Knives = Assault thingies

In Massachusetts, some 14 year old boy was caught with knives and brass knuckles, which are being called "Assault Weapons" by officer Bullhonkey, or whatever his name is. There was a small throwing knife set as well, and three larger novelty type knives.

Folks who know a thing or two about knives should be quick to point out that these knives are very inexpensive and are of below average quality, and are sold in flea markets and such pretty much anywhere. Want to know the reason they're so readily available and inexpensive? Because men like the look of stabby things, and cheap knives with crappy steel that won't ever see any use can fill that role well just by hanging on the wall. Folks who know a thing or two about youthful boys should be quick to point out that boys have a strong attraction to big gnarly looking novelty knives and brass knuckles. Want to know the reason? Because they're boys! I know it's hard to believe, but boys in today's time love pointy stabby things just like boys two thousand years ago did. Weird.

Didn't some wise dude from some old book say something about there being nothing new under the sun? I think today we use a term along the same lines - "Boys will be boys."

The boy in the article may or may not have said something about using a knife against some unamed somebody (we'll never know; they took down the boy's facebook page), and based on this he's now in a heap of trouble. The question to ask now is whether officer Bullhonkey also confiscated all the knives from the kitchen and then made especially sure to remove anything from the house made of metal. The best throwing knives I've ever had were made from grinding a point onto some of my mother's butter knives (sorry mom!); and I made swords, knives, and metal knuckles from old bed frames and scrap metal around the yard. I made two solid pairs of 'chucks from door chains and hickory that I cut and formed myself; I made a miniature bow and arrow from Constructs, a rubber band, and 1/4" dowel rods from a toy Tee pee and used it to kill birds and rabbits, and I've made things far deadlier than all of this stuff combined that I won't even talk about here.

Looking at those shiny brass stars on officer Bullhonkey's shoulders, I could easily use them make any number of edged assault thingies that would definitely make the day more interesting. Maybe some fangs; they could tear out a jugular vein like nobody's business! OOooo. . . oooo. . . . I know. . . .I could make arrow tips! I bet they would work better than the arrow tips that I made from bone harvested from squirrels I slayed with a slingshot.

Try as you may, you won't stop boys from making cool weapons from any materials they can get their hands on. When you're a boy, the world is your deadly oyster, and all it takes to capitalise on this is an active, youthful mind. Why this is lost on the crazy people interviewed in the article's video is the question of the day. I guess some people lose sight of where they came from (or maybe I'm crazy for making weapons out of anything I see). These days, I'm having a blast making things that hold weapons, like this holster I made last night:




Boys will be boys. . . .

Rules #1 and #2!!!!!

There's a firestorm going on over the pictures of a police sniper at Super Bowl XLVI. If you did not know, there are snipers at most major sporting events; but the brouhaha is not over the snipers so much, but that the guy in the picture is using a rifle as a pair of binoculars, which violates two of the four firearm safety rules.

I have to side with the folks who have their panties in a bunch: being tasked with protecting a stadium from an active shooter -- a rare occurrence -- does not make you so high speed that you can arbitrarily point a rifle at people. Being highly trained does not make one infallible, so the idea that one sudden sneeze can cause a marksman to sympathetically squeeze the trigger and lobotomize a wasted fan is just as plausible in a sniper's hide as it is on a police training range. That is why we have the four rules, which is why we don't point weapons at people.

The people who are defending this violation are under the impression that operators operating operationally in an operational environment are so Tier 1 that they can use their rifle as a spotting scope up in a skybox where nobody can see them. I say that a rifle is a rifle is a rifle. Treat it as if it were loaded and don't point it at anything you do not intend to destroy, including drunk fans and blue painted bewbies.

First they came for the lead. . . .

Then they came for the copper brass .

This is the start of something very interesting. When the ATF says that a particular brand of copper brass bullet is banned because it's "armor piercing," how long before other manufacturer's bullets are banned?

Something else to think of - California is a "lead free zone" so to speak, so this really hoses the millions of rifle shooters there. And isn't it a bad idea to ban a bullet designed to penetrate deep into large dangerous critters based on the idea that it penetrates so deeply?


***ETA: The bullets are made of brass.

The game of Commerce

DALLAS (Reuters) - A 65-year-old woman made it past a checkpoint and onto a flight at the Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport on Wednesday with a revolver tucked away in her handbag, and was only stopped after the plane was called back to the gate, the airport said.

This post is probably going to be controversial.

Contrary to what news article commenters say ("Oh, if it makes us safe, it's okay!"), all of this TSA nonsense has nothing at all to do with real safety and everything to do with taxing citizens via fines and charges for accidentally breaking the law. It's the same as with New York City's gun laws; these laws are designed to generate revenue in the courts, not to stop badguys, and are only changed when enough of the non-criminal element get caught as to draw attention to the scheme. And despite what angry Americans may say about all of this and how evil it is, it was done with the consent of the populace.

There is no conspiracy, nor is there evil, when the very citizens who bitch about it let it come about in the first place. Just like in the game of Monopoly, if you want to sit at the table and play, you have to obey the rules; and that means that if your thimble lands on an arbitrary square that says "Go to Jail," than you send your piece to jail. It may be nonsensical, and no true crime was committed, but it's the rules. You land on the block, you have to pay a fare.

Back to the article, notice that the 65 year old woman was not only allowed through the checkpoint, but had already boarded the plane which was on its way to the runway. The planes were only turned around when somebody realized that a mistake was made. This very well could have added up to a Jack Bauer moment in the mind of some "security officer," but in the end it was a simple accounting error: the fare for carrying a handgun on a plane was not rendered. Disagree with me if you want, but the takeaway from this is that the goons in the blue shirts are not enforcing anti-constitutional gun laws as much as they are merely facilitating the collection of a tax -- the re-venuing of currency -- on compliant, consenting persons who asked for this very thing in the name of feeling secure.

"Did you see all the knives they caught that guy with? I'm glad they got him! I'll sleep soundly on my flight to El Paso knowing that that dangerous dude is behind bars!" Feeling safe is important to many people, and I don't blame them one bit. Feeling secure is a natural human desire, and getting it at someone else's expense can make it feel even more sweet. That's not the way I live by, but I've come to accept that that's the way it is, that the vast majority of the country feel that way, and the rules are made to suit them. When somebody's thimble ends up in the fictitious slammer, the other players say "HA!" and they play right past them, because that's how the game is played. Arguing against it is like trying to stop the sun.

Now, change the rules if it bothers you, sure. Good. Great. I'm all about it. But know that when you deny one funding stream, the government with find another, and will construct an organization tasked with taking up the collection. You say that marijuana should be legal? Cool beans, but there will need to be something given in kind because there are no free lunches. I'm on a hunch that pot will be legal in the next 5 or 10 years just as citizens want, and in return for this there will be an ever larger network of sex offender laws with an agency created to enforce it. Either that or, considering the sharply divided mindset of Americans, there will be crimes against the homeland used for government commerce. If you haven't noticed yet, the struggling economy is effecting the government as well, and the predictable reaction from it is to draw funds from areas both large and small, like SOPA for a large scale revenue generating function, and nitpicking citizens for random stuff like lightbulb disposal as an example of the small stuff.

Again, there are no free lunches, and there's nothing new under the sun. If you get what you want, you have to give something in kind. Choose wisely.

Virginia Irritating Criminal Background Check System

I already know the problem here: I'm not a criminal, so I must not qualify for the "instant" part.

in·stant 
[in-stuhnt]
noun
1. an infinitesimal or very short space of time; a moment: They arrived not an instant too soon.
2. the point of time now present or present with reference to some action or event.

Considering that the word doesn't match reality in regards to the situation here, I have substituted a more descriptive word for the system. If you still don't see why people like myself bitch about these background checks, let me just direct you to the information page for Virginia's VCHECK system:

This program became operational on November 1, 1989, and provides for a timely, point-of-sale, approval or disapproval decision regarding the sale or transfer of all firearms (except antiques) based upon the results of a criminal history record information (CHRI) check concerning the prospective purchaser pursuant to§18.2-308.2:2 of the Code of Virginia.

Emphasis mine. The VSP cannot now say that their background check system is timely, because my transaction last night was not approved before the store closed, thus violating the point-of-sale stipulation. Furthermore, if there isn't an approval or disapproval decision, the system has failed to work as required.

I heard from the dealer that ran the background check for my HK P30 last night that delays in the state were so bad, gun shows were reporting a 50% loss on sales. The VCDL is reporting significant hangups as well. I guess Tim Kaine got what he wanted after all, as I now have a gun that's paid for but not in my hands because of bureaucratic red tape. Way to go. But if it catches one violent criminal, it's all worth it, right? (That's a joke)

Can anyone in the class explain to me how a vague, half-assed system intended to catch a criminal for a crime they may or may not commit is not as destructive as inhibiting lawful commerce and transfer of property? Anyone?

"Oh, but CTone, what if some badguy was trying to buy a handgun to go on a murder spree; wouldn't you want them to be delayed or denied?" I'll answer that right after you answer this: what if a soccer mom was trying to buy a handgun to protect herself from her already armed ex-spouse who has intent to do her serious bodily harm or kill her? Is it fine and dandy for her to be delayed to? Which scenario do you think happens more often? The "what if" game cuts both ways, and I highly doubt these background check systems actually help convict criminals. Fortunately, there's a push to rid Virginia of their redundant, needless, and ineffective system, and I can only hope that with time, the nation will shed this ludicrous idea of pre-criminalizing persons for crimes they haven't committed.

With bated breath

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) is turning up the heat on Eric Holder, demanding the attorney general “come forward and at least admit” he knew about Operation Fast and Furious long before he told Congress he learned about the gun program.

The truth is coming. . . .aaaaaaaaany day now.

The news isn't fun to read anymore

It's too depressing. This morning I open Yahoo! News to find that Andy Whitfield has died. I enjoyed Spartacus: Blood and Sand, and somehow hoped that Whitfield would return to the part because he played the character so well. His character was re-cast, and the new season starts early next year.

The first news article that caught my eye this morning though was the headline/quote from president Obama stating that "America does not give in to fear," which made me snort just a little bit. The news has been awash with stories fear for eleven days, pondering the next terrorist strike that is bound to happen at any moment. Any minute now. . . .

We have uniformed government workers sexually assaulting random Americans at airports and bus stops, F16 fighters escorting air planes to the ground, bomb scares in Boston, Kansas City, Los Angeles, and D.C. ; and in New York:

New York police amassed a display of force on Friday including checkpoints that snarled traffic in response to intelligence about a car or truck bomb plot linked to the 10th anniversary of the September 11 attacks.

Officers armed with automatic weapons were stationed at city landmarks including Wall Street, Times Square and the September 11 memorial site where the Twin Towers once stood.

[snip]

New Yorkers who have grown accustomed to bag searches at subway stations and random displays of police presence encountered increased vigilance after the threat, which prompted President Barack Obama to order a redoubling of U.S. counterterrorism efforts.

Yeah, we sure don't give in to fear not one little bit. Nothing tells me that the republic is at ease like amassed police with automatic weapons in major cities. My favorite, sweet little truffle from yesterday morning's news:

Mejia now is close to marking her fourth year as a TSA security officer. She has worked every September 11, she said. "It's somewhat an honor to be here today, to watch, to say that people are not afraid to fly, and we are here to help," Mejia said.

This is from an article titled "Travelers feel fear, resolve about flying on September 11." Someone should probably tell her that thousands, if not millions of Americans fear flying the other 364 days out of the year because of the fear of having their intimate body parts rigorously fondled by blue-glove wearing tyrants who work for the TSA.

"Nearing the end of this violation, I sobbed even louder as the woman, FOUR
TIMES, stuck the side of her gloved hand INTO my vagina, through my pants. Between my labia. She really got up there. Four times. Back right and left, and
front right and left. In my vagina. Between my labia. I was shocked -- utterly
unprepared for how she got the side of her hand up there. It was government-sanctioned sexual assault."

I know I always feel safer about travel knowing that when I get to the airport, there is a high likelyhood that some disgusting stranger in a dirty blue shirt will painfully grab ahold of my satchel; but it's awesome though and totally worth it because some spineless wimp of a man behind me will feel like these good hearted goverment agents are dilligently keeping everyone safe. Even though they're not.

Fear not, muslim friends, we're here to find terrorists. I'm clearing your minds of all anxiety." - Sarah; Team America: World Police

Have a safe day!!

Ebony and Ivory

Raise your hand if this sounds familiar:

The tangled intersection of international laws is enforced through a thicket of paperwork. Recent revisions to 1900's Lacey Act require that anyone crossing the U.S. border declare every bit of flora or fauna being brought into the country. One is under "strict liability" to fill out the paperwork—and without any mistakes.

Where do ya think you're goin with that thar woodwind, boy!?! You got any papers with that?

This article is very telling. On one hand, you have over zealous government officials conducting raids in the name of draconian environmental regulations, and on the other hand you have musicians - who do more than there share of concocting said draconian regulations - whining and reviling over the injustice of the same regulations. Hmmm.

This is why I don't fly anymore

His ordeal began last Friday when airport security in Freeport, Bahamas found a .32-caliber bullet inside his fanny pack. He was charged with possessing ammunition and sent to a jail in Nassau. Lapp says he thinks he left the bullet in his pack after a hunting trip.

How would you take it if this happened to you while traveling with family on vacation? I'm certainly capable of overlooking a shell casing or bullet in a travel bag. How about you?

All of these so called security measures that have been enacted around the world rely on policy and not thought. One security yahoo with the capability to produce conscious thought would have kept an innocent man out of jail if he or she were only able to act on what they know, and not on what a zero-tolerance policy tells them to.

What happens when you divide by zero?

A law enforcement officer that is a commenter on ARFCOM was the victim of a felony traffic stop and arrest in front of his wife and kids at a revenueing speed trap over an out of state warrant for weapons charges and being an unregistered sex offender. The warrants turned out to be for someone else; someone of different color and birthday. The only thing that expedited his ass out of the police station was a fortuitous notice by another cop of that the victim's race was not the same as on the warrant. Since the victim is a LEO, he was treated far different at the station than someone not of that status.

It's a shame that this man will forever have this arrest and charges associated with his name, even if the record is expunged. It's permanent, and so is the sight of his kids and wife watching him be arrested and treated like a scumbag for a crime he didn't commit.

This is exactly why I now fear law enforcement. I think many good hearted Americans fear being the innocent victim of some computer glitch or human error and being yanked out of their car or having their door kicked in and dog shot over some victimless crime; the former having happened to me when I was a teenager. It's not fun. There is very permanent damage done over these sort of things, and often the whole thing is initiated over a crime that was not hurting anyone.

Up until fairly recently I strongly wanted to become law enforcement, but changed my mind as I didn't like where the trade was heading. I hope the cop in the linked story gets everything worked out, and hopefully becomes a better officer because of it.

Terrifying testimony

NEW ORLEANS (Reuters) - Rising from his seat at the witness stand in a New Orleans courtroom, Michael Hunter lifted a model AK-47 assault rifle to demonstrate on Wednesday how a fellow police officer blasted five civilians during the chaotic aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

Hunter, in the most detailed account to date of the shooting on the Danziger Bridge, said the officer stood above three men and two women and sprayed them with bullets at close range as they lay terrified on a sidewalk on September 4, 2005.

There are multiple things to be outraged about in this accounting of how New Orleans police shot and killed unarmed people on the bridge; and even if you don't believe everything that was testified in court, any one allegation is damning on its face; you can't dismiss everything. It's accounts like this one or the one posted yesterday that are the reason for the current rift between Americans and law enforcement.

Fortunately, in Virginia, we don't get the crushing effects of mother nature like in other parts of the country, so the scenario of an apocalyptic SHTF situation in the wake of a storm or earthquake is highly unlikely, but that doesn't mean that "high risk" situations are not created out of whole cloth.

I have some friends in my local Sheriff's Departments, and with the exception of them specifically, I fear the rest of them. That doesn't mean that I don't appreciate what they do or the dangers that they face, but while they have nothing to fear from me - any interaction that they have with me will be peaceful on my part - I don't trust them to not completely trample on my rights and/or escalate things when they interact with me. It's a shame that that's how my feelings are, but I know that I'm not alone.

Sometimes gun owners depress me

A Soldier (call him OP) posted in the ARCOM General Discussion thread about a run in he had with law enforcement while open carrying a handgun with his wife at a restaurant. The cop obviously did not know the law, or that OP was open carrying because that is the only lawful means he has to carry a firearm, and threatened to charge him with brandishing. This happened in Kentucky, which allows for open carry, and from some of the commenters on the thread has no known statute for brandishing.

The result of the encounter ended well enough, with the cop going on his merry way when OP stood on his rights. The result in posting the encounter on a pro-gun forum ended up attracting some of the most ignorant so-called gun owners who not only gave the OP shit about open carrying, and also attacked his equipment and gun choice, they go on to suggest that he break the law and carry concealed. This is out of the belief that open carrying takes away your element of surprise, and offers nothing in return.

It should be said that the OP was open carrying because he is not yet 21, and cannot apply for a concealed handgun permit. He followed the letter of the law and carried his gun the only way he could, but that is lost to many who commented on his post. There is one particular commenter who openly admits to breaking laws that he does not agree with, and then tries to ply the OP to do the same based on a belief that open carry shouldn't be allowed because. . . . well, that's not at all clear.

Sometimes gun owners are our own worst enemy. We see that from time to time.

Interesting revelations in Project Gunwalker

There is more and more evidence coming out that the ATF was using Project Fast and Furious as a means for fluffing up the numbers of weapons going to Mexico in order to give US lawmakers a chance to push more gun control. If you notice, there's a name of an ATF Special Agent that keeps popping up - Agent Bill Newell, whom I've mentioned a few times before as one who is on the front lines to convince the US public that we're the cause of the cartels having weapons.

Reportercreature: "It doesn't seem like it's that difficult for them to get these guns."

ATF Special Agent Bill Newell Mangan: "It's uh, it's as easy as crossing the border."

With the help of our government, apparently.

This is going to be a major scandal, with or without the help of our shit media organizations. Good on the ATF agents and other ABC agents who have come out against Project Fast and Furious, and shame on agents like Newell who carry the water for gun controllers through lies and deceit.

**Update: A letter from Senator Grassley to ATF Director Kenneth Melson. All I can say about that is OUCH!! If you read nothing else on this page or from the links I have provided, check out Senator Grassley's questions at the bottom of his letter. They are covered from point to hilt in barbs.

***Update: The video I posted above was not Special Agent Newell. You can see him here in the video on this page talking about straw buyers, concealing the fact that he had a large hand in allowing those very guns be sold to criminals.

TSA Grope-Warrior caught distributing kiddie porn

Federal agents also allege that Transportation Safety Administration Officer Thomas Gordon Jr. of Philadelphia, who routinely searched airline passengers, uploaded explicit pictures of young girls to an Internet site on which he also posted a photograph of himself in his TSA uniform.

I don't know about you, but I'm not at all surprised. People who routinely touch people inappropriately against their will are generally considered to be scumbags, and there is a special place that society has reserved for such folks. Here we have a bona fide gate-rapist who likes younger entertainment, and it makes you wonder how many of these sick fucks there are screening Americans at airports.

Again, I avoid flying as best as I can these days, but sometimes it's unavoidable unless I fancy losing my job. With the exception of a body cavity search, I've received all the sick shit that TSA can muster at airports all over the country. I have no sympathy for this guy, and I hope his message gets spread far and wide.

It could go either way

I hear Firefighters all the time talk about how they could find good use for flying spy cameras that are disguised as hummingbirds to keep an eye on things without being seen by the fire. Sure, the po-po probably could find use for them too, but you just know they wouldn't, as it would be unethical or something, unless it's for chemical leaks which is totally ethical. Rest assured that a flying/hovering spy camera would never ever be used for spying.

Technology is moving faster these days; it was two years ago that I saw bird sized spy planes disguised as. . . .well, birds. I'm sure nobody has put those to use in that time.

Well, come to think of it, there sure are a lot of little birds around my house now that the black helicopters have left.

The speed safari

I got a kick out of this article on Virginia State Police from the General Discussion forum on ARFCOM.

As a lifelong Virginian, I can tell you without a doubt that the entire I-95 corridor, I-81, and I-64 are nothing more than high speed game trails, and the VSP and county mounties are big game hunters looking to bag your speeding ass and mount it on the wall at the courthouse. They are not in it for public safety; it is about the collection of revenue.

Now, in the link above you have some Virginia law enforcement as well as locals who defend the speeding safari by flatly telling you that if you do not speed you will not get a ticket. While one could possibly argue that point successfully, I point out that if you're the person NOT doing 85+ mph on I-95 than you're the one who is acting recklessly, and are probably the guy going home to ARFCOM to breathlessly argue in favor of VSP writing so many tickets. Getting passed on the right by pissed off drivers will get to you after a while, no doubt.

In my experience, the VSP has been a very professional organization so far, except for that one cop who blatantly and deliberately lied to the judge about my speed one night. It's all good though, hoss - I forgive you of your dishonor, but I don't think the majority of Virginians will be so nice. Lying in court to ensure a kiddie porn serial murderer doesn't get off on a technicality is something that will perhaps be forgiven from time to time, but when you make a habit out of revenue'en the good natives with fictitious affidavits and questionable statements, it's only a matter of time before the friendlies change their mind about your organization and say bad things about you on the internets. One bad apple can spoil the whole bunch.

Lastly I'll say this: if you're riding down the highway at +10 mph, the radio up, and you're the only fool around, you're not endangering the public. Getting that ticket for nothing more than violating a written rule that was conjured up by people who's intention was to make it legal to siphon fundage out of your wallet does not make you a public nuisance. It would be awesome if the Johnny Law types out there who know that this is damn-well the case would stop insulting the free spirited Virginians who go foul of these speed rules and not give the high horse lecture when writing a ticket. I know exactly what you're up to sport, and it's not stopping reckless and probable terrorists from doing harm at Linda's soccer game.

On the Discovery gunman

The media reports he was an extremist, which quite frankly doesn't impress me that much. Plenty of people are extremists without resorting to violence, and this guy at first glance doesn't have the history to suggest that he would wind up in a building full of people with a bomb strapped to his chest. Thankfully he didn't blow any one up.

Also, kudos to the cops for taking him out and saving all the hostages; with the police presence there yesterday, and all the rifles, armor, armored vehicles in all, it was about time that a crazy hostage taker lost his life via the good guys on national TV.

Now, while I can see how watching back-to-back episodes of Kate Plus 8 would drive anyone to madness, I just can't get over this:

Video taken by a Youtube user that day reveals an individual throwing money to gleeful crowds in Silver Spring. That individual in the video may be Lee -- who was arrested that day in Silver Spring for littering and disorderly conduct after he threw thousands of dollars to people. ABC 7 News released video of Lee's arrest after police determined that he was creating an unsafe environment. He served a 10-day sentence.

Who would have thought that throwing cash to a consensual crowd would constitute creating an unsafe environment? I can see the littering charge if you consider that cash is really just worthless paper, but only in America would it be a crime to throw money at people.

In another article, we find that the gunman had some unregistered destructive devices. Maybe we should make people register them or something, and make public buildings bomb free. We have such wonderful and successful security measures in place already at airports; it seems like common sense to me to extend it to other places like where you work, Wal-Mart, and Kroeger's and stuff. What's the harm?

Looking at some photos of this mess gives me some concern. The guys in green are presumably police officers of some sort, most likely FBI HRT, who look to be more geared towards fighting in Afghanistan than Silver Spring; indeed, the guy in the first photo is wearing many of the things that US Special Warfare troops wear, like the Crye Precision combat uniform and MSA Advanced Combat Helmet. I'm all about SWAT having all the toys that make their job safe and all, but what's with all the green and camouflage, and the armored vehicles? When did the boys in blue become Soldiers in combat outfits? I believe these guys are Maryland State Police -- do they look like it to you?

When I think of police, I think of blue uniforms and eight point covers; when I think of county Sheriff's deputies, I think of the brown uniform with a neck-tie and Smokey; and when I think of SWAT teams for the exact type of incident that happened yesterday, I envision black and/or blue clad cops in armor with kick ass weapons and battering rams. Sadly, today it's more likely to be cops in multicam riding in on an APC complete with M2 BHMG, and it seems that every small town has them, but is strikingly absent of hostage or terrorist situations.

When there is trouble, you are supposed to know exactly who is the police officer charged and sworn with addressing the miscreant - we have that with the eight point cover and Smokey. There is no mistake in a crowd. Why is it then that we can't accurately determine who is a police officer, who is a federal agent, and who is a Soldier in our country anymore? When did we let that change? Something's not right with that.

I still commend the cops for taking that scumbag out without loss of decent life.

Baltimore cop is fired

I vaguely recall seeing these videos sometime back whereas a Baltimore cop goes ballistic on a young skateboarder. I almost passed by this article this morning, as I don't find much interest in YouTube justice unless it is over something extreme, but watching this guy get his rocks off by yelling at a teenager piqued my interest.

When my kids become youthful teenagers, who may not be all that appreciative towards police officers or the day to day tribulations they face, I would still expect that they are treated better than the lad in the video. Think about if you had to drive over to some incident between your kid and some cop, and the cop is calm as a cucumber but your kid is mouthy and disrespectful, or even just really wound up. My default reaction would be to deal with the less childlike person, which nine times out of ten is probably the cop. Not so much in the video here.

Anyways, the cop was fired, which means nothing, really, as he will surely be picked up by another department. The act though was appropriate, and may send a message to that ten percent that might take their job a little too serious.

Theater safety

So, typically, you feel safer when you know security guards will detect weapons on people entering a building they’re assigned to protect, right?

Aaaah, no, jackass. It usually pisses me off to no end because it typically means a trip back to the glove box. One case in point is the Marine Corps museum, but that's another story.

It’s hard to have that kind of peace of mind with District schools and offices.

Peace of mind? Isn't that what an ostrich does when it sticks its head in the sand? I do agree with him to a point though; I don't have any peace of mind with any area in the District as long as it continues to prevent the community at large from using modern means of scumbag prevention. The community is mostly responsible for that, which is a shame, and it appears that things are not going to get any better:

Last year, the District fired security contractor Hawk One, which had a four-year record of poor supervision, inadequate training, ineffectiveness, and “fraternizing with students.” To replace Hawk One’s 200 guards, D.C. hired two firms on one-year contracts totaling $22.1 million.

So they hired a company to put uniformed human beings with guns in buildings for the sole purpose of disarming everybody, and the end result was that determined people were still able to gain entry with weapons while the guards were aggressively tutoring the youth? Who could have seen that coming, and why do they think hiring armed human beings in different uniforms will have a different outcome? And holy smokes - $22 Mil? Seems like it would be more effective and less costly to have the parents of students holster up and provide security in shifts; if there's a liability question, there are ways around that. Human beings are human beings, and the security folks would be much more inclined to do a good job if their interest in the matter consisted of their flesh-and-blood, and not Federal Reserve Notes.

With security contractors like these, who needs criminals?

Thinking that you'll have a better outcome if the human factor is clad in new duds is going to lead to more disappointment. You'll probably have more failed "penetration tests" too, in more ways than one.

Thy righteousness and thy cellphone, they comfort me

Update: To the below post, in comments Boomhauer notes that DC police are in official uniform when working security, so that indicates that the hoodlum would be the one who flew off the handle. Perhaps he had been sniffing the Gorilla Glue for too long, and thought he could take on the world!

Today's dose of stupid and quote of the day, all rolled into one:

kj85756
Guns are dangerous. The civilian should have called the police and let them take care of it. Guns are not needed when you have a cell phone.

This is a comment in response to this article which lays out very little detail about an upstanding armed citizen in DC who saw a crime being committed and intervened. As you can guess, the citizen was an off duty cop, and as usual, his firearm un-assed from his holster and discharged, all on its own.

Some facts here:

1. The off duty cop works part time at the Home Despot where this all went down.
2. The cop was carrying his "service revolver", as the news person in the video knows firearms very well, and has made that determination with all the accuracy and oversight that we have come to expect from the media.
3. The Service Revolver has full control of itself, and can discharge at will.
4. Bite wounds and a grazing gun shot wound warrant a high speed ambulance ride to the hospital, complete with two police cruisers in tow, for everybody, not just cops. Honest.
5. Guns are baaaa-ah-ah-ah-ah-d.
6. Cellphones stop violence.

Now, the article says our off duty hero witnessed a crime being committed, confronted the dangerous threat, and a fight ensued whereas the violent hoodlum showed how completely reckless he was by grabbing the issued Service Revolver which then in protest decided to discharge without any such human interaction. The video has some cop-like official stating matter of factly that the Home Despot employees, who we presume were unarmed considering that they work in DC, saw the alleged hoodlum committing NoGood and confronted him at the front of the store, wherein the off duty cop comes strolling by and the employees ask him to intervene in a more authoritative capacity. Either way the off duty cop assumed his role as a cop and took action, which means that the above quoted moronic commenter has failed to notice that the "civilian" did in fact summon the police; he just happened to summon himself.

The question that remains unasked is whether the off duty hero cop identified himself as a police officer, or whether he tried to use armed color of law while clad only in an orange apron. If he chose the latter, and displayed a Revolver that we all know the DC police still issue to cops for Service, than the hoodlum may have assumed he was an armed antagonizer. If he chose the former, than did he display the required amount of credentials to show without a doubt that he was a cop, and not just some random un-blessed guy with a gun who works at Home Despot?

The article does say that the off duty cop had just arrived at Home Despot to "work security," which leads to more questions such as: was he wearing the beautiful blue uniform that security guards wear to identify them as being there for the purpose of making something secure? Was he openly wearing the big ol' honkin' Revolver issued by DC for Service, making it easily identifiable as a Service Revolver for the purposes of making the store secure? Who initiated the physical altercation which led to a Revolver having to discharge? Was the hoodlum acting as a patron who was scared of a big scary armed man, or was he acting as a violent scumbag who hates the coppers and won't be taken alive? Why the hell does Home Despot need an armed security guard?

The hoodlum may indeed be a violent scumbag for all I know, but I have to question whether he would risk fighting with multiple people in the front of the store, one of them who probably stated that he was a cop and who is at least potentially armed, all to make off with a booty of gas cans and Gorilla Glue. But then again, this is a Home Despot that though it prudent to hire a cop to be an armed security guard, so there is potential for the area to be saturated with people who would gladly kill for some brushed aluminum door knobs.

Also, if cellphones are all that's needed to stop criminals in their tracks, than why don't cops carry them in their holsters instead of dangerous Service Revolvers? You know, the more news articles I read, the more questions I have. You would think that journalists would be trained to provide facts, and not make a big mess of things.