Morning Links

Tuesday, June 12th, 2012

Digg it |  reddit | |  Fark

26 Responses to “Morning Links”

  1. #1 |  perlhaqr | 

    Ft. Wayne city councilman pulled over under suspicion of DWI. He calls the sheriff, who instructs the deputy to let him go.


    Some animals are more equal than others.

  2. #2 |  Yizmo Gizmo | 

    I take umbrage at the notion that this cop was joy riding around shitfaced. In truth, he was engaged in rigorous undercover “field work” for DWI investigation, whereby alcohol consumption is combined with navigating the public roads, for research purposes. Needless to say, these guys are experts: don’t try this at home…

  3. #3 |  Indie | 

    I’m a huge fan of the blog, and thought you might enjoy this poor job of matching headline with a photo.

  4. #4 |  Yizmo Gizmo | 

    Oops, councilman. He was part of the research team….

  5. #5 |  UvalDuvalCuckoo | 

    OT but did anyone see Drudge’s link to Indiana Law allowing Citizens to shoot cops who enter their home illegally? Unsurprisingly end of the world comments from LE

  6. #6 |  AlgerHiss | 

    A bit off topic, and I think previously covered….the Aurora Colorado story of mass detention….the National Motorists Association has a quite strong, sobering and correct take on the current state of the American sheeple:

    This is why I joined the NMA and gave the finger to AAA.

  7. #7 |  Mattocracy | 

    Taking guns away from people involved in divorces and custody battles. And when they get speeding tickets. And when they are laid off, fired, file for bankruptcy or have an other unfortunate life event. What a scary ass concept.

  8. #8 |  marco73 | 

    For the “take guns away from those in divorce situations” amazingly there is an exemption for law enforcement.
    So great: if someone wants to divorce a cop, they will be disarmed, but the LEO gets to keep their gun.

  9. #9 |  David | 

    There’s an exception for cops because they need a gun to do their job – but, I’m guessing, no exception for bank guards, 7-11 owners, hunters, somebody who works at a shooting range, or any of the other proles who might need a gun for their livelihood?

  10. #10 |  Greg Beaman | 

    I noticed that one of the commenters on the Ft. Wayne councilman story goes by the handle “Gen. Anthony Wayne.” I wonder how often folks from Ft. Wayne memorialize the “mad” general in that way.

  11. #11 |  nigmalg | 

    The Drudge comments about the Indiana self defense law are fantastic.

    This won’t slow them (cops) down breaking down your door; it will however expedite their use of force as now every Hoosier in their home is a potential threat to an officer regardless of the situation.
    Got something questionable but innocuous in your back yard that otherwise could be resolved peacefully, there will be no knock on the door now. It will be all guns and battering rams while you stupid fucks cling to your pea-shooters and your NRA claptrap talking points

    According to this gentlemen, the only dynamic of this law necessary of ridicule is the audacity that civilians may want to defend themselves from illegal behavior from the State. Forgetting the fact that the police illegal entered killed the occupants in his very own hypothetical.

    Reminds me of that ABC “special” (hit piece) showing how ineffective untrained students with baggy shirts would be at defending themselves against a classroom shooter. They’re conclusion, amazingly, was to have the students submit to their slaughter instead.

  12. #12 |  EH | 

    I think the simpler result of the Indiana law will be that there will no longer be a such thing as an illegal entry if a cop is involved.

  13. #13 |  Christopher Swing | 

    (Minor correction: County councilman. Our city council has stayed out of trouble lately.)

    Bonus apologetic paper column from a fellow partisan:

    He tries REALLY HARD to make it sound like not that big a deal.

    (It should also be noted that the Paul Moss held an election function at his home for sheriff Ken Fries, so there’s an element of “I got you this job!” at work, more than likely.)

  14. #14 |  demize! | 

    Our Federal law enforcement officers; professional and classy!

  15. #15 |  Mannie | 

    The Indiana law won’t protect you if you take a shot at a cop. They will kill you, just like they would before the law.

    What it does, is to protect you against bogus resisting arrest charges. If you can demonstrate that the cops were acting illegally, then your resistance is no longer criminal.

    If you kill a cop and drive them off your property, and the cops de-escalate the issue as they often do when cops lives are actually in danger, then maybe this law will keep you alive. But I suspect they’ll just burn you out and kill you.

  16. #16 |  Aresen | 

    Re the Headline of the Day:

    If the Border Patrol Officers had just moved up onto the stage, everyone would have assumed they were part of the show.

    Cirque du Soliel: le bord intimee.

  17. #17 |  demize! | 

    “Cirque du Holeil”

  18. #18 |  Boyd Durkin | 

    Indiana Law: what’s the ruling on “wrong address”? Two parts, as I see it. It should be legal to shoot cops who bust in as the result of a “wrong address”. It should also be murder charges for cops who kill citizens at the “wrong address”. In other words, it should be the way it is for everyone else.

  19. #19 |  croaker | 

    What? No drive-ins in San Diego? That’s the traditional “first blowjob” venue…

  20. #20 |  Marty | 

    I guess the border guards didn’t realize there are boundaries you’re not supposed to cross…

  21. #21 |  supercat | 

    #17 | Boyd Durkin | “It should also be murder charges for cops who kill citizens at the “wrong address”. In other words, it should be the way it is for everyone else.”

    Indeed. I’m glad the linked article included a link to the statute (why do so many articles about new legislation not link the statute in question!?). Having looked it over, it seems to omit a few of points I would have included:

    -1- State that police have an affirmative duty to demonstrate that they are police, and that their actions are legally justifiable; any “police” who deliberately avoid such duty while forcing entry are robbers, and may be regarded as such, even if their entry would be otherwise justifiable. Any harm that befalls someone as a result of a negligent failure to exercise such duty shall be deemed that person’s fault.

    -2- If anyone, including a police officer, forces entry into a home in a manner which he should reasonably have believed to be unlawful, and anyone (homeowner, cop, or other) dies as a foreseeable consequence, such unlawful entry shall constitute murder; if as a foreseeable consequence an attempt is made to kill anyone (e.g. someone gets shot at), the unlawful entry shall constitute attempted murder, except when the unlawful entrant only himself. If three people unlawfully force entry, and two are shot at, the unlawful entry by each of the ones who was shot at shall constitute the attempted murder of the other; the unlawful entry by the one who was not shot at shall constitute the attempted murder of each the others.

  22. #22 |  irish red | 

    Here’s a good rebuttal to the “if you haven’t done anything wrong, what do you have to hide” question:

    Also, the Cold Stares link seems to be down

  23. #23 |  StrangeOne | 


    The only reason that won’t work, is that the people who would enforce those provisions are cops.

    We’ve all seen cases in which police actions are not “reasonable” or even “legal” and where people die as a “foreseeable consequence of their actions”. Hell, on Saturday, Radley linked to an article where a man was tasered and killed because he was in a car wreck as the result of diabetic shock. Nine officers were on the scene and they displayed no interest in the mans health; their primary concern was beating and detaining him. If you or I provided that kind of “aide” to an injured motorist we would be subject to some kind of murder trial. If you or I did that and eight people were watching they would be morally obligated to stop us. But nine cops can beat and kill, with impunity, an injured man pulled from a wrecked car.

    That is the cop culture we are dealing with. That is our culture at large; no serious public outcry over this, no significant media coverage, no national condemnation of the bad actors and their superiors. Just pay the victims family a settlement from the states coffers and move on. Maybe its unreasonable to expect them to police their own, some argue that should be the job of the Justice Department. In a way it already is, but even that view is naive. The JD is more concerned with enforcing federal drug laws in states that have tried to carve out exceptions, like with medical marijuana. Every incentive at every level is to be more oppressive; to expand the power and discretion of government agents.

    The gulf between what the laws are on paper and the de facto way they are enforced is too great. This is true for every phase of the criminal justice system. From how warrants are issued, to the conduct of officers during searches and arrests, to the process of confessions and trials, every step diminishes or destroys basic notions of the civil rights of the accused. You cannot fix a monumentally corrupt system by marginal reforms made within that system. Police regularly engage in acts that any common sense understanding of the law would consider illegal. Drafting more laws clearly can’t fix the problem.

  24. #24 |  JRB | 

    I wonder how often folks from Ft. Wayne memorialize the “mad” general in that way.

    Generally, the memorialization is done through some damned fine beer.

    Also, the recent law in Indiana regarding resistance to unlawful police entry is a reaffirmation of the Castle Doctrine. It has been a standard in Indiana’s past, but last year’s horrific ruling left it in limbo. I was glad to see this law pass so easily.

  25. #25 |  Christopher Swing | 

    (I second the damn fine beer, and how can you not love a beer called “Harry Baal’s Irish Stout?)

  26. #26 |  supercat | 

    #23 | StrangeOne | “The only reason that won’t work, is that the people who would enforce those provisions are cops.”

    I don’t think so. Such statutory language would clearly be something a defendant in Ryan Frederick’s situation would be free to bring up at trial. If a jury feels that someone should pay for the death of a cop, and nobody else would seem responsible, the defendant is going to get hosed. On the other hand, if there were a statute that clearly placed the blame on the dead robber’s accomplices, a defendant would be much better placed to redirect the jury’s outrage where it belongs.

    Ryan Frederick shouldn’t have had to appear apologetic for killing Mr. Shivers. He shot a dangerous robber who was armed with an AR-15, and who would likely have shot him if given the chance. For such action he should be commended. If a statute explicitly says “A cop who acts in some particular fashion deserves to get shot”, it becomes much easier to openly state that a cop who behaved in such fashion got what he deserved.