Morning Links

Tuesday, June 5th, 2012

Digg it |  reddit | |  Fark

75 Responses to “Morning Links”

  1. #1 |  C. S. P. Schofield | 

    Regarding that picture; W! T! F!?!?!?!?

  2. #2 |  damaged justice | 

    “Those who would boss the grass in the wind about which way to blow”, as PJ O’Rourke put it, are the truly sick. And they want to force their sickness on everyone else, at the point of a gun.

  3. #3 |  BobN | 

    Love the your home picture. Brought back memories of exactly such an incident from 25 years ago with a beloved yellow lab and australian shepard. Entire couch destroyed.

  4. #4 |  Scott | 

    My friend’s cat wakes her up when she goes into dangerously low blood sugar episodes. :)

  5. #5 |  Yizmo Gizmo | 

    It’s getting to the point in places like NJ where the braggadocio associated with passing of the law supersedes the logic or usefulness of the law. The idiocy of the law is no longer the unfortunate consequence,
    it’s the objective. Round up a few soccer moms, a few clergy,
    hold a press conference, find the name of a dead kid, hand out some tissues and -boom- you could make peanut butter illegal.
    Remember, this was the state that passed Kyleigh’s Law, pissing off
    and bewildering both teens AND parents in one fell swoop.

  6. #6 |  marco73 | 

    My, my, Chief Chitwood certainly is in a tizzy. How dare Judge Will call police liars actual liars.
    And I wonder if the Chief hasn’t ever heard of the Streisand effect: if the Chief had just ground his teeth for a couple days, the local press would have ignored the story, and the cops would be right back to testi-lying their way to ridding our streets of the scourge of drugs.
    Now some people are going to start asking questions – you mean that cops are allowed to lie to people in course of their investigations? So when is the magic switch turned on, where all police testimony is the whole truth?

    Next time I’m on jury duty, I’m going to ask the prosecutor to have the cops raise their left hand when they are being “deceptive” in advance of their investigation, and raise their right hand when they are telling the truth. That isn’t too much to ask, right?

  7. #7 |  Juice | 

    In New Jersey the cops will now pull you over and give you a ticket for not caring enough about your dog’s safety and then shoot it because it was unrestrained.

  8. #8 |  Goober | 

    On the bloomberg article:

    It never ceases to amaze me whenever I discover how far away from my position some people argue from. This guy is as diametrically opposed to my worldview as a person could possibly be, with the exception of he wasn’t preaching violence in support of his cause – that’s the only thing he missed to be literally as far from me as possible.

    I know that it is a sign of my naiivete that I am surprised by how anti-freedom and pro-nanny some people are, but there it is.

  9. #9 |  Robert | 

    My cat wakes me up when my alarm clock doesn’t go off.

    But that’s because she’s hungry.

    She also helped me over depression after my dog died.

    So she does have many redeeming qualities.

  10. #10 |  dsmallwood | 

    i miss the “Like” buttons. well played.

  11. #11 |  Capo | 

    The comments on the article about the shooting…I swear in every one of these incidents LEOs come out of the woodwork with analagies about how hard their job is.

    As if that just should give them carte blanche to act like complete a-holes all the time. I mean, they speak about this stuff like their sh*t don’t stink. As if Police procedure didn’t involve trying to escalate every situation to the point where they can make an arrest, or get someone upset enough to wave their hands in the air and justify the beat down that the citizen is about to endure.

    I’m not even going to include the “but” here, because I’m sick of it. We all know that it is possible for someone to just be out to hurt a cop. But until the time that Police can actually own up for what they do, or at least acknowledge the fact that they are actually servants of the community and not the other way around, I just don’t care about how hard their job is.

  12. #12 |  David | 

    On the shooting: Note that the article mentions that cops “identified” the victim as Elwood Edwards, but his parents insist his name was Elwood White. It then goes on to keep calling him Edwards, because obviously the police know his name better than his parents.

  13. #13 |  Mattocracy | 

    At least the majority of commenters at the Daily Beast are ridiculing Tomasky.

  14. #14 |  Highway | 

    I also like in the first article that some people are catching on: An elderly couple who don’t want their names disclosed because they fear police retaliation.

  15. #15 |  Brandon | 

    #8, How is he not preaching violence in support of his cause? He’s talking about banning something; how will that ban be enforced if not with violence? Tomasky has decided that other peoples’ lives and freedom are worth sacrificing in the name of a symbolic-at-best gesture that might keep him from having to look at some fat people.

  16. #16 |  Boyd Durkin | 

    “This kid did not have to die. There was no reason whatsoever.”

    That quote gets to the heart of the matter with the kid waiving a broomstick getting shot dead while 3-4 cops stand by. It would be nice if the state security agents actually tried to save lives. It would be nice.

  17. #17 |  Brandon | 

    #13, yeah, but there’s also this:


    you are ignoring the role of corp-rat advertising in the molding of mass behavior.

    It works. That is precisely why so many billion$ are spent on it.

    And there is a public health issue here. That is so obvious that even our conservative ilk should be able to see it. OK, so I’m an optimist . . . .

    Therefore, the Libertarian answer is a foolish one, that leaves us exposed to the short-term profit based behavior of corp-rats who care nothing for the harm they cause to others.

    Have to work now, catch you another thread.

    Another good MT essay, with the usual snarling mini-minds attacking it, a good start to the week I say. ”

    Smug AND sanctimonious.

  18. #18 |  Michael Chaney | 

    In the “so you’re home” pic, what is that?

  19. #19 |  Difster | 

    “”No police chief or police organization condones officers fabricating evidence, falsifying police reports, lying in court or lying during internal proceedings,” he said in the letter to the judge.”

    Now the chief is lying.

  20. #20 |  Aresen | 

    Mattocracy | June 5th, 2012 at 11:38 am

    At least the majority of commenters at the Daily Beast are ridiculing Tomasky.

    Isn’t it a little cruel to mock someone that stupid?

  21. #21 |  Mario | 

    Juice @ #7


  22. #22 |  Kevin | 


    And there is a public health issue here.

    Please explain how individual choices affecting individual health is a public health issue.

  23. #23 |  Mattocracy | 

    @ Kevin,

    I don’t think Brandon is advocating a public health issue, just quoting someone else.

  24. #24 |  croaker | 

    Chief Mike Chitwood can go eat an entire bag of dicks.

    Actually there was a reason for those spitting on the sidewalk laws back when there was no antibiotics for tuberculosis.

  25. #25 |  mousefeathers | 

    “Pain management involves safe use of medication for the preservation of function, not simply pain relief.”

    Why does he act as if those purposes are somehow mutually exclusive? Has HE ever had intractable pain? Ask Jerry Lewis–he had SURGERY, because otherwise he would have killed himself. Is that this sorry excuse for a human being’s answer? Because that won’t work for very many patients, either–and it’s surgery, for crying out loud!

    Geez, Louise, but this country is run by a bunch of Puritans who didn’t muster the good grace to die out like they should have three centuries ago.

  26. #26 |  Jozef | 

    Re: Shooting

    “One Vista couple in their 60s, whom the North County Times agreed not to name because the couple feared police retaliation, said they were shocked that the man was shot.”

    This increasing trend in auto-censorship because of the fear of retaliation is one of the most common signs of an encroaching police state. Back in communist Czechoslovakia, when we whispered to each other jokes about the police, we said we were competing for the “golden cell bars” (“zlata mreza”) if the cops overheard us.

  27. #27 |  Chaz | 

    Am I the only one when they read the article on the Orvillecopter yesterday thought that’d be one hell of an effective drone army? If that won’t scare the terrorists into hiding, I don’t know what will.

  28. #28 |  David | 

    By the same token, though, I’d gladly go to war against a country of people who turn dead cats into helicopters.

  29. #29 |  Woog | 

    If private person was standing in defense of body and property with a firearm, and an attacker was lunging and swinging a baseball bat at the defender, would it be shocking that the defender would shoot the attacker?

    Granted, there may be information missing or cops lying, but as-is, the broomstickler seemed to be asking to be shot. This seems far and away much different than the killing of John T. Williams, the mostly-deaf whittler.

    On the other hand, weren’t tazers sold as a solution to just this sort of problem? There were lots of cops present to confront one aggressive individual – none of them had a tazer?

  30. #30 |  CyniCAl | 

    •New New Jersey law will fine motorists for not putting seat belts on cats and dogs.

    Safety … it’s not just for the children anymore.

    How much longer before the State mandates 100% safety for all its children?

    What a world.

  31. #31 |  David | 

    29: A homeowner is not expected to be trained in nonlethal equipment for subduing an attacker, nor to have time to prepare such equipment before engaging a potential attacker.

  32. #32 |  ken | 

    Reminds me of the aftermath of the Kathryn Johnston shooting. The police released information that the medical examiner disputed the families statement that she was 92, saying she appeared to be 88 or 89. Seriously, there were a number of comments on the lines of the family having some nefarious reason to claim she was older than she really was.
    Just one of the more peripheral WTF’s of that situation, but a very disturbingly interesting one.

  33. #33 |  Woog | 


    Neither are police expected to be assaulted. Yes, I’m well aware that excuse is used in situations it has no business being used, but in the situation at hand – assuming none of the cops had tazers – what would you want the cops to do? Batons are shorter than the wooden pole the attacker had. Hand-to-hand moves are even shorter-ranged. You’re demanding that at least one cop, called out because a man was rampaging around assaulting people, damaging property, and generally doing everything you’d expect the police to actually be useful for deterring or stopping, invite and expose himself to at least one strike from a violent man attempting to engage in further violence even when beong confronted by multiple armed men (police).

    I’d expect you to be intelligent enough to see my point without forcing me to dig up and post multiple news stories about men dying from a single blow from a fist or other comparable weapon to a broomstick.

    If you see my point, then you acknowledge that for a private citizen faced with the same situation, lethal force would be a reasonable option. Absent tasers (or perhaps pepper spray, now that I think of it), how can you then justify a different standard for police? Isn’t that what the hue and cry over the “new professionalism” is about: different standards being used for police and private individuals where the former are treated with kid gloves and the latter get nailed to the wall?

    If there WERE less-lethal items being carried by the police on the scene, THAT is the question to be focussing on, not the fact that a violent man was shot by an armed defender.

  34. #34 |  Arthur | 


    Are you fucking serious?



  35. #35 |  Woog | 

    Arthur, are YOU?

    Do you not believe in the core principles of Rule of Law and Equality Under the Law? In that when one person performs an action, the person is treated the same under the law as any other person regardless of costume?

    If you don’t, where does your interest in the writings of a libertarian come from?

    Force was already initiated by the violent man who was subsequently shot.

  36. #36 |  croaker | 

    @30 You know damn well this sin’t about safety. New Jersey is in need of more revenue.

  37. #37 |  StrangeOne | 


    So you really believe that multiple officers with a K-9 and several non lethal options on them had to use lethal force to subdue one man with a broomstick? If you replace officers with normal citizens in that situation its not a justified shooting, its a killing, all of the ‘citizens’ involved would have been rightfully charged with at least manslaughter or as accomplices. The guy had already assaulted other people, and none of them decided to murder him. But according to you, the police get to murder people because they might be assaulted. Even though they are expected to have training and tools to deal with this exact situation better than you or me, they have a much lower standard for using lethal force.

    Also the officer who actually pulled the trigger has two other excessive force charges brought against him in the past. He was cleared of wrong-doing which really shouldn’t surprise anyone here. The other officers appeared more than willing to pursue less violent options before he jumped the gun. The options were there, maybe you would know that if you read the damn article instead of leaping up to vomit excuses for the police.

    I’m sure you can find articles about people killed by a blow to the head. But those are rare, and rarer still when the assailant is being restrained by three or four other people, or dealing with an attack dog, or being hit with pepper spray, or tazed. Your standard for officer safety is completely fucked up; an officer might die in a one in a million chance, so they better shoot someone to be safe? Bathrooms are dangerous, slips and falls kill people all the time, maybe officers should shoot people from the hallway instead of risking entering such a dangerous portion of a domicile. That’s no less stupid and monstrous than shooting someone for swinging a broom handle.

  38. #38 |  Jid | 

    My Dad, who’s 83, still wears a pinkie ring, and wears it well. It’s one of the few things I’ve ever asked for when “he’s done with it”

  39. #39 |  EH | 

    Woog: You wait them out. Duh.

  40. #40 |  perlhaqr | 

    Goober: the exception of he wasn’t preaching violence in support of his cause

    Except of course, he is, since all laws are directed violence.

    “If you sell soda of greater than 16 ounces, I will kill you.” That’s the threat.

    I agree with you though, that it’s nearly impossible for a person to be more diametrically opposed to my point of view than that guy is.

  41. #41 |  R. Pointer | 

    RE: GFY DEA.

    If you look at the cohort data at

    one finds a large increase in the 60-65 yr old group but not a large increase in the 50-59 cohort. So most of the increase in prescribed drugs could well be that there are about 25% more people in the over 60 cohort in just the 5 years since 2007. If anyone knew anything about doing demographics/statistics this world would be so much better. Alas.

  42. #42 |  derfel cadarn | 

    It would appear that Chief Chithead doesn’t think that his officers should be required to follow the law. I am impressed that he knew how to spell integrity but it is obvious that he knows not what it means or that he has any himself.

  43. #43 |  Aaron | 

    My first reading of “witnesses shocked” was that the police had tazed the witnesses after the shooting.

  44. #44 |  David | 

    Even though they are expected to have training and tools to deal with this exact situation better than you or me, they have a much lower standard for using lethal force.

    Expected nothing, that’s their entire purpose. They are paid and given shiny badges and nice cars expressly so they can deal with dangerous situations and individuals that are beyond the capability of untrained citizens to handle. But over the years, they’ve decided that because they’re such special people they shouldn’t have to run the risk of bodily harm just to protect an unwashed rube like you or me. Or, in other words, they’re heroes because they risk their lives to keep the rest of us safe, and that’s why they shouldn’t have to risk their lives just to keep some non-cop safe.

  45. #45 |  Personanongrata | 

    In a strongly worded letter of criticism rarely seen from a police chief to a judge, Chitwood lashed out at Will, saying he’d “impugned the integrity” of the Daytona Beach officers.

    Dear, Daytona Beach Police Chief Mike Chitwood the officers under your command have “impugned the integrity” of the Daytona Beach Police all by themselves without any help whatsoever from Circuit Judge Joseph Will’s ruling.

    When during the course of business as usual when police officers resort to lying to citizens under any circumstances you undermine the publics confidence, especially when police officers attempt to manufacture a crime while doing so.

    All Judge Will’s ruling did was point out the blatantly obvious for all the world to see.

    Known liars can never be trusted.

  46. #46 |  Woog | 

    StrangeOne, the only less-lethal option detailed as actually being present is the K-9 dog. A leashed dog held by another person does YOU no good if a violent man takes a swing at you with a wooden pole.

    If indeed there were less-lethal options available to the cop who shot the violent man (and I am indeed inclined to think that at least pepper spray would have been on his belt), then there is a serious problem to address. If not, for whatever reason, then the cop who shot the violent man was at that moment was no different from a regular armed individual who was being attacked by a violent man with a pole.

    If the shooting cop did not actually have less-lethal items, that’s a separate question to address.

  47. #47 |  Fascist Nation | 

    “Hey, don’t blame me, I never left my cage.”

    And finally a use for cats.

  48. #48 |  David | 

    If the shooting cop did not actually have less-lethal items, that’s a separate question to address.

    No, it’s the same question. If a cop leaves the station to either head directly to an active crime scene or to go on patrol (and thus to look for crimes) – the article is unclear about how exactly the officers came to be there – and does not bring any form of self-defense other than a handgun, then by definition his response to anything that he can’t handle with his bare hands is going to be killing someone. Either the officer made the decision to kill Elwood White/Edwards at the scene, or he made the decision when he departed his office that he would kill anyone who physically resisted him that day. He’s culpable either way.

  49. #49 |  Personanongrata | 

    •Bloomberg’s defenders speak out: “But might there come a day when the New York City Department of Health mandates that burgers be limited to, say, four ounces? Indeed there might. And why not? Eight- and ten-ounce burgers are sick things.”

    Mike Bloomberg is a crypto-fascist and being as such his next step in NYC’s war on sugar will be to decree an end of the use of all public transportation in NYC for anyone with a body mass index (BMI) of 30 or greater, any livery cabs caught picking up a fare with a BMI greater than 30 will lose their medallion and any persons with a BMI greater than 30 caught using any elevators and or escalators in NYC will be required to run 2 perimeters of the Manhattan and be put to bed without dessert.

  50. #50 |  Woog | 


    There’s a lot of assumptions being made in that assertion. Granted, we likely agree: if you’re a modern-day cop, why WOULDN’T you carry a full assortment of “duty gear” – to include at least pepper spray – while on duty as a cop?

    Regardless, the claim that “either the officer made the decision to kill Elwood either at the scene or at the office” is an extremely dangerous viewpoint to have. I certainly wouldn’t want to be held to that standard as a private individual because my only two options in the face of a violent attack is escape or lethal force – being quizzed by cops and armchair quarterbacks on why I didn’t also have pepper spray (or a tazer or a dog) is not a proper line of questioning involving a specific act of self-defense. Neither do I see that line of reasoning being justifiable – I have the Creator-granted RIGHT to keep and carry arms; should I choose just one arm, several, or none, the choice is mine to make and is a separate matter altogether from a specific incident involving lethal force.

  51. #51 |  Woog | 


    To further clarify: either the cop was justified in using lethal force or he was not, measured the same as any other person being in such a situation.

    If he did not have less-lethal options in-hand as an on-duty cop, then he needs to be fired, his supervisor needs to be fired, and so on and so forth as everyone responsible for having an ill-equipped on-duty cop is fired. The possibility of criminal negligence should be considered as well.

  52. #52 |  StrangeOne | 

    Woog, your being deliberately obtuse in comparing police to average persons. You don’t judge the performance of a lawyer or a doctor based upon the common persons ability to practice law or medicine. Professionals are judged based upon the standards expected of their profession. What may be a defensible position in court for you or me does not fly with an on-duty cop who has back up.

    Police are supposed to be trained to diffuse violent situations as safely as possible. Not just with their own safety in mind, either. You keep begging the question as to whether they had options. As if four police officers with a canine need more options for handling one deranged man. Their is no reason to assume they didn’t have less than lethal tools, as they are standard issue equipment for law enforcement.

    And David is right, if the taxpayers have provided the police with less than lethal options, and every officer involved in this situation either neglected to use them or neglected to even have them, then it is an issue of professional misconduct.

  53. #53 |  EH | 

    Woog: In other words, you’re reporting live from Fantasyland.

  54. #54 |  Jim Collins | 

    Somewhere some mice are looking to buy some Stinger missiles.

  55. #55 |  Andrew Roth | 

    News out of Riverside County from a few weeks ago that just about made me shit a brick:

    Somehow, I missed this case entirely until after the Acostas had been convicted. The reason I find this case so stunning is that Robert Acosta was one of the recruiting officers when I applied to the San Diego Police Department in 2005. I never imagined anything like this happening to a member of the SDPD recruiting unit.

    Really, it’s a cautionary tale for anyone who has any involvement with American real estate, and probably for people involved in real estate in some other countries, too. When I applied to the SDPD, I had no reason to believe that Robert Acosta didn’t basically have his shit together. If he can end up in such dire straits, I’d say that anyone can.

  56. #56 |  GT | 

    The photo of the adolescent lab undertaking some small-scale ‘civil disobedience’ says two things:
    (1) any motherfucker who cages their dog like that should be caged themselves, so they get to feel how mind-numbingly boring it is (and fuck anyone who calls it ‘crating’… it’s a fucking CAGE); and
    (2) that dog is saying “Here’s the thing, right: I’m basically fucking hard-wired to love the shit out of you. But put me in a fucking cage? Ima fuck SOMETHING up.”

    If you did that to a cat, it would find out what you loved and piss on it – even if it took the rest of its life to do so. That’s why I love cats (dogs are great too – the apparent unconditionality of their affection feels nice from our perspective – but a cat has the cojones to say “You know what? You’re being a cunt. So fuck you – Ima piss on your bedclothes then disappear for a day or so. Get me some milk and we can talk. Oh, and about your canary: be a damn shame if something bad happened to it. Just sayin’… lift your game. Now watch my puckered ass as I saunter away from you.”).

    The cat-copter guy needs his balls slammed in a car door. Repeatedly. What a fucking douche. Sure, the cat’s dead – but if that’s the criterion there’s no moral problem with turning dead humans into hamburger patties or fertiliser (something I support, by the way – I won’t give a fuck what happens to my meatbag once it system-fails, and besides, have you noticed how green cemetary lawns are? All that fertiliser could be used to grow vegetables instead of wasted).

    And as for the pig chief whining like a weak bitch about a judge calling ‘bullshit’ on one of his doughnut-inhalers (who admitted to bullshitting in the first five minutes of his ‘testimony’)… vermin gotta verm. Is anyone really surprised? I mean seriously.

  57. #57 |  Russ 2000 | 

    but as-is, the broomstickler seemed to be asking to be shot.

    Maybe. In the foot at most.

    Not that I would doubt the officer was actually aiming there.

  58. #58 |  Burgers Allday | 

    The cat-copter guy needs his balls slammed in a car door. Repeatedly. What a fucking douche.


  59. #59 |  Woog | 

    Russ 2000, thanks for demonstrating your total lack of lethal force laws. Use of lethal force (firing a handgun at someone) is use of lethal force regardless of how badly the other person was damaged; shooting someone in the face, foot, or just nicking them matters not one whit.

    StrangeOne, under the LAW, the shooting policeman and you are the same. (In theory, under the principle of Equality Under the Law, which is not and has not been in force for a very long time, granted.) Either the policeman committed manslaughter/murder or he did not; and the same treatment should be given to you if you had been in the policeman’s shoes. Justifiable homicide is justifiable regardless of the specific individuals involved. Now, using lethal force as a policeman when it should be a given that EVERY uniformed cop should have at least one less-lethal option such as pepper spray available to use is a case for negligence and firing (and likely to include the cop’s supervisors), but is a separate matter from the actual shooting itself.

  60. #60 |  Woog | 

    GT and Burgers Allday, I assume you’re here for the dog blogging and not for the political commentary? Who does the cat’s corpse belong to – you? If not, then butt out, buddy. When is it ever principled to say that someone “needs his balls slammed in a car door. Repeatedly.”? Even rapists are subject only to execution or lifelong imprisonment (in theory).

    What principle, exactly, did Catcopter Guy violate by using his beloved cat’s corpse, incidentally still his property, as he saw fit? How did his actions infringe on your own Creator-granted rights?

  61. #61 |  C. S. P. Schofield | 


    Re #58; Good taste.

  62. #62 |  Rob | 


    The police had LOTS of options. Most police are equipped with tasers and pepper spray. Police tasers can be fired from 20 feet away, well outside the range of a broomstick. Pepper spray can also generally be used from some distance.

    Even putting those options aside, unless the guy is Jackie Chan four guys and a k9 should have had absolutely no problem subduing that guy non-lethally. I could have probably done it by my self. Give me a baton to use to block the broom stick with and it just makes it easier. I’ve disarmed people swinging baseball bats at me before; a broom stick, being much flimsier, would be a hell of a lot easier to deal with.

  63. #63 |  CyniCAl | 

    #36 | croaker — “@30 You know damn well this sin’t about safety. New Jersey is in need of more revenue.”

    Well, of course, of course Croaker. Way back in the day when I still lived in that effin hellhole, the registration stickers said right on them, “New Jersey — The Safest State.” So, we won’t question their motives, but if some government agencies happen to accrue revenue at the same time, no one will care right?

  64. #64 |  CyniCAl | 

    #41 | derfel cadarn — “I am impressed that [Chief Chithead] knew how to spell integrity but it is obvious that he knows not what it means or that he has any himself.”

    I noticed in the PDF of the letter that he twice spelled “officers” as “officer’s” when the context clearly implied plural rather than possessive.

    I guess they can’t afford proofreaders. Competent ones, that is.

  65. #65 |  CyniCAl | 

    @#53 | Andrew Roth

    Wonderful case of schadenfreude. Karma is most definitely a bitch. File the Acostas under “Fuck the Police.”

  66. #66 |  CyniCAl | 

    I finally realized something today.

    Radley Balko is a certified professional troll of cat lovers.

    It is a recurring theme of his.

    As a cat lover, my hat is off to you sir. Keep on trolling.

  67. #67 |  supercat | 

    #49 | Woog | “I certainly wouldn’t want to be held to that standard as a private individual because my only two options in the face of a violent attack is escape or lethal force – being quizzed by cops and armchair quarterbacks on why I didn’t also have pepper spray (or a tazer or a dog) is not a proper line of questioning involving a specific act of self-defense.”

    A perfectly good reason for an ordinary citizen to carry a gun without also carrying pepper spray is a belief that the odds of finding himself in a situation where pepper spray would be the appropriate and sufficient response are insufficient to justify the hassle of carrying it. Such a judgment is generally reasonable **for people who don’t deliberately enter into such situations**. Such a judgment would be far less reasonable for someone who did deliberately enter such a situation.

  68. #68 |  Woog | 

    supercat, a better perfectly good reason for an ordinary citizen to carry a gun without also carrying pepper spray or anything else is because it is his right to choose to carry, or not, whatever he damn well pleases. Odds, nothing.

    Notwithstanding the agreement that on-duty cops need to have “duty gear”, to include less-lethal options… and use them when appropriate when climbing the force ladder.

  69. #69 |  Jason | 

    Can anyone tell me if the police chief who wrote the letter to the judge can be dealt with for contempt?

  70. #70 |  Pi Guy | 

    …but if that’s the criterion there’s no moral problem with turning dead humans into hamburger patties or fertiliser…

    I am updating my will as we, uh, speak – to have my dead body prepared by a taxidermist. I’m going full-on Picopter post-mortem!

    Woog, multiple places: f#*&ing Badge Licking, Boot Licking, Cop Fellator. And, as for the dog blogging, it’s part of the larger picture here. We love dogs, hate LEOs for shooting them merely to demonstrate their power over the “suspects” and disreagard for life, and call the cops what they are.

    So take your high-and-tight do and your “Heroes of Law Enforcement” baseball cards someplace where people ignore the Constitution and eschew justice. Their ignorance will be more on-par with your own and you’ll fit right in.

    And wait there for the day when you’re not one of the favored groups anymore. You will be one day.

  71. #71 |  Pi Guy | 

    re: NJ and dog/cat seat belts

    So, if I’m just cruising up I-95 thru the Garden State with The Beagle Dog™ on my way to Manhattan for a 32-oz trans-fat-free, diet rice cake with extra salt, can I be stopped on a primary charge of having el Diablo Chica Perro (she only responds to Spanglish) with her nose out the crack of the back window unrestrained?

    Smells like Ihren Papiere, bitte-style pretense for a traffic stop to me.


  72. #72 |  Helmut O' Hooligan | 

    Greetings and salutations! I’lll make this as brief as possible. Regarding the shooting by the Vista, CA deputies, I think you have engaged in some pretty amazing mental acrobatics in order to justify this police-involved shooting. What’s in it for you anyway?

    Available information suggests that there were multiple officers on scene. Sometimes if you are the police, you have to deal with the fact that you might get hit. If you can’t deal with that fact, don’t apply to a police department. Also, don’t apply to a job in healthcare or other fields where you deal with high risk clients. The deceased wasn’t going to be able to knock down all of these cops with a single swing of a broom stick. So you use distraction. Maybe he connects with one of you, but the rest of the officers drop his ass. Or you find an improvised shield and maybe no one gets hit. Or you use pepper spray, tazers or whatever “less lethal weapons” are available. And you know as well as I do that ALL of the officers on scene had at OC, tazers, some sort of baton or all of the above.

    I’m not just basing my opinion on reading a few stories on The Agitator. I have had to face suspects wielding blunt objects on a few occasions that I can recall (ie. a metal bed rail, a metal cane, an oxygen tank regulator, etc) while working in the healthcare security field. In these situations, I did not have the option of using a firearm, as my employer does not allow me to carry one. I did not even use my issued OC spray. In two cases I remember I simply contained the scene and waited for the person to calm down or give up. In a third incident I was close, so I just snatched a metal bed rail out of the guy’s hand. But I consider it my job to PRESERVE LIFE, including the life of the suspect. Unfortunately, too many police no longer consider this to be a part of their job.

    And yes, police should be held to a higher standard than any private citizen would be in a violent encounter. Police tell us all the time how highly trained they are. Then use your god damn training, officers! If a “lowly” private sector hospital security officer like me can get by without killing attackers, I think a “highly trained” police officer should be able to do the same.

  73. #73 |  Woog | 

    Pi Guy, charming – did you have anything of value to say in response to any of my statements?

    Helmut O’ Hooligan, no job requires giving up one’s Creator-granted right of self-ownership. Regardless of the particulars, if one person is in the right to defend against an attack, then anyone would be. There’s that Rule of/ Equality Under Law thing again.

    It is reasonable to expect an on-duty uniformed cop to have less-lethal weapons on-hand? I agree with most here and say yes. Should the cop and other responsible personnel be fired if the on-duty cop was not provided with less-lethal weapons? Again, yes.

    From the information in the news article, is it reasonable to suspect the cop committed murder or manslaughter? From a logical viewpoint where emotion and prejudice is discarded, I say no. If that same cop DID have less-lethal weapons available on his person (the article avoids any mention of this), might this change matters? Oh yes, it very well might.

  74. #74 |  anonanon | 

    Radley, re: the broomstick wielding victim of police thuggery, to demonstrate how far we’ve veered off course, watch this clip from 1997

  75. #75 |  Helmut O' Hooligan | 

    #73 Woog: “Helmut O’ Hooligan, no job requires giving up one’s Creator-granted right of self-ownership.”

    That was not my argument at all. The issues here are proportionality and whether or not alternatives were available. I am saying that the response was over the top (due mostly to the fact that multiple officers were available to deal with this threat) and there had to be other alternatives. And I will agree with you that matters will change if any of the officers had less lethal alternatives. And they did have alternatives. I have no doubts about that whatsoever.