Cops Lives Matter Too
Mar 12, 2015 Commentary
I am skeptical of the police. I respect them as a group of people who, for the most part, do dangerous jobs to protect people. But we have continually militarized them and they have a culture that sees them remain silent when some among them do wrong. There are far too many cases of police officers beating people and violating their civil rights.
[note]When you give police agencies items that are meant for war they will act like they are going to war.[/note]
That small group causes the good among them to be viewed skeptically. I believe all agents of the government should be viewed with a bit of skepticism but the bad actions of a small minority of cops has tarnished the good work of honorable officers.
It is also true that far too often police officers are extensions of the taxing authority of a government. They write tickets for nuisance items just to generate revenue.
But no matter how one feels about what policing has become the reality is these folks are men and women who have families. Their lives matter just as much as anyone else’s. They should not be targeted. Don’t get me wrong. I believe people have the right to resist unlawful acts by any agent of the government but I do not think police officers should be targets just because some segment of society does not like them.
Last night two officers in Ferguson MO were shot. They are expected to survive but they should not have been shot in the first place. This is not an issue where police issued some no knock raid and got shot by a scared home owner. No, these police officers were monitoring yet another protest in ferguson when some jackass shot them.
We saw all the protests and riots when people believed that Michael Brown was shot with his hands up. That turned out to be a lie and he was the aggressor. Unarmed or not he ws dangerous and Officer Wilson was well within his right to shoot him.
Will there be protests in favor of these cops? The race baiting poverty pimps are already making excuses and rationalizing the shootings.
People get up in arms when they think a cop shot someone (or their dog) unnecessarily (and their anger is justified when that turns out to be the case especially when the cop is cleared of wrong doing) but they find no issue with police officers being shot while doing their jobs.
Imagine if you will a scenario where a group of people has been arrested after a long police investigation. Say they all had tons of drugs and illegal firearms when they were arrested. The cops all testify and they think this is a slam dunk. But for some reason the jury finds the defendants not guilty and they walk on all charges.
How would people respond if the police waited for them to gather someplace and then gunned them down?
The people of Ferguson were fed a false narrative and they were led to believe they would get the verdict they wanted from the Grand Jury. When they did not they burned the place to the ground. How many of them were arrested for that?
In any event, the false narrative and all the negative statements from Barack Obama, Eric Holder, Al Sharpton and plenty of other people has resulted in this violence against these police officers.
Their lives matter too and this should not be happening. They need to catch who did this and nail him to the wall.
Here is the key. Mutual respect. Police officers need to respect the people who pay their salaries and who they work for. They need to do their jobs with honor and dignity and without regard for ones color ar any other demographic.
The people need to obey the law and they need to respect the police.
If that happens people can work together to ensure their communities are safe.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
They Don’t Like It When It’s Them
Jan 26, 2015 Commentary
The police have no problem putting GPS trackers on cars without a warrant. They have no problem targeting people who have a concealed carry permit when they drive through an anti gun state. They have no issue using special devices to look through walls without a warrant (and mislead in their reports) and they have no problem driving around with license plate readers to see if you are a wanted person. They have no issue infiltrating group meetings to see what people are doing and hear what they are saying.
They always defend their actions as a matter of public safety. The logical among us would say that if this is the case then get a warrant when one is required because if it is so important the judge will agree with you.
While the police might not bat an eye at tracking you they are none too happy when they are the ones whose whereabouts are known.
There is a phone app that allows people to report, and others to read, where police officers are located.
According to a report at Yahoo, Sheriffs are campaigning to have Google turn the feature off. The police are worried that the app showing their locations make them targets for those who might want to do them harm.
There is no reported incident of that happening but officers say it is only a matter of time.
So what we have here is some officers (and how many is not disclosed in the story) upset that people are tracking them.
The thing is, they are public figures and as far as I know there is no law saying the public can’t disclose where they are. There is certainly no need for a citizen to get a warrant to track police officers.
But there is a certain document called the Constitution that protects the citizens from the actions police officers engage in each and every day.
This is not to say that some of the work they do is not important but if it is then they need to obtain warrants when those are required.
I have no sympathy for a group of people who have no issue illegally monitoring people and then whine when they are being legally tracked.
Suck it up guys. Now you know how it feels.
Then again, they might just be unhappy they are losing revenue because people know where they are and can avoid them or slow down, as the case may be.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: constitution, google, police, revenue, tracking app
Police Can See Inside Your Home; Hannity Torn On Issue
Jan 21, 2015 Commentary, General
A report from USA Today from 20 January 2015 indicates that at least fifty police agencies are using a new radar device that allows officers to see if people are inside homes and if they are moving around. These agencies are using the devices, shall I say, under the radar.
The officers use the device to violate the right of the people inside to their privacy. Courts have ruled that officers must get a warrant to do such a thing but these officers are not getting those warrants.
Their reports do not mention that they used the device to determine someone was in a structure instead opting to report that an anonymous source reported it or there was reasonable suspicion.
On his radio program last evening Sean Hannity discussed this technology and said he was torn on the issue because officers who are going to a structure that might have dangerous people in it need to know how many and if they are moving around. It is, according to Hannity, all about the safety of those officers. Hannity has been willing to cede some rights in the name of police or some law in the past. He claims to be conservative but has no trouble allowing for a police state in some cases…
There is no doubt that the safety of officers needs to be taken into consideration. I only wish that the safety of the building occupants mattered as much to agencies and people like Hannity. How often are people harmed during a raid (and how often is it the wrong house)?
In any event, there is a simple solution and since Hannity claims to be solutions oriented he should buy into it.
GET A WARRANT.
I was under the impression the police had to stay a certain distance from your property anyway. But even if they are allowed to just trespass and walk up to your house they certainly are not allowed to use devices to search the inside (and that is what this is).
If they have probable cause to be there then getting a warrant should be easy. If they can’t get the warrant it is likely they should not be at the house in the first place. If there is no proof of wrongdoing then being there amounts to a fishing expedition where officers are looking for a reason to be able to enter. If they are there to make an entry then it should be easy to include the radar in the warrant.
I, unlike Hannity, do not want to give up my right to privacy. My home belongs to me and if you want to search it (by entering or with a device) then you need a warrant.
Period.
No need to be torn Sean. Tell them that you believe in officer safety BUT they need to get a warrant.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Holder Wants Help Spying
Sep 30, 2014 Political
Of course it is all for the children.
Eric The Red Holder spoke at the Global Alliance Against Child Sexual Abuse Online and he said that the new encryption used on electronic devices will lock law enforcement out and hamper their ability to investigate and gather evidence.
The whole Idea is to lock government (in this case the police) out of our devices.
Holder is concerned because the encryption prevents cellular companies from accessing the data that is encrypted and he wants some kind of back door to allow law enforcement to enter. Sorry pal, you don’t get access to everyone’s stuff just because some folks use the things illegally. If you want the information you will have to find another way to get it.
Holder is concerned because it is for the children. Here is an idea, lock the child molesters and pedophiles up and throw away the key. If some person has thousands of photos and videos as Holder claims then that person is not new at this and has likely been at odds with the law.
Even if they have not then it is up to the police to gather evidence and find a way to get into that person’s device.
Sounds harsh but while Holder can claim it is for the children what will stop the police from using the back door to access tons of things? Suppose they arrest a person for drug activity. What would stop them from accessing a device and getting all the contacts on the phone and then investigating those people for drug activity? How many people who have nothing to do with that illegal activity will be the focus of police because they used the back door to a device? There are far too many ways for this to be abused to warrant allowing it.
Holder made his case by describing some child predator that has thousands of items in a cloud and lamented that the cops can’t access it.
Well they can. Cloud storage can be accessed (as stated right in the article where Holder described the alleged problem) so there is no reason to access any device through some police only entrance.
The government is involved in far too much spying on its own citizens and what Holder wants would only allow more of it to happen.
Stay out of our stuff and stay out of our lives.
When you catch a bad guy doing bad things put him in jail and LEAVE him there. Smarmy lawyers like Holder work with the system to allow these cretins to go free and then cry when they commit the same crimes over and over.
How about we have a citizen only back door into government devices so we can keep track on the criminals residing there?
Maybe this would have prevented Holder from running guns and working with the IRS to target political foes.
Hell, maybe we could have retrieved some of those emails that were conveniently lost.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: back door, child predators, electronic devices, encryption, eric holder, lies, police, spying
When Seconds Count Even The Police Are In Trouble
Jun 7, 2014 Second Amendment
In Washington DC there is an uproar among the police because Chief Cathy Lanier has issued an all hands call requiring officers to work for five weekends in a row. Officers balk that this will leave the public less protected on the higher crime days like Tuesday and Wednesday. The person who made the assertion then gives an example (that interestingly takes place on a Thursday) where an officer needed help and no one was free to assist.
For example, on Thursday night in the Seventh District, a school resource officer radioed for help in trying to control two kids, but no one was free to answer.
He said, “I heard a radio transmission. A lieutenant needed some assistance on Suitland Parkway for a possible DUI suspect. It was a good five to ten minutes before anybody backed him up. Because of the manpower issues, we have minimum staffing on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursdays. [emphasis mine] My FOX DC
There is a saying that when seconds count the police are only minutes away. Looks like this is true even for officers.
Why is this important? The people who oppose the Second Amendment and who do not want law abiding citizens to carry firearms always tell us that this is what the police are for and that if we have a problem we should call 911. Why do you people need firearms when the police are here to protect you? If we have all these guns out there more folks will get hurt. We don’t want to confiscate them we just don’t want YOU to have them.
And on these assertions go. The leaders of most police forces are politically appointed and they do the bidding of their puppet master political bosses. This has been very evident in Maryland where Governor Martin O’Malley pulled the strings of his appointees and prevented others from discussing the Maryland gun control laws because safety was not really the concern. It was all politically motivated because O’Malley, a man who has armed officers around him at all times, does not like guns in the hands of law abiding citizens and he wants to tout his liberal gun control success as he aspires to higher office. He does not believe in freedom, he believes in tyranny and control of the masses and he believes in screwing the public to advance his career.
In any event, the DC situation and the example given clearly demonstrate why law abiding citizens must not have their Second Amendment right infringed upon. It took a long time for a fellow officer to get help and officers rush to help their own. They are not so motivated when it is some schmo they do not know or work with.
[note]We see this time and again. A cop gets murdered and it is all hands on deck to find the murderer. When an average citizen gets murdered they work on it and sometimes close the case but the intensity is nowhere near that when it is one of their own.[/note]
Most rank and file police officers prefer armed citizens. There are the few anti social morons who shoot dogs and innocent people and get away with it under the cover of I feared for my life but most of them try to do a good job and get home at the end of their shift. They realize that armed citizens provide extra protection in society. They know that there is less violent crime in areas where people carry firearms because criminals do not like to face opposition and they don’t want to die.
In places where people’s rights are infringed upon (like DC and Maryland) the crime rates are higher and crimes committed with firearms increase. Bad guys don’t obey the law so they get guns anyway. Most officers are comfortable with law abiding citizens who own and carry firearms because they know that is a force multiplier. They know there are people who can protect others when the police are not around and they know the prospect of armed people deters criminals. How many of these mass shootings could have been stopped before huge loss of life had people been allowed to carry firearms where the shootings occurred?
[note]My friend Kit Lange made a brilliant observation that demonstrates this point. In Canada some nut is going around with a rifle and has already shot and killed three Mounties. There are pictures of the guy people have snapped with their cell phones. She points out that there are pictures because people see him and if they were allowed to carry firearms in Canada they could take him down but since they can’t do so all they can do is snap photos. I am sure the Mounties would not care who took him down as long as he was no longer a threat.[/note]
It is possible that many of the leaders in law enforcement feel the same way but can’t express it because their liberal, anti gun political bosses forbid them from doing so. That to me is weakness and a failure to uphold an oath but this is how people in power often act. Though my gut tells me they agree wight heir bosses or they would not have been appointed to their positions…
In any event, the cops in DC don’t like to wait for assistance. Well here is a newsflash for them and their bosses. We the people, those who PAY your salaries don’t like to wait either. We don’t like to be at the mercy of criminals because we have been denied the right to defend ourselves.
Keep in mind, the police are a reactive force not a proactive one. The cops come AFTER a crime and take a report and try to find who did it. Cops don’t show up 2 minutes before a crime and wait to prevent it.
Why should we be denied the ability to prevent crimes (or at least minimize them) when the police can’t do so?
Why should we be denied the right to keep and bear arms that is enshrined in our Constitution?
Because liberals want to control us. As many have stated, it is not about guns it is about control.
As far as DC and its police chief go, she can do what she wants. The officers will have to deal with it and perhaps they will understand what the people who pay them are subject to each and every day.
An armed society is a polite society but liberals do not want polite, they want control. Keep in mind that an armed society is free and the disarmed are enslaved.
There would not have been slavery had the slaves owned firearms…
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: control, DC, disarm, lies, police, Second Amendment, seconds count