PERSON WHO CALLS THE COPS IS THE VICTIM!!!
Senate Bill 1113, introduced by State Senator Jack Harper (R-4), would give customers the right to take concealed handguns into restaurants that serve alcohol. State Senator Jack Harper (R-4), the restaurant industry, and NRA have worked to craft new language that will be used in place of the currently proposed posting requirements. Over 30 states currently have restaurant carry provisions. In 2005, the Arizona legislature passed a restaurant carry provision, which was vetoed by previous Governor Janet Napolitano. SB1113 has been through First Reading and is now awaiting a committee assignment in the Senate.
http://www.azleg.gov/DocumentsForBill.asp?Bill_Number=sb1113
Warthog: This one can get tricky. I do not agree that anyone should have a gun on them when they are drinking, at all, ever. BUT, if I want to go to Applebees and have dinner with ice tea, in the restaurant, then I should be able to carry. My gun is a long way out in the parking lot if someone wants to reenact the Texas Lubby's shootings. This bill would cover restaurants that serve more food then liqueur. Right now, if the restaurant sells individual beers in a bottle with a selection of three types, you can not carry. You know the places that have a fridge that you can grab a bottle of beer and a sandwich. If you don't well never mind. lol
Note: The story about aggravated assault was told to me during a CCW class. I tried researching it and could not find anything. True story or not, this scenario could easily happen.
House Bill 2474 , sponsored by State Representatives John Kavanagh (R-8) and Frank Antenori (R-30), would permit law-abiding citizens to keep a firearm locked in their privately owned vehicle when parked on their employer’s publicly accessible parking lot. HB2474 passed by an overwhelming vote in the House, 41-10-9. Please contact your State Senators TODAY and respectfully urge them to support and vote yes on HB2474 before session comes to an end, which would kill the bill.
http://www.azleg.gov/DocumentsForBill.asp?Bill_Number=hb2474
Warthog: This bill needs to be passed so I can stop breaking the law. I have no idea how it is lawful for someone to say that keeping my gun in my car is against the law anywhere. Do you even know if your company has a policy against it?
Senate Bill 1243, sponsored by State Senator Russell Pearce (R-18), would clarify the statutory definition of defensive display of a firearm. SB1243 is awaiting a Senate committee assignment. This clarification of defensive display of a firearm is a valuable addition to your right to self-defense.
http://www.azleg.gov/DocumentsForBill.asp?Bill_Number=sb1243
Warthog: Imagine this scenario. You are filling your car up with gas when three young punks (you know their punks cuz they are dressed like punks) start walking up to you from three different directions. You slide your jacket back to give you free access to you firearm, while also letting the punks get a good view of what is in store for them, and they suddenly get a brain and decide to go mess with someone else. Well, you were spotted doing this by someone at the gas station who decides to call the cops. Instead of saying, "I just saw three punks surround a man and he showed his weapon and they fled!!!" the person says, "A man just displayed a weapon to three young men, scaring them and me. He just took off in a Red Starlet with license plate 6SNAFU2, he was heading East." You suddenly get pulled over at gun point and arrested. The charge?
Aggravated Assault.
http://www.azleg.gov/DocumentsForBill.asp?Bill_Number=hb2474
Arizona Statute 13-1203.A.2 states that: A person commits assault by intentionally placing another person in reasonable apprehension of imminent physical injury. Arizona Statute 13-1204.A.2 states that: A person commits aggravated assault if the person commits assault as defined in section 13-1203 if the person uses a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument.
You did all of the above to those poor misunderstood kids who just wanted to give you a hand by making your wallet lighter, or give you exercise by forcing you to walk home after they stole your car, or making your wife rich when she cashes in your insurance policy after you die.
REMEMBER, THE FIRST PERSON WHO CALLS THE COPS IS THE VICTIM!!!
Senate Bill 1113, introduced by State Senator Jack Harper (R-4), would give customers the right to take concealed handguns into restaurants that serve alcohol. State Senator Jack Harper (R-4), the restaurant industry, and NRA have worked to craft new language that will be used in place of the currently proposed posting requirements. Over 30 states currently have restaurant carry provisions. In 2005, the Arizona legislature passed a restaurant carry provision, which was vetoed by previous Governor Janet Napolitano. SB1113 has been through First Reading and is now awaiting a committee assignment in the Senate.
http://www.azleg.gov/DocumentsForBill.asp?Bill_Number=sb1113
Warthog: This one can get tricky. I do not agree that anyone should have a gun on them when they are drinking, at all, ever. BUT, if I want to go to Applebees and have dinner with ice tea, in the restaurant, then I should be able to carry. My gun is a long way out in the parking lot if someone wants to reenact the Texas Lubby's shootings. This bill would cover restaurants that serve more food then liqueur. Right now, if the restaurant sells individual beers in a bottle with a selection of three types, you can not carry. You know the places that have a fridge that you can grab a bottle of beer and a sandwich. If you don't well never mind. lol
Note: The story about aggravated assault was told to me during a CCW class. I tried researching it and could not find anything. True story or not, this scenario could easily happen.
Friday, May 29, 2009
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Taser Benifits vs Risks
Disclaimer:
I want to declare that I am a stock owner in Taser. I believe the product saves lives and saves police officers injury. I fully understand that a Taser can be used inappropriately just like any other law enforcement device. My following statements are not only about the device, not about the officers who deployed them. We are all human, even the cops. So misuse of any device is possible in the hands of an untrained or dirty police officer. I have the highest respect for police officers, but also want to point out that in some areas of the US, all you need to be a police officer is a GED, High School diploma , or both (inside joke).
After stating that not all police officers are brainiacs, I would also like to point out that not all civilians are either. Actually, I truly dislike society as a whole. I like individuals, but people as a whole are a bunch of retarded followers who can not think straight and have to be told what they ought to be thinking.
Opinion:
I believe Tasers provide a far greater service to law enforcement then they do a threat to the person on the other end of the Taser. When used properly the Taser prevents contact between the police officer and the perpetrator. Small risk of the officer being hurt and smaller risk of the perp being choked, clubbed over the head, or shot.
The news loves to headline, “Taser Death”, and people sue over these deaths. They ask why did he (I will use he since most deaths are male) die? In the same article they will talk about the drugs in the man’s system. I really want to see a study on how many people die from drugs without being Tased, being in a fight with an officer while on drugs, or being shot by anyone while on drugs.
Personal Responsibility, it is all I want from Americans and anyone else in the world. Why do we expect our police officers to put themselves in danger with a drug crazed idiot? Why is the drug abuser’s life more important then the officers or for the law abiding citizens?
Exhibit A:
"We don't have an answer to why he died," said Bednarz, the attorney for Lee's parents, Bud Lee and Cindy Lundman. "It's still our contention that it was the strikes of the Taser and restraint procedures."
Police allege Lee was under the influence of LSD when he resisted arrest outside a Nashville nightclub in 2005. In addition to using pepper spray and batons to restrain Lee, police officers allegedly used a Taser on the man up to 19 times.
Opinion:
Really, REALLY? You have no answer why your son died. Let me tell you why. He was a drugged up punk. The cops used multiple options to restrain him and all failed. Is it possible that this obviously long fight, over worked his already over drugged heart? Personal responsibility people; it’s not the druggies fault it is the murderous police officers.
Exhibit B:
I can not continue with examples. I am just too pissed off. Just google, "Taser Death”, and read the stories. I have not found one story so far that resulted in a person dying when they were not acting crazy or presenting a danger to police. All were resisting arrest. What pisses me off is that these asshole’s families are getting rich by suing the police saying it’s the cops fault not the dickheads. How is a meth addicted piece of human excrement worth 2 million dollars? HOW? What is a police officers life worth? I would say one police officer is worth more then all the dead drug addicts and criminals that have died after being Tased.
Conclusion:
We are putting too high a price on vermin and too low a price on the law abiding and contributing members of our society. When will we wake up? When will we no longer defend and justify the actions of scum. Drug addiction is not a sickness; it is a weak person’s escape from reality. Let’s not make excuses for it and punish the people who try and stop them from hurting us. We may find one day that there are no longer good men and women willing to do the job.
I like to research my statements and always differentiate between my opinions and those of others. Here are a few of the sites I looked at before getting to pissed off to continue.
Research:
Taser International Research. Take this how ever you wish. I would never trust a company to provide unbiased data. http://www.taser.com/RESEARCH/STATISTICS/Pages/FieldUseandStatistics.aspx
The University of Wisconsin has done a lot of research on Tasers. Specifically John G. Webster, Professor Emeritus, and his students.
http://ecow.engr.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/getbig/bme/762/webster/sun-thesis-01-21-07.pdf - Hongyu Sun at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, 2007
I want to declare that I am a stock owner in Taser. I believe the product saves lives and saves police officers injury. I fully understand that a Taser can be used inappropriately just like any other law enforcement device. My following statements are not only about the device, not about the officers who deployed them. We are all human, even the cops. So misuse of any device is possible in the hands of an untrained or dirty police officer. I have the highest respect for police officers, but also want to point out that in some areas of the US, all you need to be a police officer is a GED, High School diploma , or both (inside joke).
After stating that not all police officers are brainiacs, I would also like to point out that not all civilians are either. Actually, I truly dislike society as a whole. I like individuals, but people as a whole are a bunch of retarded followers who can not think straight and have to be told what they ought to be thinking.
Opinion:
I believe Tasers provide a far greater service to law enforcement then they do a threat to the person on the other end of the Taser. When used properly the Taser prevents contact between the police officer and the perpetrator. Small risk of the officer being hurt and smaller risk of the perp being choked, clubbed over the head, or shot.
The news loves to headline, “Taser Death”, and people sue over these deaths. They ask why did he (I will use he since most deaths are male) die? In the same article they will talk about the drugs in the man’s system. I really want to see a study on how many people die from drugs without being Tased, being in a fight with an officer while on drugs, or being shot by anyone while on drugs.
Personal Responsibility, it is all I want from Americans and anyone else in the world. Why do we expect our police officers to put themselves in danger with a drug crazed idiot? Why is the drug abuser’s life more important then the officers or for the law abiding citizens?
Exhibit A:
"We don't have an answer to why he died," said Bednarz, the attorney for Lee's parents, Bud Lee and Cindy Lundman. "It's still our contention that it was the strikes of the Taser and restraint procedures."
Police allege Lee was under the influence of LSD when he resisted arrest outside a Nashville nightclub in 2005. In addition to using pepper spray and batons to restrain Lee, police officers allegedly used a Taser on the man up to 19 times.
Opinion:
Really, REALLY? You have no answer why your son died. Let me tell you why. He was a drugged up punk. The cops used multiple options to restrain him and all failed. Is it possible that this obviously long fight, over worked his already over drugged heart? Personal responsibility people; it’s not the druggies fault it is the murderous police officers.
Exhibit B:
I can not continue with examples. I am just too pissed off. Just google, "Taser Death”, and read the stories. I have not found one story so far that resulted in a person dying when they were not acting crazy or presenting a danger to police. All were resisting arrest. What pisses me off is that these asshole’s families are getting rich by suing the police saying it’s the cops fault not the dickheads. How is a meth addicted piece of human excrement worth 2 million dollars? HOW? What is a police officers life worth? I would say one police officer is worth more then all the dead drug addicts and criminals that have died after being Tased.
Conclusion:
We are putting too high a price on vermin and too low a price on the law abiding and contributing members of our society. When will we wake up? When will we no longer defend and justify the actions of scum. Drug addiction is not a sickness; it is a weak person’s escape from reality. Let’s not make excuses for it and punish the people who try and stop them from hurting us. We may find one day that there are no longer good men and women willing to do the job.
I like to research my statements and always differentiate between my opinions and those of others. Here are a few of the sites I looked at before getting to pissed off to continue.
Research:
Taser International Research. Take this how ever you wish. I would never trust a company to provide unbiased data. http://www.taser.com/RESEARCH/STATISTICS/Pages/FieldUseandStatistics.aspx
The University of Wisconsin has done a lot of research on Tasers. Specifically John G. Webster, Professor Emeritus, and his students.
http://ecow.engr.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/getbig/bme/762/webster/sun-thesis-01-21-07.pdf - Hongyu Sun at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, 2007
Just Some Light Viewing
This is just good American fun right here. Too bad most of them couldn't hit the side of a barn.
Man Shoots in Self Defense then Executes the Bad Guy
This starts as a good shoot then turns bad. I have no idea what this guy was thinking. Obviously, he was out of his mind when he went back for a second gun and then fired 5 rounds into the disabled bad guy. Can anyone say "temporary insanity" plea?
I am not sure how I feel about this. Should the guy spend the rest of his life in prison over shooting a bad guy? NO
Do I want to know what his thinking is for changing guns and firing 5 more rounds? Hell yes I do.
My world: bad guy dead, good guy wins, game over.
Real world: This guy is an idiot and this went from a good shoot to a bad one quickly. I am having a very hard time justifying this guys actions. I really want to hear his side of the story.
This is an article on FoxNews, via the AP on Thursday, May 28, 2009 :
OKLAHOMA CITY — An Oklahoma City pharmacist who shot and killed a 16-year-old would-be robber was charged Wednesday with first-degree murder.
Jerome Ersland, 57, was being held without bail in the Oklahoma County Jail.
Oklahoma County District Attorney David Prater said in an afternoon news conference that Ersland was justified in shooting Antwun Parker once in the head on May 19. But Prater said Ersland went too far when he shot Parker five more times in the abdomen while Parker lay unconscious on the floor.
Ersland's attorney, Irven Box, said Ersland was protecting himself and two women inside the pharmacy.
"I think he did something in his eyes that protected both himself and two ladies in there," Box said. "He put an end to the threat."
Box said he thinks a jury will exonerate Ersland.
At an afternoon news conference, Prater showed a security video in which two men burst into the pharmacy and one is shot.
Ersland is seen chasing the second man outside before returning, walking past Parker to get a second gun then going back to Parker and opening fire.
The charge alleges Ersland shot Parker while he was incapacitated and lying on his back. Ersland's account of the incident doesn't match the video or the evidence collected at the scene, according to an affidavit written by Oklahoma City Police Detective David Jacobson.
Jacobson said the suspect who ran away from the pharmacy was armed, but no gun was found near Parker.
"Ersland shows no concern for his safety as he walks by Parker, and turns his back to Parker as he walks behind the pharmacy counter," Jacobson said. "Ersland is then seen to put the pistol he is carrying on the counter, and retrieve a second pistol from a drawer."
Ersland used this pistol to shoot Parker on the ground, the detective said.
He said an autopsy determined that Parker had been shot in the head, but was still alive when he was shot in the stomach area and died from those injuries.
I am not sure how I feel about this. Should the guy spend the rest of his life in prison over shooting a bad guy? NO
Do I want to know what his thinking is for changing guns and firing 5 more rounds? Hell yes I do.
My world: bad guy dead, good guy wins, game over.
Real world: This guy is an idiot and this went from a good shoot to a bad one quickly. I am having a very hard time justifying this guys actions. I really want to hear his side of the story.
This is an article on FoxNews, via the AP on Thursday, May 28, 2009 :
OKLAHOMA CITY — An Oklahoma City pharmacist who shot and killed a 16-year-old would-be robber was charged Wednesday with first-degree murder.
Jerome Ersland, 57, was being held without bail in the Oklahoma County Jail.
Oklahoma County District Attorney David Prater said in an afternoon news conference that Ersland was justified in shooting Antwun Parker once in the head on May 19. But Prater said Ersland went too far when he shot Parker five more times in the abdomen while Parker lay unconscious on the floor.
Ersland's attorney, Irven Box, said Ersland was protecting himself and two women inside the pharmacy.
"I think he did something in his eyes that protected both himself and two ladies in there," Box said. "He put an end to the threat."
Box said he thinks a jury will exonerate Ersland.
At an afternoon news conference, Prater showed a security video in which two men burst into the pharmacy and one is shot.
Ersland is seen chasing the second man outside before returning, walking past Parker to get a second gun then going back to Parker and opening fire.
The charge alleges Ersland shot Parker while he was incapacitated and lying on his back. Ersland's account of the incident doesn't match the video or the evidence collected at the scene, according to an affidavit written by Oklahoma City Police Detective David Jacobson.
Jacobson said the suspect who ran away from the pharmacy was armed, but no gun was found near Parker.
"Ersland shows no concern for his safety as he walks by Parker, and turns his back to Parker as he walks behind the pharmacy counter," Jacobson said. "Ersland is then seen to put the pistol he is carrying on the counter, and retrieve a second pistol from a drawer."
Ersland used this pistol to shoot Parker on the ground, the detective said.
He said an autopsy determined that Parker had been shot in the head, but was still alive when he was shot in the stomach area and died from those injuries.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Suzanna Gratia-Hupp: What the Second Amendment is REALLY For
This is an old video and an old incident, but I think it says everything about personal protection and the true reason our Founding Fathers put in the second amendment. They did not put it there our right to hunt or for our love of guns. They wrote the second amendment because it was armed civilians who defeated the British Government and it is the armed civilians that protect us from our government growing out of control.
Watch the whole video, the first segment is Suzanna Gratia-Hupp testifying about gun control and how it got her family and 20 others killed without a chance to defend themselves. Their is also another segment interviewing her at her home years later and finally has a segment from Ben and Teller on the Second amendment.
Watch the whole video, the first segment is Suzanna Gratia-Hupp testifying about gun control and how it got her family and 20 others killed without a chance to defend themselves. Their is also another segment interviewing her at her home years later and finally has a segment from Ben and Teller on the Second amendment.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
911 Call -
This is a verified 911 call from a woman who filed 6, yes read it again, 6 complaints against Ryan Bergner a guy she had gone on one date with. I am not sure if she filed a restraining order or if the police ever had a reason to arrest the guy before this night. But the point is that no matter what, this night, she had only herself to rely on and a Fantastic Friend's gun.
Remember the saying: "Police, minutes away when seconds count".
Watch the time the call started and when it ends. I can not hear gun shots, but apparently they were muffled or something.
For those of you who say we would all be safer if there were no guns, I remind you that the gun is the great equalizer. No longer can someone pick on another just because they are bigger or stronger. Women if you fear rape, get training and a then buy a gun. Women are targets just for being women. Make the bad guys pay for thinking you are the weaker sex.
Remember the saying: "Police, minutes away when seconds count".
Watch the time the call started and when it ends. I can not hear gun shots, but apparently they were muffled or something.
For those of you who say we would all be safer if there were no guns, I remind you that the gun is the great equalizer. No longer can someone pick on another just because they are bigger or stronger. Women if you fear rape, get training and a then buy a gun. Women are targets just for being women. Make the bad guys pay for thinking you are the weaker sex.
Monday, May 18, 2009
Right to Protect vs Whether You Should
The right to protect ones self and property is very important to me. My view is that no one has the right to take something that I have worked hard for. It is also my belief that I have a right to keep them from taking my property by use of force if necessary.
What started off as yours truly forwarding an email joke to my friends, quickly turned into a long and somewhat heated email discussion and debate. It got so big that we decided to take it to the blog. I, however, failed miserably to get it up here in a reasonable time. My excuse is valid and I am traveling in Europe for work. So without further ado here is the discussion and I hope we can start it up again.
Sorry more ado, quick info on the players in this.
Warthog – Blogger, gun owner, veteran, conservative, constitutionalist.
Matt - New gun owner, liberal.
Mike – Knowledgeable and experienced gun owner, I believe a conservative.
James – Police officer, gun owner duh, Iraq War Veteran, conservative, constitutionalist.
*You will see that this debate is amongst conservative gun owners, this is not a left vs right convo.
Let’s start with the joke:
HOW TO CALL THE POLICE WHEN YOU'RE OLD AND DON'T
> MOVE FAST ANYMORE....
>
>
> George Phillips , an elderly man, from Meridian,
> Mississippi, was going up to bed, when his wife told him
> that he'd left the light on in the garden shed, which
> she could see from the bedroom window. George opened the
> back door to go turn off the light, but saw that there were
> people in the shed stealing things.
>
> He phoned the police, who asked "Is someone in your
> house?"
>
> He said "No," but some people are breaking into
> my garden shed and stealing from me.
>
> Then the police dispatcher said "All patrols are busy.
> You should lock your doors and an officer will be along when
> one is available."
>
> George said, "Okay."
>
> He hung up the phone and counted to 30.
>
> Then he phoned the police again.
>
> "Hello, I just called you a few seconds ago because
> there were people stealing things from my shed. Well, you
> don't have to worry about them now because I just shot
> them.." and he hung up.
>
> Within five minutes, six Police Cars, a SWAT Team, a
> Helicopter, two Fire Trucks, a Paramedic, and an Ambulance
> showed up at the Phillips' residence, and caught the
> burglars red-handed.
>
> One of the Policemen said to George, "I thought you
> said that you'd shot them!"
>
> George said, "I thought you said there was nobody
> available!"
>
> (True Story)
>
> Don't mess with old people
Then I was asked a question, which I answered after researching Arizona laws:
Matt:
this made me think: What's the law on self-defense in a situation like this? If someone's breaking into a garage on property that is separate from the house?
Warthog:
Matt I hope you don’t mind me including everyone in your question. As citizens we have no right to kill in defense of our property. We do, however, have the right to threaten deadly force. So if the criminal act portrayed below was to happen to you, you have the right to confront the criminals at the point of a gun. You do not have the right to come out shooting.
Here are a couple of scenarios that could happen if you did decide to confront them by stepping out of your house and yelling freeze:
- They run away
or
- They attack you
In the first scenario, you have no right to do anything but let them go. Hell, if I understand the law correctly, they could laugh at you and continue stealing your stuff while you yell and threaten them.
Second scenario, you shoot them. At this point, the crime changes and so does the law. If you have the right to draw on someone and they continue to come at you, you are now in self defense. It does not matter what they have in the form of a weapon, it only matters that they are threatening, have means to carry out that threat, and you are in fear for your life.
If you are still hazy on that last bit let me explain further. You have ordered them to stop stealing your property by pointing a gun at them, they are now moving toward you (this is a threat), they have the means (they are right in front of you), they have the ability (they can take your gun and shoot you with it) and if you are human you are scared to death.
These are the four things you always have to have to be found justified in a shooting.
Threat - Ability - Means - Fear of Death
Someone yelling from a roof top that they are going to stab does not justify you shooting them. You have been threatened, they do not have the ability, they have the means, and you may be afraid, but you only have 3/4 of the requirements.
Mike:
[Warthog], I totally agree with about half of you email. And I know its just personal preference, but perhaps in jury’s eyes would have provoked the criminals to attack you by yelling at them or even confronting them. I do agree that at that at the point when they are moving towards you, you do need to defend yourself. But look at what cost you are getting yourself in to, huge amounts of court trouble, taking someone’s life or losing yours. It’s all over some hedge trimmers and a lawn mower. Especially with a detached building you are in no direct danger until you put yourself in the middle of it all (intentionally). And I understand that they were stealing your stuff and a lot of people feel the need to stop them, but maybe you just committed a crime by pointing a gun at them. I know that doesn’t sound right but I have heard of criminals playing the court system to their advantage way worse than this. I believe that in almost all home defense situations you do not want to end up confronting someone in your home for a couple reasons.
1.) You are full of adrenaline and you might make a mistake and do something without thinking as long as you should.
2.) You are putting yourself into a uncontrollable situation. Most people don’t have the skill set to know how to clear a room properly, especially at night (myself included). What if the criminal hears you coming and ambushes you. That would be bad.
Why not sit and wait in a location that you are in control of. Perhaps in a bed room, or anywhere you can be in an “eyes and ears in one direction” kind of situation.
Also if someone persists to advance on you in that situation you did nothing but truly protect yourself. Honestly someone can take ever thing I own and I wouldn’t care as long as the ones I care about are ok. You don’t know if that person breaking into you tool shed is armed or not, but that is my point. I don’t care about stuff more than my life.
And remember this is just one situation; there are a million different things that could happen that would make me change my mind and act differently.
Just my two cents, agree with me or not. Just what I have learned in the past.
Word
Warthog:
Hey, I stated facts not theory of what to do. If we want to have a discussion on what I would do that is for another email.
This email is by the law. I looked everything up in my handy Arizona Gun Owners Guide and I confirmed the Arizona statutes on the web. So everything I stated was what you can expect by the law, not whether you should do it.
James (Police Officer):
I normally don’t reply to these; however this one got me spun up. Not only do I believe a person has the legal right to confront an individual in this type of situation, I think you have a moral obligation. If more people did this and the media actually reported it maybe people would be deterred. I agree that you need a level of proficiency in order to do this. If you do not have this level, you should strive to obtain it as a responsible gun owner.
A side note……. I have first hand knowledge that the county attorney is very understanding in these situations. I have seen them decline to prosecute on several “grey area” type of incidents. The prosecutor can not go forward on any prosecution if he has no likely possibility of conviction. In this state that means he has to convince them to convict a law abiding homeowner who shot and killed a criminal.
If you were on the jury how would you decide?? And before you answer you would convict, remember that the whole jury (8 in this state) has to agree. I don’t see that ever happening.
Mike:
I first want to say that I respect everyone’s opinion and experience and I’m glad we can have this debate because its stuff like this that causes all of use to reevaluate our situations and prepare mentally for these things.
My thoughts in my previous email were just my opinion like I said. But I’m also trying to build good practices that will keep me out of jail (courts included) and alive for my entire life (natural that is). I may not live in this state forever so I want to build practices that will always be described as Self Defense. Something we all need to think about is if someone is breaking into your tool shed, would you go out and confront them, would your significant other want you to, and would you want you significant other to do so. That being said I do agree that we have a right to try and stop crimes, perhaps a duty with violent crimes. But I don’t think we have an obligation to stop any crime that is not a violent crime (as a regular citizen), because we may be creating a violent crime, and take the brunt of the repercussions. As much as I would want to go any stop the scum that was taking my stuff that I paid hard money for, I have to think twice about it. There are so many situations that could arise from one wrong move, or perhaps a right move. And remember it’s not all about whether you do or do not get charged with a crime. You have to live with the fact that you took another humans life. Me personally I know I would pull the trigger, IF I had to. But I absolutely do not want to……Last Resort
I have a book on personal defense in the home written by the NRA. That anyone is more than welcome to borrow (Except for Steve and Byrd cuz they might disagree and light my book on fire…JK )
I just wanted to put a couple of paragraphs in here that I think make everyone’s points very valid.
“Even when its necessary and justified, shooting a violent criminal is not a pleasant experience. This should be realized and planned for as part of your mental training. The willingness to take life in self defense is very different form the desire to take a life. No responsible, decent person enjoys taking a life, no matter how depraved and malignant the assailant maybe. The willingness to use deadly force in self defense does not imply a devaluation of human life. In fact, those who include firearms in their personal protection plans are affirming the value of their own live and those of their family members, The ethical person does not ever want to use deadly force, but recognizes that there are times when it may be the only option to protect Innocent lives.”
I highlighted that last part because that is what deadly force should be used for. There is no way that my life is worth whatever someone will steal from me.
And let’s remember what a concealed weapons course should have taught us…..Firing in self defense is an option of last resort.
One last quote that I thought was good from that book and I will stop my long winded ramblings.
“The use of a firearm or other deadly weapon to protect your self should be an act of last resort, when no other option is available. It is always better to escape, evade, avoid or deter and attack than to resolve it through the use of force. By employing your powers of awareness you will be able to recognize threats in your environment early on, which in turn may enable you to escape or avoid them. If you fail to maintain a state of awareness, you are more likely to become a victim of an attack, or to have to use deadly force to defend yourself.”
I hope that we can all at least understand my stand point here. You don’t have to agree with it. I defiantly see everyone else’s views about the situations and again, respect every one of them. We have all had different encounters with this kind of stuff in our lives and that is what builds our responses to them.
Thanks
The end.
James has not responded to the last comment and it might be because we decided to take it off email and go to the blog. So he may just be waiting for me to post this. I have not talked to him since I got to Europe so not sure.
What started off as yours truly forwarding an email joke to my friends, quickly turned into a long and somewhat heated email discussion and debate. It got so big that we decided to take it to the blog. I, however, failed miserably to get it up here in a reasonable time. My excuse is valid and I am traveling in Europe for work. So without further ado here is the discussion and I hope we can start it up again.
Sorry more ado, quick info on the players in this.
Warthog – Blogger, gun owner, veteran, conservative, constitutionalist.
Matt - New gun owner, liberal.
Mike – Knowledgeable and experienced gun owner, I believe a conservative.
James – Police officer, gun owner duh, Iraq War Veteran, conservative, constitutionalist.
*You will see that this debate is amongst conservative gun owners, this is not a left vs right convo.
Let’s start with the joke:
HOW TO CALL THE POLICE WHEN YOU'RE OLD AND DON'T
> MOVE FAST ANYMORE....
>
>
> George Phillips , an elderly man, from Meridian,
> Mississippi, was going up to bed, when his wife told him
> that he'd left the light on in the garden shed, which
> she could see from the bedroom window. George opened the
> back door to go turn off the light, but saw that there were
> people in the shed stealing things.
>
> He phoned the police, who asked "Is someone in your
> house?"
>
> He said "No," but some people are breaking into
> my garden shed and stealing from me.
>
> Then the police dispatcher said "All patrols are busy.
> You should lock your doors and an officer will be along when
> one is available."
>
> George said, "Okay."
>
> He hung up the phone and counted to 30.
>
> Then he phoned the police again.
>
> "Hello, I just called you a few seconds ago because
> there were people stealing things from my shed. Well, you
> don't have to worry about them now because I just shot
> them.." and he hung up.
>
> Within five minutes, six Police Cars, a SWAT Team, a
> Helicopter, two Fire Trucks, a Paramedic, and an Ambulance
> showed up at the Phillips' residence, and caught the
> burglars red-handed.
>
> One of the Policemen said to George, "I thought you
> said that you'd shot them!"
>
> George said, "I thought you said there was nobody
> available!"
>
> (True Story)
>
> Don't mess with old people
Then I was asked a question, which I answered after researching Arizona laws:
Matt:
this made me think: What's the law on self-defense in a situation like this? If someone's breaking into a garage on property that is separate from the house?
Warthog:
Matt I hope you don’t mind me including everyone in your question. As citizens we have no right to kill in defense of our property. We do, however, have the right to threaten deadly force. So if the criminal act portrayed below was to happen to you, you have the right to confront the criminals at the point of a gun. You do not have the right to come out shooting.
Here are a couple of scenarios that could happen if you did decide to confront them by stepping out of your house and yelling freeze:
- They run away
or
- They attack you
In the first scenario, you have no right to do anything but let them go. Hell, if I understand the law correctly, they could laugh at you and continue stealing your stuff while you yell and threaten them.
Second scenario, you shoot them. At this point, the crime changes and so does the law. If you have the right to draw on someone and they continue to come at you, you are now in self defense. It does not matter what they have in the form of a weapon, it only matters that they are threatening, have means to carry out that threat, and you are in fear for your life.
If you are still hazy on that last bit let me explain further. You have ordered them to stop stealing your property by pointing a gun at them, they are now moving toward you (this is a threat), they have the means (they are right in front of you), they have the ability (they can take your gun and shoot you with it) and if you are human you are scared to death.
These are the four things you always have to have to be found justified in a shooting.
Threat - Ability - Means - Fear of Death
Someone yelling from a roof top that they are going to stab does not justify you shooting them. You have been threatened, they do not have the ability, they have the means, and you may be afraid, but you only have 3/4 of the requirements.
Mike:
[Warthog], I totally agree with about half of you email. And I know its just personal preference, but perhaps in jury’s eyes would have provoked the criminals to attack you by yelling at them or even confronting them. I do agree that at that at the point when they are moving towards you, you do need to defend yourself. But look at what cost you are getting yourself in to, huge amounts of court trouble, taking someone’s life or losing yours. It’s all over some hedge trimmers and a lawn mower. Especially with a detached building you are in no direct danger until you put yourself in the middle of it all (intentionally). And I understand that they were stealing your stuff and a lot of people feel the need to stop them, but maybe you just committed a crime by pointing a gun at them. I know that doesn’t sound right but I have heard of criminals playing the court system to their advantage way worse than this. I believe that in almost all home defense situations you do not want to end up confronting someone in your home for a couple reasons.
1.) You are full of adrenaline and you might make a mistake and do something without thinking as long as you should.
2.) You are putting yourself into a uncontrollable situation. Most people don’t have the skill set to know how to clear a room properly, especially at night (myself included). What if the criminal hears you coming and ambushes you. That would be bad.
Why not sit and wait in a location that you are in control of. Perhaps in a bed room, or anywhere you can be in an “eyes and ears in one direction” kind of situation.
Also if someone persists to advance on you in that situation you did nothing but truly protect yourself. Honestly someone can take ever thing I own and I wouldn’t care as long as the ones I care about are ok. You don’t know if that person breaking into you tool shed is armed or not, but that is my point. I don’t care about stuff more than my life.
And remember this is just one situation; there are a million different things that could happen that would make me change my mind and act differently.
Just my two cents, agree with me or not. Just what I have learned in the past.
Word
Warthog:
Hey, I stated facts not theory of what to do. If we want to have a discussion on what I would do that is for another email.
This email is by the law. I looked everything up in my handy Arizona Gun Owners Guide and I confirmed the Arizona statutes on the web. So everything I stated was what you can expect by the law, not whether you should do it.
James (Police Officer):
I normally don’t reply to these; however this one got me spun up. Not only do I believe a person has the legal right to confront an individual in this type of situation, I think you have a moral obligation. If more people did this and the media actually reported it maybe people would be deterred. I agree that you need a level of proficiency in order to do this. If you do not have this level, you should strive to obtain it as a responsible gun owner.
A side note……. I have first hand knowledge that the county attorney is very understanding in these situations. I have seen them decline to prosecute on several “grey area” type of incidents. The prosecutor can not go forward on any prosecution if he has no likely possibility of conviction. In this state that means he has to convince them to convict a law abiding homeowner who shot and killed a criminal.
If you were on the jury how would you decide?? And before you answer you would convict, remember that the whole jury (8 in this state) has to agree. I don’t see that ever happening.
Mike:
I first want to say that I respect everyone’s opinion and experience and I’m glad we can have this debate because its stuff like this that causes all of use to reevaluate our situations and prepare mentally for these things.
My thoughts in my previous email were just my opinion like I said. But I’m also trying to build good practices that will keep me out of jail (courts included) and alive for my entire life (natural that is). I may not live in this state forever so I want to build practices that will always be described as Self Defense. Something we all need to think about is if someone is breaking into your tool shed, would you go out and confront them, would your significant other want you to, and would you want you significant other to do so. That being said I do agree that we have a right to try and stop crimes, perhaps a duty with violent crimes. But I don’t think we have an obligation to stop any crime that is not a violent crime (as a regular citizen), because we may be creating a violent crime, and take the brunt of the repercussions. As much as I would want to go any stop the scum that was taking my stuff that I paid hard money for, I have to think twice about it. There are so many situations that could arise from one wrong move, or perhaps a right move. And remember it’s not all about whether you do or do not get charged with a crime. You have to live with the fact that you took another humans life. Me personally I know I would pull the trigger, IF I had to. But I absolutely do not want to……Last Resort
I have a book on personal defense in the home written by the NRA. That anyone is more than welcome to borrow (Except for Steve and Byrd cuz they might disagree and light my book on fire…JK )
I just wanted to put a couple of paragraphs in here that I think make everyone’s points very valid.
“Even when its necessary and justified, shooting a violent criminal is not a pleasant experience. This should be realized and planned for as part of your mental training. The willingness to take life in self defense is very different form the desire to take a life. No responsible, decent person enjoys taking a life, no matter how depraved and malignant the assailant maybe. The willingness to use deadly force in self defense does not imply a devaluation of human life. In fact, those who include firearms in their personal protection plans are affirming the value of their own live and those of their family members, The ethical person does not ever want to use deadly force, but recognizes that there are times when it may be the only option to protect Innocent lives.”
I highlighted that last part because that is what deadly force should be used for. There is no way that my life is worth whatever someone will steal from me.
And let’s remember what a concealed weapons course should have taught us…..Firing in self defense is an option of last resort.
One last quote that I thought was good from that book and I will stop my long winded ramblings.
“The use of a firearm or other deadly weapon to protect your self should be an act of last resort, when no other option is available. It is always better to escape, evade, avoid or deter and attack than to resolve it through the use of force. By employing your powers of awareness you will be able to recognize threats in your environment early on, which in turn may enable you to escape or avoid them. If you fail to maintain a state of awareness, you are more likely to become a victim of an attack, or to have to use deadly force to defend yourself.”
I hope that we can all at least understand my stand point here. You don’t have to agree with it. I defiantly see everyone else’s views about the situations and again, respect every one of them. We have all had different encounters with this kind of stuff in our lives and that is what builds our responses to them.
Thanks
The end.
James has not responded to the last comment and it might be because we decided to take it off email and go to the blog. So he may just be waiting for me to post this. I have not talked to him since I got to Europe so not sure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
