"Everybody"

According to Brian Beutler of the aptly-named Talking Points Memo, "everybody" hates President Obama's largely symbolic federal worker's pay freeze.

Ah Bartleby! Ah humanity!

The early reviews of President Obama's plan to freeze federal worker pay are in -- and it gets a resounding "F" from just about everybody outside of GOP leadership.

Michael Linden, a budget expert at the liberal Center for American Progress, said the plan is small potatoes that risks driving away valuable civil servants with little budgetary upside.

It is important to understand what Beutler and his kindred view as everybody. One cannot know precisely what he means (I doubt he does, either), but suspect "everybody" probably includes the following:

• federal government workers and their unions
• state government workers and their unions
• municipal government workers and their unions
• left-leaning pundits, bloggers, and journalists
• left leaning think tanks
• leftist academics
• anyone so designated/appointed by George Soros

The "freeze" does not affect the pay of the nation's military servicemen. It does not prevent federal government employees from getting a raise by moving to the next pay grade. It does not touch bonuses awarded to federal employees.

It does nothing to curtail the government that Demcrats have created, which is the largest and most bloated government in American history, with the highest number of employees making more than $150,000/year in American history.

"Everybody" in Beutler's insular little world are his fellow big government extremists that look to personally profit from government bloat.

The radical left wing "everybody" doesn't include the small businessman, workers, managers, specialists, technicians and engineers that power this nation's economy in corporations and shops. It doesn't include doctors, farmers, students, and middle class families that are being crushed by the greed of statists.

The problem with Obama's "freeze" isn't that it is too ambitious, it is that it isn't close to being ambitious enough. We need to reduce the number of people working for the federal government and send them back to the private sector where they can add to the economy.

I read a comment somewhere yesterday (I wish I could remember where) that encapsulated the concept perfectly.

"All non-essential government workers are to stay home from work today... and every day after."

Government should be a service, not an unsustainable liability. It's too bad we can't get "everybody" to agree to that.

Who Are You Calling Intellectually Incurious?

Mike's latest article at Pajamas Media. It contains—if not coins the phrase—"Faux-Masculinity Worship" (FMW) and is worthy of a read based upon that alone.

Good News! TSA Scanners Damage DNA, Increase Cancer Risk to Everyone, But Will Kill Small Children and TSA Agents First

Via rdbrewer at Ace of Spades, the sort of story to warm your heart and corrupt your chromosomes:

These questions have not been answered to any satisfaction and the UCSF scientists, all esteemed in their fields and members of the National Academy of Sciences have been dismissed based on a couple of reports seemingly hastily put together by mid-level government technicians or engineers. The documents that I have reviewed thus far either have NO AUTHOR CREDITS or are NOT authored by anyone with either a Ph.D. or a M.D., raising serious concerns of the extent of the expertise of the individuals and organizations evaluating these machines with respect to biological safety. Yet, the FDA and TSA continue to dismiss some of the most talented scientists in the country...

With respect to errors in the safety reports and/or misleading information about them, the statement that one scan is equivalent to 2-3 minutes of your flight is VERY misleading. Most cosmic radiation is composed of high energy particles that passes right through our body and the plane itself without being absorbed. The spectrum that is dangerous is known as ionizing radiation and most of that is absorbed by the hull of the airplane. So relating non-absorbing cosmic radiation to tissue absorbing man-made radiation is simply misleading and wrong. Of course these are related and there is over-lap, but we have to compare apples to apples.

Furthermore, when making this comparison, the TSA and FDA are calculating that the dose is absorbed throughout the body. According the simulations performed by NIST, the relative absorption of the radiation is ~20-35-fold higher in the skin, breast, testes and thymus than the brain, or 7-12-fold higher than bone marrow. So a total body dose is misleading, because there is differential absorption in some tissues. Of particular concern is radiation exposure to the testes, which could result in infertility or birth defects, and breasts for women who might carry a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. Even more alarming is that because the radiation energy is the same for all adults, children or infants, the relative absorbed dose is twice as high for small children and infants because they have a smaller body mass (both total and tissue specific) to distribute the dose. Alarmingly, the radiation dose to an infant's testes and skeleton is 60-fold higher than the absorbed dose to an adult brain!

Janet Napolitano's new toys (paid for with stimulus dollars, after lobbyists and politicians from both parties came to "agreements") seem to be quite dangerous at worst, and far from competently tested at best. I'd joked on Twitter about wearing a kilt if forced to fly and opting out, but I was merely making half-assed snark in a toothless protest of the tyrannical intrusion into personal liberties that the TSA represents for virtually no gain in safety from real airborne threats.

I'm now of the mind that until far more information is known about the effects of TSA scanners, that the only logical option for air travelers is to opt-out of these devices. This is even more vital for passengers with children and for those individuals that have a history of cancer in their families.

The scanners are no picnic for the TSA, either; they will absorb the amount of radiation that a human can "safely" absorb in a year in just 20 working days.

The TSA's scanners are a political safety device, not an air safety device. They do not address the most realistic threats to air travel, which are bombs or chemical incendiaries smuggled into cargo or luggage, or the threat of individual bombers hiding explosives in their body cavities. The purpose of the scanners is to make money for lobbyists and the companies they represent and to provide politicians and bureaucrats the political illusion that they are "doing something" to protect air travelers from terrorism. They persist in keeping up this illusion to avoid dealing with the abject fact that profiling, and profiling alone, is the most effective measure to prevent terrorist attacks on airliners.

The Obama Administration, Janet Napolitano, Homeland Security and the TSA are bending over backwards to treat all Americans like potential terrorists in order to avoid the uncomfortable truth that Muslim air travelers are by far the greatest, if not only threat to air security. They are more afraid of the ACLU and CAIR than al Qaeda, Hezbolla, or Hamas... and far more afraid to admit that political correctness is a not just a failure, but a weakness that devours resources in a time of scarcity.

Opt out now. Deal with the TSA's molesters, and pity the fact that their equipment is killing them for simply showing up. Fly no more than you have to.

Finally, throw the bums out in 2012 in favor of candidates from either party that are will to address the real threats we face from Muslim terrorism, and investigate the backroom deals that put these death machines in operation in the first place.

We will not surrender our liberties or our health to political correctness run amok.

"WikiSleeps" Offers Little News in Latest Document Dump

The New York Times and other news outlets have produced articles about the latest document dump from the muckrakers at WikiLeaks.

Rape suspect Julian Assange and his band of thieves have perhaps stirred up a bit of a tempest in a teapot with their latest document dump, but some perspective is in order. Assange did not release these communications with the goal of making the world a better place, revealing injustice, or launching an investigation of the corrupt or tyrannical. The singular goal of this release was to embarrass the government of the United States. Period.

It petty and small ways, they perhaps accomplished their goals. What they did not do was better the world, strike a blow for the oppressed, or do anything else that can be interpreted as noble. It was entirely self-serving. "Hey, look what we can do!" it cries. And yet, despite the volume of information, it is largely much ado about nothing.

The document dump is useful for two groups: current historians and military prosecutors building an iron-clad case against the politically-progressive traitor that leaked the hundreds of thousands of documents, a disgruntled gay misfit soldier named Bradley Manning.

Manning should be convicted of treason and deserves nothing more or less than an ignoble execution in a military prison before being forgotten, much like these non-revelations that so many news organizations are headlining on a slow-news Monday.

The Post-Muslim Presidency of Barack Hussein Obama

A recent article in the Arab News (available here), linked at the fine PowerLine blog (available here) on November 26 has, once again, raised an interesting and persistent question: Is Barack Hussein Obama, the President of the United States, a Muslim? The article quotes Obama’s paternal grandmother, 88 year old Haja Sarah Omar as saying “I prayed for my grandson Barack to convert to Islam.” Omar was interviewed in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia while on the Haj, the journey all observant Muslims are expected to perform once in their lives to Mecca, the most holy city of Islam.

John Hinderaker of PowerLine was not impressed. “President Obama is NOT a Muslim, whatever else he may be. But he needs this kind of story [linked to the Arab News story] like a hole in the head.” Hinderaker concluded his post: “ In principle, the fact that a substantial part of Obama's family is Muslim is neither here nor there. If Obama were a successful President, no one would care. But given that many millions of Americans view him as a kind of alien presence as a result of the policies he has tried to impose, Obama must wish his Kenyan relatives would fade quietly away for the balance of his term in office.”

In the traditional American sense, Mr. Hinderaker is correct, but in the Muslim world, the matter is seen entirely differently, and in a just world perhaps the Muslim viewpoint should prevail in this matter, particularly considering Mr. Obama’s apparent dedication to supporting and praising all things Islamic. Mr. Obama has never failed to laud and “reach out” to Islamic regimes and domestic groups regardless of their known and suspected terrorist connections, such support--from time to time-- causing his Administration considerable embarrassment, if one accepts that Mr. Obama and those chosen to surround and advise him are capable of embarrassment.

A case in point is Mr. Obama’s NASA head, Charles Bolden, who in a June interview with Al Jazeera at the American University in Cairo outlined Mr. Obama’s priorities for the space agency: “...and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science...and math and engineering.” While one might be forgiven for wondering what this has to do with, well...space, it is yet another in a long series of insights into the thinking of a man who can’t seem to summon up any praise for America and Americans, but always has a good word for people and nations who are, if not directly supportive of, at least sympathetic toward, Islamic terrorists who delight in murdering Americans.

The important distinction, which I’m sure as an attorney, Mr. Hinderaker appreciates, is that Americans enjoy the blessings of the separation of church and state and the traditions flowing from it while Muslim nations almost uniformly do not. It is well known that Mr. Obama has repeatedly said that he is a Christian, having converted at some point in the past under the influence of the Rev. Wright. The intentions and influence of the kind of Marxist, blatantly anti-semitic, racist and anti-American black liberation theology so openly practiced in Wright’s former church may be fairly debated elsewhere. The point is that in the American tradition, each American has the freedom to chose their faith, and they tend to accept the faith professions of others at face value. In addition, one may freely leave a given faith and adopt another, and Americans commonly don’t find this in the least remarkable.

Part of the American tradition is that children are generally raised in the faith practices of their parents, but it is understood that when they reach sufficient age and understanding, they may choose to remain in that faith, to explore, even to adopt another, or to become essentially faithless. Apart from parental disapproval and disappointment, generally no consequences arise from such choices.

However, in matters of faith, as in politics and much else, Americans tend to have sensitive and accurate hypocrisy detectors. Americans tend to notice when one’s words and actions do not well match, and this is a large part of Mr. Obama’s problem.

The facts are quite simple. Mr. Obama was born to a Muslim father. The children of a Muslim father are Muslims. In Islam, this is not a matter of choice, but a matter of custom, tradition and Sharia. When Mr. Obama attended a Muslim school in his youth in Indonesia, his parents identified him as Muslim on school records. Presumably his parents were not mistaken or playing a prophetic, ironic joke on school authorities, a joke that would not become apparent until young Barry Sotero attained manhood, an obviously Islamic name and became POTUS.

This traditional, cultural reality is at the heart of the conflict between America and Islam. Americans identify themselves, first, as Americans. For more than 200 years, e pluribus unum has been a worthy motto and description of the process by which millions of immigrants have come to America to gain that which they--and generations of native born Americans--held most dear, the right to say “I am an American.” Americans might also consider themselves to be Texans or North Dakotans or perhaps Lutherans or Catholics, but their dedication and loyalty to their nation--for all intents and purposes--takes precedence over concerns of religion, race or heritage. Considering the European experience--an experience many Europeans appear to have forgotten--Americans who are suspicious of those whose first allegiance is to a religion have good and historically well documented reasons to be suspicious.

If one follows the letter--and observant Muslims would surely argue, the spirit--of Islam, all Muslims, wherever they live, are first, last and always, Muslim. Under Sharia and tradition, Muslims, whether born into the faith or converts by choice or force, have no choice: Once a Muslim, always a Muslim. One who leaves the faith is an apostate and the punishment for apostasy is death, such death sentence to be carried out by family members, the agents of Muslim states, or any fervent Muslim anywhere. While the sentence may never be carried out, the sword always hangs over the head of the apostate.

As Americans, we tend to believe individual professions of faith, as long as they are accompanied by actions that tend to support those professions. This is Mr. Obama’s problem. For a self professed Christian, he tends to spend an inordinate amount of time and energy in the promotion of the welfare of Islam and of Muslims, and comparatively little in the promotion and welfare of traditionally American values relating to faith, to say nothing of democracy, the continuing furor over his refusal to clearly condemn the Ground Zero mosque being only one of a great many cases in point.

Perhaps the greatest irony is that in professing conversion to Christianity, Mr. Obama has publicized his status as an apostate Muslim in the eyes of observant Muslims everywhere. The more cynical might assert that Muslims understand that Mr. Obama is really one of them and has to profess Christianity so that he can continue to work on behalf of Muslim interests. Lying to infidels in the furtherance of the goals of Islam is a part of the faith. That Mr. Obama has denied ever being Muslim might be accepted by Americans who consider only faith decisions made by adults to be truly informed and legitimate, but to observant Muslims, such statements only add deadly insult to mortal injury.

So Mr. Hinderaker is right too in that it matters not that many members of Mr. Obama’s extended family are Muslim. Many presidents have had inconvenient, embarrassing family members. But the success, or lack thereof, or Mr. Obama’s presidency has no bearing on this matter. The problem remains Mr. Obama wanting to have a respected, even worshipped presence in each world/faith tradition while simultaneously drawing blessings and benefits from both. That these are mutually exclusive, actively hostile (on the part of Islam), irreconcilable worlds and traditions phases Mr. Obama not at all for he is above and beyond such petty concerns in the same way that he has transcended the boring, insignificant office of the presidency.

The controversy continues and will not abate, because while most Americans find themselves willing to accept Mr. Obama’s profession of Christian faith, when his NASA head is, at Mr. Obama’s direction, far more interested in patting long dead Muslims on the back for Algebra than in exploring space and reaping the benefits therefrom, they can’t help but scratch their heads and wonder why a self described Christian in a secular nation seems so interested in representing the best interests of Islam. Why he seems so little interested in effectively ending the Islamic terrorist threat, a threat his Administration cannot and will not specifically identify, is a matter for another time, but is also a major contributor to Mr. Obama’s woes in this area.

Mr. Obama may be thought to be an alien of sorts by many Americans, but this is so because his words and actions since taking office have revealed him to be anything but a faithful representative of the American people and nation. Islamophobia? American common sense. One can only imagine Mr. Obama’s frustration at this and much else. After all, who we gonna believe, him or our own lyin’ eyes?

NPR, or the Onion?

Taxpayers should not be subsidizing NPR's second-rate liberal commentary or slanted news... we have for-profit corporations for that.

Neither should we be paying for absurd satire... and I sure hope this was satire.

The president played basketball yesterday with some friends in the gym of the Fort McNair Army Base, and reportedly took an elbow in the mouth from an opposing player who went up for a shot.

It took 12 stitches to close The First Fat Lip, if you please. I'm not sure that Joe Frazier needed 12 stitches after the Thrilla in Manila, though the White House stressed that a smaller filament was used, which increases the number of stitches, but leaves a smaller scar.

I wonder if having a larger scar wouldn't actually fortify President Obama's profile, as he contends with Kim Jong Il, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Vladimir Putin. Imagine a president with a gnarly, vivid scar telling the rulers of China, "Nice country ya' got here. I'd hate to see something happen to it if you didn't stop foolin' around with the value of your currency. Know what I mean?"

The problem is that in politics or in basketball Obama is a comically overrated amateur, and that never intimidates anyone.

Something I'm Thankful For

I was on the road or at relative's homes yesterday soaking up good food and conversation, and didn't quite manage to get up a Thanksgiving post.

Had I been able to find the time to get online, I would have told you--and will tell you now--just how fortunate I am to have two so very talented, intelligent and fun co-bloggers here at CY, not to mention all the wonderful readers that continue to frequent the site.

You are all very much a blessing in my life, and I am continually thankful for your company.

I've got a Bad Feeling About This...

Han Solo must have been an East Carolina football fan.

My alma mater of ECU is up against Southern Methodist today in a CUSA game. Both enter with identical records 6-5 (5-2 CUSA), but there the similarities end.

The defending CUSA champion Pirates under first-year head coach Ruffin McNeal have been dazzling at times, with a high-octane offense that is capable of putting up astronomical numbers. Unfortunately, they've also been cursed with a young and undersized defense that is giving up the kind of points normally seen in basketball games, including a humiliating 62 points given up against a sub-par Rice team last week.

SMU, however, is a team on the rise, hoping to contend for their first CUSA championship

local sports reporters is picking SMU, 56-42.

I'm not into sports betting (primarily because I stink at that and just about every other form of gambling) but if I was putting money on the game, I'd have to give the game to SMU by a touchdown or more.

I'd really love to munch Thanksgiving leftovers while watching my Pirates win, but I don't think it's in the cards in their regular season finale.

The Erik Scott Case: Update 8.2: Training, Corruption, Confusion and (More) Coincidence

A press release on the business relationship between the Metro Police and Las Vegas Valley Locking Systems (LVVLS) can be found here.

On Thursday, November 13, Phillip Ransom of Kansas City ran out of luck. His old van, the van he drove every day in his janitorial business, broke down with a series of backfires, just before 6 PM, about a block from his home. But his luck quickly became worse. Someone called the Kansas City Police and reported hearing shots. Worried about his old van catching on fire, Ransom stepped out at about the time two officers arrived and immediately opened fire, shooting repeatedly at Ransom and the van. Ransom stood by the van, his empty hands up, shouting that he wasn’t shooting. “I guess they couldn’t hear me,” he said. Ransom didn’t know how many rounds were fired: “I wasn’t counting, but it sounded like a lot.” When the smoke finally cleared, Ransom and the officers were unharmed, but Ransom’s van was hit at least three times, and the officers also shot out several windows of their patrol car. The local media story of this incident can be found here.

This incident is not directly related to the Erik Scott shooting. It occurred in Kansas City, MO. The Las Vegas Metro Police were not involved. However, it is mentioned here because there are a number of similarities with the Scott shooting (and many other police shootings). Among them:

(1) The police acted on inadequate information and without necessary tactical awareness.

(2) The police fired without concern for the safety of the public.

(3) The police endangered not only the public, but themselves.

(4) The shooting was unjustified.

(5) The officers panicked in response to a situation that should never have caused panic in a competent, well trained police officer.

(6) The officer’s marksmanship was, thankfully, terrible, as is commonly the case in police shootings. This was not the case in the Scott shooting, or was it?

(7) The officers were never in control of events; events controlled them.

The underlying issue is that of proper training for police officers. I’ll return to that issue shortly. But let’s take a moment to explain something that is hard for many people to understand: How police agencies become corrupt, little by little, over time.

THE HOPES AND CHOICES OF JOHN SMITH:

Officer John Smith has completed his basic academy at the top of his class. He has completed his field training course, riding for months with seasoned officers who showed him the ropes. He has earned his state certification and is a bona fide law enforcement officer. He is about to begin his first shift on his own in a genuine, dirty, poorly maintained, raggedy patrol car, with no one looking over his shoulder. Until this day, he has been, to various degrees, sheltered from many realities of the job, sheltered so that he could focus only on what he needed to learn in the short time he had to learn it. For the first time, he will be alone in his police car. It will, for a few days, seem very large.

The public doesn’t realize that most police officers ride alone, one officer per police car. Officers “partner” only in some cities, and even then, only in some neighborhoods or “beats.” This is done primarily to save money and maximize coverage. This doesn’t offer many opportunities for hip, dysfunctional partner relationships and snappy dialogue as in TV cop shows, but it is much more efficient in a police world of tight budgets, eternally lacking manpower and often, too few fully functional police vehicles.

Officer Smith--he’s suddenly no longer recruit Smith--is on the bottom rung of the law enforcement ladder. He’s a rookie. He, and all new officers, hate that term. Smith suspects he’s smarter than many of the cops he has already met, smarter and more dedicated, and he’s right, but none of that matters. He’s a rookie, and he’ll be expected to shut up, look and listen and try to fit in. His opinion, like the Vice Presidency, isn’t worth a bucket of warm spit. His rookie phase will end only when a new group of cops is dumped on the street and are, by comparison, even greener and more spit and polished than he is. Smith has observed that the way things are done by experienced officers is different than what he has been taught. He knows he has to learn those ways, some more subtle than others, and soon. He wants to be a good officer, even a great officer. He takes a deep breath, urges the loose and floppy shift lever into drive, and begins his first solo shift.

Weeks pass, and little by little, Officer Smith learns the ways of seasoned officers. It seems that just about everyone takes free coffee and donuts, and often many times each day. Shopkeepers seem, if not happy about it, not upset either, and the officers expect it, making no attempt to pay for their snacks. Some officers even expect free meals. Some shopkeepers obviously don’t like that, but they do it and shut up. This bothers Smith, but when he tries to pay for his food, his fellow officers give him a hard time, joking but with an edge, and when he persists, they make it clear--they never directly say it--that this is the way of things and anyone who doesn’t accept it is setting himself apart from his fellow officers. Smith puts his money away. He considers never taking coffee with his fellow officers, but there is no easy way to avoid it entirely without raising eyebrows. He does his best to keep it to a minimum, but over time, this minor worry is displaced by bigger concerns.

One night he answers a call to back up another officer who has stopped a possible drunk driver. The shift supervisor, a Sgt., arrives a short time later and they both stand by, watching and listening as Officer Jones, a long time officer who seems to be well respected, makes the arrest. The man tells the officer he had “three beers” before starting for home. Watching the field sobriety tests administered by Officer Jones, Officer Smith is troubled. He isn’t seeing any signs of intoxication, and he is surprised when Officer Jones arrests the man. Smith makes a point of sticking around after the shift and stealthily taking Jones’ report on the arrest from the in basket before the Sgt. can read it. Smith is confused and upset when he reads the report, a report of terrible performance on the field sobriety test by the man Jones arrested, bad performance that Smith did not see. Smith considers talking to the Sgt., but replaces the report. He’s confident that the Sgt., who also saw what happened, will deal with it. The next day, Jones is back as always, joking with the Sgt. The driver is convicted on the strength of Jones’ report. Smith has no idea what’s going on, but he doesn’t dare speak up. After all, the Sgt. did nothing even though he had to know--didn’t he?--what happened. Smith is determined to watch more carefully and to keep his mouth shut.

Officer Smith continues to watch and learn. One day he helps other officers make an arrest after a short high speed pursuit. After helping take down and handcuff the car thief after a short foot chase, he is holding the man on the ground when two officers rush up and deliver several kicks and baton blows to the thief who is not resisting. Smith is shocked, but does nothing as the officers withdraw. He notices a Sgt. watching the entire matter. Later, he meets privately with Officer Hanson, an experienced officer he thinks he can trust. He tells him what happened. He tells Hanson that the officers, at the least, committed an assault, maybe even a felony aggravated assault since they hit the man with batons. He tells him a Sgt. was present. Hanson is sympathetic. He asks for the names of the officers and the Sgt. When Smith tells him, he quietly nods and tells Smith to forget it and not to mention it in his report. Smith is amazed. He’s almost speechless. He begins to protest, but Hanson cuts him off and tells him to drop it for his own good, to forget all about it. He saw nothing; he knows nothing. Hanson is friendly, concerned, but firm. He makes it clear that pursuing the matter will only harm Smith and no one else. Smith takes his advice, but worries about it and doesn’t like it.

A year has passed. No one calls Officer Smith “rookie” anymore. He likes that. He has seen many instances of questionable, even illegal behavior on the part of fellow officers, and he doesn’t like any of it, but he knows better than to speak up. So far, no one has ever asked him about anything he’s seen, no prosecutors, no defense lawyers, no supervisors or higher ranking officers, so he has not had to make a decision; he has not had to testify against a fellow officer. He has become used to leaving some things out of his reports and “forgetting” some details, but he does his best to be honest. Still, he worries about the day he might be asked directly, under oath, and he has to decide about committing perjury or telling the truth. Even if a higher ranking officer asks about something, he has to worry. Is it a trick? Does he really want to know the truth and will he do what’s right, or is he just trying to find out if Smith can be trusted to be “one of the guys?” He’s pretty sure he’d tell the truth--he’d like to think so anyway--but he’s also certain that would be the end of his police career. He doesn’t think anyone would try to harm him or his young, pretty wife--she’s so proud of him; he hasn’t told her of his worries--but he has lingering doubts. Those doubts will soon be entirely dispelled.

It happens one night when he responds to a domestic violence call with two other officers. The two more experienced officers have arrived just before Smith and tell him to cover the back door of the house. Moments after taking a good position in the backyard, Smith hears three gunshots in rapid succession coming from the front of the house. Grabbing his radio, he calls in shots fired, and drawing his handgun, rushes around the front of the house to find a middle aged man on the ground, blood gushing from multiple chest wounds. A woman, his wife, is on the steps of the house, screaming and trying to get to the man. One officer who has a sick look on his face is restraining her and the other officer is covering the man with his handgun. The officer yells at Smith to cuff the man, who is not moving. Smith holsters, rolls the man over, and handcuffs him, then rolls him back over and tries to find a pulse. There is none. His eyes are open, staring blindly, his expression one of great surprise. Stunned, Smith asks what happened. The officer tells Smith that the man charged him with a knife. Smith looks around, but can’t see a knife anywhere. The other officer tells Smith to call an ambulance and wait at the end of the long driveway to direct them in when they arrive. Smith nods and does as he’s told.

When the ambulance arrives, Smith escorts the paramedics with their gurney directly to the man and sees, to his horror, a large generic folding knife, its blade locked open, on the ground near the man. He is certain it wasn’t there before. “Where did that come from?” Smith blurts out. The other officer says “that’s the knife the guy had when he attacked me.” Smith opens his mouth to speak, but catches himself. He cannot, however, keep his face blank. He helps keep people away, and watches what is happening. The other two officers step aside and talk in private, shooting occasional looks at him. A Sgt. arrives and confers with the two officers. He turns to glance at Smith, who is now actively worried. In the background, he sees one of the paramedics gesturing to his partner; the man is DRT: Dead Right There.

The Sgt. approaches Smith and asks for his report. He tells it. All of it. The Sgt. is not happy and tells Smith to stay where he is. A Lieutenant arrives and confers with the Sgt. The Sgt. gestures for Smith to approach and speak with them. The Lt. asks Smith to tell him what happened. When Smith is done, the Lt. does not ask Smith anything. He tells Smith that the knife was there all along and Smith must have missed seeing it initially in all the excitement. Smith is smart. He knows what’s happening. He’s smart enough to do what he has to do and he agrees that he probably did see the knife at first; he must have been mistaken. The Sgt. and Lt. do not smile, do not pat him on the back. They tell him to make sure his report reflects the version of events he has just “told” them, the “right” version. Smith gets the message. He’s sure his “mistake” will be passed on to the division Captain, probably higher.

Officer Smith has a lot of thinking to do, and for the first time, he tells his wife of his worries, all of them. She is horrified and terrified. She is proud of her young husband and had no idea. His choice is simple: Continue as a police officer on this police force and play along. If he does, he’ll be accepted and probably covered if he ever makes a serious mistake. That seems to be the unspoken deal. He can tell the truth, but he now knows without any doubt that the upper echelons of the Department are corrupt and he has no idea who, if anyone, he can trust. Since he has already been complicit in covering up a wide range of misdemeanors and even a few felonies, they could turn on him, frame him. He’s concerned that his life, even his wife’s could be in danger. He could simply wait a decent interval, try to get a police job elsewhere, and resign for “personal reasons,” but he has no idea if things are better anywhere else. He’s heard stories about other agencies, and they’re not encouraging. What does Officer Smith do?

THE NATURE OF POLICE CORRUPTION:

“Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Lord Acton. This famous aphorism was part of the dialogue of the original episode of Star Trek. It reflects a simple, yet powerful truth of human nature.

We give police officers a great deal of power, pay them relatively little, often train them poorly, equip them poorly, and expect them to perform superbly with accuracy, superhuman insight, and utter flawlessness. We expect them to do exactly what is right in every situation, to be error free 100% of the time. When they make a mistake, we call, all too often, for their heads. Yet, no one is forced to become or remain a police officer.

Officers know the rules. They know the law. They have to believe that their superiors will protect them against unjust accusations. Unless they believe that they will have reasonable latitude to make honest mistakes, mistakes that will not cause them to be unreasonably and excessively punished, fired and/or prosecuted, it is impossible for them to do their jobs, jobs we rely on them to do well. They have to know that as long as they act within the boundaries of the reasonable exercise of professional discretion, they will be supported. They have to know that their superiors understand those concepts and that they are honorable men and women, just as they expect each officer to be an honorable man or woman.

To that end, agency heads--police chiefs and sheriffs--must establish professional standards of behavior and see that their subordinates--captains, lieutenants, etc.--rigorously and fairly enforce those standards. They in turn must ensure that first line supervisors--sergeants--also enforce those standards. They all must constantly reinforce a number of vital understandings. Among them are:

(1) The police are a part of the community; life is not us against them.

(2) Police officers are public servants and must wield their power fairly and honorably.

(3) Police officers must always treat citizens with kindness and respect, while understanding that some citizens won’t allow officers to do that.

(4) Police officers must never use excessive force.

(5) As much as the public needs the police, the police need the support and good will of the public even more.

(6) Wearing the badge and blue suit is never license to break the law--mostly.

By this I mean that if the police are going to do their jobs and catch bad guys and save lives, they have to break some laws every day. In many states, state law is written such that the police are allowed to break traffic laws only if they are operating with full lights and continuously operating siren on their way to a call. As a statement of noble intent, that’s great. In the real world, it’s ridiculous and dangerous.

Often, officers have a feeling, a feeling based on intuition and experience, that they need to get to a call quickly, even a call that hasn’t been broadcast as a lights and siren emergency. Do you really want to force them to rigorously obey every traffic law in these circumstances, when you’ve heard and reported loud, strange scratching noises at your back door at 3 AM? Do you want to force them to run, lights and siren, to your door, chasing away the burglar long before the officers are close, leaving him free to return another night? Do you want an officer looking for burglars, peeping toms and stalkers in your quiet suburban neighborhood to have to rigorously observe minimum speed limits and keep his lights on, or would you prefer that he be able to be sneaky enough to catch sneaky people?

To the reasonable man or woman, the answer is obvious: The police have to be able to break the law, at least in small ways, as long as they’re doing it in the direct pursuit of their duties and as long as they achieve results. But lying about what they’ve done or seen, committing thefts, assaults, engaging in conspiracies? Certainly not, and in honest, professional agencies, these lines are clearly drawn and uniformly monitored and enforced. Every officer in such agencies knows that if he runs into a parked car while operating with his lights off, there is no excuse. He knows that if he hits another car, even driving with lights and siren, he’s in trouble. This is as it should be.

Let’s examine the troubles of Officer Smith to determine how and when things went wrong. Professional departments don’t allow officers to accept gifts, gifts of any kind and any price. This policy, if enforced, minimizes the possibility of the lowest level of corruption, Officer Smith’s entry level introduction. When an officer starts accepting small snacks--coffee and donuts--it’s a small thing to begin expecting free meals. Small business owners who depend on the police for a great many services want to keep them happy, so they shut up and fork over, but they don’t like it. Everyone they tell about it doesn’t like it, and the police look like petty thieves to the public. Officers begin to think they’re entitled, not only to snacks and meals, but things of equal, and eventually greater, value. Even officers like Officer Smith who have every intention of being honest are co-opted. Police peer pressure is extraordinarily powerful. Officers must trust each other implicitly for they hold the lives of their fellows in their hands. Anything that interferes with that trust is not tolerated. Established norms must be observed. And an officer who knows of continuing illegal behavior on the part of fellow officers and chooses not to participate is not trustworthy--to those committing the crimes. Power corrupts.

Not every officer in the most corrupt agency is corrupt. Most are not. But every experienced officer knows who is and to what degree. Honest officers do their best to avoid any real contact with corrupt officers and vice versa, and while it is not possible for honest officers to know absolutely nothing of the illegal doings of the corrupt, they know that they have to be careful about what they see and even more careful about what they talk about. They don’t have much choice; they have to work with those guys every day.

Over time, some officers become lazy. Some are lazy on their first day of work. Police work requires great attention to detail and skill in writing. Many officers are not inherently detail oriented or skillful writers. Many police agencies have bizarre rules that virtually require bad writing, such as forcing officers to refer to themselves in third person and to use jargon: “This officer egressed to the scene of the alleged crime...” Some officers began to see the world as us against them. They believe that every criminal gets away with most crimes they commit (they’re right about that), and they begin to believe that it’s therefore acceptable to exaggerate a bit here and there to ensure convictions. Some officers begin to believe that the deck is stacked against them in every way (they’re sometimes right about that too) and the way to catch up is to make sure that those who deserve punishment get it.

So the officer made up a few “facts” about a field sobriety test. The driver admitted he had three beers, and all officers apply the rule of three, so what’s the problem? The rule of three? Officers take whatever number of drinks a citizen tells them and multiply by three or four to get into the true alcohol consumption ballpark. Blood alcohol results usually bear out the relative accuracy of the rule.

Officer Smith confirmed his suspicions. The officer exaggerated; he lied on an official document. That’s a crime. Smith wisely waited to see what the Sgt. would do. The Sgt. saw what Smith saw. He had to approve the same report Smith read, but he did nothing. The officer got away with it, and a man who was at least somewhat innocent was convicted of a crime he might not have actually committed. Either the Sgt. covered for the officer--he was complicit in a crime--or, or what? Officer Smith doesn’t know, but it doesn’t look or feel good. What Officer Smith doesn’t know--yet--is that the Sgt. may have only skimmed the report, or perhaps he just signed it without reading it. In either case, the officer got away with a crime and Officer Smith learned that crimes are not only committed, but accepted and covered by first line supervisors, very powerful figures to new officers.

Let’s assume that the Sgt. wasn’t covering a crime, but just didn’t do his job and completely read the report. That’s easily fixed. And if he did read the report, he could have easily dealt with the problem by telling the officer that he may have been confusing some observations in his report with another incident. This would give the officer the opportunity to realize that this Sgt. wouldn’t accept exaggerations and to adjust accordingly. If every Sgt. did this, the problem would quickly extinguish itself. If they don’t it grows, and if first line supervisors know officers are violating the law and allow them to get away with it, they are complicit in each and every crime. They become, in effect, blackmail victims, for they know that if and when they try to return to the law, those they accuse will certainly accuse them in return, and all of those reports with their signatures approving them will come back to haunt them. Besides, it’s small potatoes, right? Just misdemeanor crimes, drunk drivers and the like, people who deserve it, right? Who is going to throw away their career, a pension they’ll have earned in a few short years, maybe even go to jail, over that? Power corrupts.

Officer Smith does his best when he witnesses, close enough to be spattered with blood, officers assaulting a criminal who is not resisting arrest. He witnesses what is arguably a felony. Seeing a supervisor nearby, and knowing enough, he confides in an experienced officer, a man he thinks he can trust. In a sense, he’s right, and the officer looks out for Smith, saving his job, and perhaps even saving his life. Smith is beginning to understand that corruption reaches everywhere and that there is nothing he can do about it except do his best not to be corrupt. He knows that until he gets a great deal more experience, he will have no idea exactly who to trust, and he is beginning to worry that even the highest ranking officers are corrupt, and he’s right. Power corrupts.

What he doesn’t know is that in order for this level of corruption to exist, it must be allowed, even abetted, from the top. Line officers don’t know about many of the complaints against them that are received and handled by their superiors. In corrupt agencies, they rarely know about such complaints because they are never investigated, therefore there is no need for them to be questioned about their actions or reports in a given case. In fact, in corrupt agencies, high ranking officers often actively hate working cops. They think they’re stupid and they don’t trust them. They’ve allowed, though their inattention, incompetence, acceptance or all three, themselves to become implicitly blackmailed. Turning on officers, even incompetent, dangerous officers, is directly dangerous to them, not only politically--always a huge concern for higher ranking cops--but criminally. Even if they have provided competent, professional training, they must ignore violations of that training. They must keep up appearances, but nothing more. Anything more is dangerous, dangerous to them, and they do what they do not to protect their officers, but to protect themselves, first, last and always.

Finally, Officer Smith stumbles into a botched shooting. An officer has, without justification, in a panic, shot and killed an unarmed man and has tampered with evidence to try to justify his mistake. Smith doesn’t know how fortunate he is, fortunate only in that this incident has occurred very early in his career and he has the chance to make the right choice. Smith now knows, without a doubt that the highest ranking officers with whom he regularly has contact are corrupt. He suspects it goes all the way to the top and he is right. Officer shootings, particularly those in which people die, cannot be easily swept under the rug. They bring headlines and unwanted political and public attention. In order to tamp down that kind of attention, to successfully stonewall that kind of public interest and outrage, the entire resources of the agency must become involved. Strategies must be discussed and implemented over time. Unwritten, unspoken procedures must be formulated, understood and automatic. Political chips are distributed and cashed in. Favors are begged and granted. Witnesses are intimidated, evidence is mishandled, lost or destroyed, and business goes on as usual. It has to. If it does not, if the first substantial crack appears in the wall, the entire structure can collapse, crushing everyone within. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Imagine, gentle reader, imagine that you are Officer Smith. You’re young, dedicated, hard working, idealistic. You believe that the police should be, must be, honorable, that little children should look up to them and that they should be worthy of their awe. You believe that it’s your job to protect women, to comfort those who need it and to catch the bad guys, to make them pay for the harm they do, for the misery they cause. And imagine that you have just learned, in a way that cannot be ignored, that you’ve fallen into a police agency that dashes your hopes and turns your dreams to dust. You can no longer ignore it. You must make a decision.

The easiest decision, in a way, is to simply go on for a short time, find a new job, and resign. Because they think you’ve played by the rules, they’ll give you a good recommendation. That’s part of the deal too. Thank your lucky stars you weren’t completely corrupted and you can step back from staring into the abyss before the abyss stares too deeply into you. You’re young. You can remake yourself into what you want to be, and if you find that no police agency is free of corruption, you can always give up and do something else. You’re young and you have not fully come to the dark side.

You can tell the truth. But who can you trust? They probably won’t try to kill you or harm your wife--maybe--but it doesn’t take much to achieve the same result. Maybe the next time you’re in a jam, your back up will be delayed, the dispatcher will misplace your call for backup or help. Things get lost, mislaid. You’ve seen it happen and wondered. It’s no one’s fault really, particularly in your agency. You can go to the feds, but what if the fed you contact is a pal of the Sheriff? What if he just doesn’t care? What if your problem isn’t on the currently politically correct action list, a list you’ll never see? If the feds get involved, it could blow wide open, everything could come tumbling down, you could be a hero...no. Never a hero. No matter what happened, you’d always be an outcast to some. At best you’d be a curiosity, even a fool. Most people don’t care to know the whole truth about anything that doesn’t directly involved them. Takes too much time and energy. No. It’s not going to end well for anyone no matter what happens.

TRAIN AS YOU’LL FIGHT BECAUSE YOU’LL FIGHT AS YOU’VE TRAINED:

This is one of the best known police aphorisms. Often ridiculed, it is, nonetheless, true. When everything falls apart in the worst possible circumstances, will an officer panic, lose control of his thought processes and fine muscles, wildly spraying ammunition in the general direction of a target, or will the skills and reasoning so carefully imprinted in his neurons and muscles take over and ensure an appropriate outcome? All of the skills relating to shooting and decisions to shoot require muscle memory and information processing, and these must be learned and regularly practiced. They are perishable skills.

Training is a difficult issue for the police, particularly regarding firearms. Putting an entire agency through a given training course, even yearly qualification, is a time consuming, frustrating and expensive enterprise. Taking people off the street costs time and money, particularly in unionized agencies. Officers will have to be compensated, and there is rarely sufficient money for regular time, let alone overtime, so compensation time is granted, time that can’t be afforded because agencies are always understaffed, so when an officer takes comp. time, their shift is short, often dangerously so.

The depth and quality of firearm training varies widely from state to state and agency to agency. I knew a state agency in the late 70’s that required all of its officers to wear their revolvers in flap-covered cross draw holsters on their left hips. Why? So everyone would look spiffy during inspections. It was, of course, a terrible way to carry a duty weapon because it was brutally slow, particularly for left handed officers who had to go through impossible contortions to draw their weapons. I knew another state agency in the 80’s whose chief firearm instructor demanded that they carried only four rounds in their five round S&W Chief revolvers with the hammer down on the empty chamber. This would have been a reasonable safety precaution in 1880 with single action Colt revolvers, but by the 1980’s all revolvers were safe to carry fully loaded. Even the FBI, at one time believed to be the cutting edge of tactical and firearm instruction, taught what I called the “squat and cover” method of shooting. One would thrust their handgun out in front of them at full arm extension, squat deeply while leaning forward and forming the off hand into a fist, clutching it to the chest roughly over the heart. The idea was that if a round was headed for the heart, it might be deflected or slowed by destroying the off hand. Of course, you would hope that you wouldn’t have to reload thereafter...

Significant improvements have been made in the intervening years, including an understanding that knowing when to shoot is, in many ways, as vital as knowing how to shoot. What has not been universally accepted are effective methods of teaching and testing these skills. As a result, the average American police officer may be, at best, an average shooter with average knowledge of his issued weapon. He may shoot it no more often than the required yearly qualification, and may be allowed to shoot that course of fire as often as necessary to reach the minimum required score, which is commonly quite generous. Weapon cleaning? You’re kidding, right? Not only do many cops not have the necessary tools and oils and solvents, they’d have no real idea how to use them. Because of the expense of the equipment and facilities necessary to use moving, or more complex targets and scenarios, most police qualification takes place in broad daylight on outdoor ranges with paper human silhouette targets posted at known, marked ranges. Courses of fire commonly change little over time. And because of the ridiculously high cost of full power, duty ammunition, many agencies use only lower power practice ammunition which commonly uses lead bullets of lighter weight which change the recoil, report and muzzle flash characteristics of the weapon. As a result some officers rarely if ever fire the ammunition they’ll carry on duty, and if they do have to shoot for real, find their accuracy degraded by the report, muzzle flash and recoil of unfamiliar ammunition. As a result, mediocre shots often stay mediocre for their entire career. Many officers never become completely competent with, and confident in, their weapons and their ability to deliver accurate fire under stress.

Another important problem is weapon presentation, what some might call drawing the weapon from its holster. Many professional departments employ anti-snatch holsters that do not allow the weapon to be pulled straight out of the holster, but require the officer to release a catch or thrust the weapon forward before being able to pull it up and out of the holster. This does slow the draw somewhat, but with practice this negative drawing, but positive safety, factor can be overcome.

And that’s the problem: Not only practice, but proper and constantly repeated practice. Many officers, unsure of themselves, will not only release the safety catches of their holsters, but push their handguns forward in the holster so they can merely grab them and lift them up when the whistle blows for a round of fire (whistles or similar devices are necessary so officers can hear them through hearing protectors). This may help their times and scores on the range, but is deadly dangerous practice that no competent instructor should allow. All draws should always be done, each and every time, from a snapped and secured holster, exactly as the officer carries it. This is vital so that each officer knows exactly how long it will take him to present his handgun from a snapped holster. And this is only the beginning. Each officer must regularly practice. When I was on the street, I came in 15 minutes early every day and stepped into the small indoor range we maintained to practice weapon presentation drills, including turning to the left and right, and 180° to the back. I did not engage in quick draw silliness, but always worked to be completely relaxed, sure and smooth because smooth is fast. I also practiced holstering and securing my handgun without looking. I always finished with a pinch check to ensure that a round was chambered in my duty Glock and checked to ensure that my magazine was fully loaded and undamaged.

The point is that I was fully confident in my abilities and therefore intuitively knew exactly how much time I needed and had in any situation. I often did not need to draw my weapon when other officers had to draw theirs. I had the time to observe and they didn’t. I also often witnessed the pathetic spectacle of officers engaging in energetic, panicky wrestling matches with their own holsters while I smoothly drew and dissuaded some real bad guys from doing more than laughing.

But more potentially problematic is shoot/don’t shoot training, if a given agency employs it at all. Some of the more professional agencies own and regularly employ sophisticated laser systems that show scenarios on a screen with sound, and record and play back hits and misses. If used properly, such systems can teach officers that they have more time than they imagine before pointing in at a target and pulling the trigger. They can convince officers that they can afford those extra few tenths of a second before shooting. But even with these systems, additional videos with new and different scenarios can be expensive and as always, training time is difficult to arrange. Few officers will, if encouraged to do such training on their free time, actually do it.

Most agencies rely on federal agencies or commercial companies to, from time to time, bring portable versions of these systems around. Of course this means that such training might be available only every few years for a day or two, and many officers won’t be available on those few days. Many agencies never have such systems and either do their best with what they have, or don’t bother, relying only on classroom lectures and demonstrations. Some officers never receive such training except in one brief session at a basic state academy. Some don’t receive even that.

It is here that we return to the officers of the Metro police and the Kansas City Police, officers in two different situations on two different days, but with many facts in common. One of the primary goals of complete, competent and ongoing tactical and firearm training programs is not only to impart valuable knowledge and skills, but to periodically reinforce and update it when better and more effective techniques--as opposed to mere fads--are discovered. Also imperative is record keeping so that an agency has a record, over time, not only of an officer’s periodic final qualification score, but the details of that course of fire, of their performance under pressure, their ability and willingness to learn and adapt. Ultimately such programs must be diagnostic. They must reveal which officers are potentially dangerous, which officers cannot adapt, who panics, whose lack of knowledge and skill is an accident waiting to happen. Ideally, these officers will be weeded out in basic training, long before they ever hit the street, but such diagnostic functions should never cease. Lazy, undertrained, panicky officers are dangerous in the academy or after ten years on the street.

In both cases, it is reasonable to ask whether these officers were ever effectively, properly trained in the use of force and in handgun employment and marksmanship. In terms of the common results of police shootings, the Kansas City officers, as comical as they may be (in the sense of black comedy), employed their weapons as one would expect in most police shootings, where most bullets fired do not strike their intended targets, even at very close range. These officers barely managed to hit the side of full sized panel van and thankfully, completely missed the poor man whose only crime was driving an old, backfiring van. Fortunately too, they did not shoot each other, but only their own patrol car, likely pulling their weapons and opening fire through the windows before they were out of their vehicle (the available stories are a bit short on such details). We do not know the exact number of rounds fired by each officer or their eventual destinations, but it is almost certain to be more than the three that struck the van.

This is only one of a great many reasons why the Erik Scott shooting is so unusual. Apparently three officers fired at Scott from very close range from at least two sides, more or less simultaneously, while actually surrounded by innocent citizens, citizens close enough to have been hit by ejected brass. These officers were almost certainly facing each other and were said to have fired only seven rounds, yet every round stuck their intended target--if they are to be believed, a moving target--and there were no misses despite the fact that they all fired--by their own testimony--in what amounts to a panic. We are expected to believe, among all of the amazing coincidences in this case, that the three random officers at Costco that day were world class tactical shooters who fired only a limited number of rounds and that no rounds missed. Miraculously, apparently none of the rounds fired struck anyone or anything else. This is, to put it mildly, highly unusual.

It will be interesting indeed to learn what kind of training records are maintained by the Metro Police, records that should include all manner of training relevant to this shooting, which should include the frequency of firearm training, courses of fire, dates of training and qualifications, kinds of ammunition employed, completion scores, number of attempts required to meet minimum standards, and much more. Considering the performance of the Metro Police to this point, it would not be surprising to discover that such records don’t exist or are, at best, unreliable. If this is the case, it would help to explain much, particularly whether Officers Mosher, Mendiola and Stark should have been on the street at all on July 10, 2010 and whether they should continue to wear a badge.

COINCIDENCE AND CONNECTIONS:

It has been discovered that Las Vegas Valley Locking Systems, the local Las Vegas security company that has figured so prominently in this case, has a contract to provide video security services to Metro’s two police substations. The press release by the manufacturer of the systems dated 10-02-10, goes into more detail about the high tech nature of the system and of Metro’s requirements for such systems, including immediate video retrieval. This is yet another interesting coincidence in a case overflowing with them.

While this business relationship does not, in and of itself, prove collusion or wrongdoing on the part of the Metro Police or of LVVLS, certain reasonable inferences might be drawn from it. LVVLS would certainly understand, at the very least, that it would be wise to remain on Metro’s good side. They have, no doubt, a considerable economic interest in doing just that. And while such a relationship does not unquestionably mean that LVVLS and its employees would knowingly participate in a conspiracy, they would likely be careful, as everyone involved in the Metro side thus far has been careful, to say only the minimum necessary to achieve immediate goals (a successful Inquest finding) and to offer nothing further, as they apparently did not.

Another interesting but as yet unanswered question is whether LVVLS also provided the locksmith that Clark County Deputy Public Administrator Steve Grodin, accompanied by an as yet unknown Metro officer (or officers), used to arguably illegally enter Erik Scott’s home and change the locks to keep Samantha Sterner out of her own home after the shooting. Remember that the PA’s office charged the Smith family hundreds of dollars for the services of a locksmith and for their own “services” in carrying out an apparently unlawful search and seizure of Erik Scott’s home and property, but reportedly did not specify the name of the locksmith or his company on the bill. This may be nothing more than an oversight, or perhaps an attempt at concealment. In this case, at this point, it’s hard to know whether it’s either or both. But one thing is likely: The locksmith will have information about the words, motivations and actions of Grodin and the police before, during and after the entering of Scott’s home. The locksmith, providing he was acting in good faith, will likely have no legal liability for the probable illegal entry, but he will almost certainly know some interesting information. No doubt this is information that the Police do not wish the Scott family and their attorneys to have.

THE IMMEDIATE FUTURE:

Because a suit has now been filed, pre-trial motions and proceedings will begin. Among the most important will be discovery, which will include Metro, the PA’s office, the Coroner’s Office, the Secret Service, Seagate and a variety of other entities, making available to The Goodman Law Firm--the Scott family attorneys-- all related reports and other documents. Expect this to be a difficult, lengthy and contentious process.

If Metro and the others involved have nothing to hide, if the shooting of Erik Scott was, as they claim, a completely justified police action, there is no reason whatever for any evidence to have been mishandled, lost or otherwise tampered with. There is no reason whatever for the Police to delay a single second in producing every scrap of evidence collected in the investigation. There is no reason whatever for every single witness to fail to testify willingly, honestly, fully and completely and with absolute clarity. According to the Police--to say nothing of several who have graced our comments section--this is manifestly a simple, open and shut case. If so, all the records and evidence should clearly reveal this and Metro should be only too delighted to produce each and every scrap of paper and bit of evidence in pristine, unaltered condition. This would be the routine, daily norm for any competent, honest agency.

Another interesting part of the pre-trial process is depositions, when witnesses, under oath and with a transcript taken, give testimony. It is during this process that a great deal that was not exposed at the Inquest will be likely to be learned, and potentially, substantial panic will set in at Metro. Again, if this is indeed a simple, open and shut case of a legitimate officer shooting, professionally done, all witness statements should be brief, neat and clean and contain few if any contradictions. However, everything that is now known indicates that this will not be the case, in fact, the opposite is likely to be true. This process has the potential to break the case wide open as witnesses will, for the first time, be testifying under oath in a genuinely adversarial proceeding with the very real understanding that lying can and will put them in prison and can lead to far more damaging charges. All it will take is one substantial witness to tell the truth, assuming that the truth is different from the Metro version of events. Metro knows, and fears, this.

Should the case actually go to trial, it will become more and more interesting. Again, if the shooting was as cut and dried as Metro and its supporters would have us believe, its officers and leaders will have a very, very hard time explaining every mistake, omission, crime and bizarre coincidence they’ve perpetrated since the echo of the final gunshot died away, actions that would not have been in the least necessary if the shooting was, in fact, a legitimate exercise of professional police discretion. In fact, they will likely have to repeatedly describe and portray themselves as amazingly incompetent as a means of attempting to explain the unexplainable.

It will be very interesting to learn what the Goodman Law Firm knows about this case and what they will present at trial. I can make some educated guesses, but even if I am correct in the theory of the case I’ve presented here, I will take no pleasure in it, for Erik Scott will still be dead, many lives will be forever irretrievably damaged, and some officers who might have been worthy public servants will be destroyed. It will then be up to the citizens of Las Vegas to determine if they wish to be the employers of their police force or their continuing victims. Sheriff Gillespie may not wish to become too comfortable with his new term in office just yet.

We at Confederate Yankee will continue to follow the case as new developments become known. As always, we encourage our readers to help with their valuable ideas, questions and insights, and we encourage the citizens and officers of Las Vegas to contact us with their insights and information that might help to ensure that justice is, finally, done. If we’re getting it right, we’d like to know. If we’re getting it wrong, we’d like to know that as well and will make all necessary corrections.

The Goldberg (Dull) File

Whoopi Goldberg, she of the manufactured pseudo-righteous outrage at Bill O’Reilly’s entirely factual assertion that Muslims attacked America on 9-11, appeared on the O’Reilly Factor on Fox on November 23rd. While Goldberg might be accorded some degree of acknowledgement for merely appearing on O’Reilly’s show, she revealed, in convenient capsule form, much that is wrong with the contemporary left.

Goldberg’s argument seemed to be that when O’Reilly said that America was attacked by Muslims--an incontestable fact--he was actually saying that all Muslims attacked America and that all Muslims want to attack America and that all Muslims are bad, hate adorable puppies (wait, they do hate adorable puppies)...or something like that. She also took exception with the assertion that the Japanese attacked America at Pearl Harbor (yes, she actually did).

What was most interesting is that Goldberg, considered the most brilliant commentator on "The View," hence one of the most brilliant on the Left, admitted that she had no idea what a Madrassa was, nor did she have any idea what role Madrassa’s play in contemporary Islam. This is a stunning admission that goes a long way toward explaining how the Left can hold and espouse such amazingly ignorant views on the nature of those who would be only too happy to cut off their talking heads with dull knives and display them in jihadist snuff videos.

A Madrassa, for those in need of a refresher, is a traditional Islamic school, exclusively for young boys. In more traditional Muslim nations and cultures, girls are not educated. In the traditional, historic Madrassa, the curriculum consists almost entirely of learning the Koran by memory (in Arabic), complete knowledge of the Koran being thought to be all the well educated Muslim man needs to know.

However, in the contemporary Madrassa, thousands of which exist in such supposedly enlightened and allied nations as Saudi Arabia, there are four primary facets to the curriculum:

(1) Rote memorization and recitation of the Koran--in Arabic.

(2) Study of the Hadith, which is the sayings and actions of Muhammed and his companions. It consists of the oral law and the record of those who passed it down to the present.

(3) The necessity of killing all infidels, particularly the Jews (Israel is the Little Satan) and Americans (America is the Great Satan), and of establishing Sharia (Islamic law) throughout the world.

(4) Combat training including maintenance and repair of various Warsaw pact weapons, the making and employment of bombs, suicide bombing theory and technique, and similar skills.

Considering that several generations of Muslims throughout the Muslim world, including the Gaza Strip and West Bank, have been brought up with this kind of poisonous hatred, it is interesting and instructive that Goldberg, and apparently a great many others of the Left, have no idea of the very source of much of the hatred and violence toward America. Surely they appear to be unable to understand that under Sharia, they would fare very poorly, but mercifully, briefly.

But perhaps it is of no consequence. Would it matter if they did know? Would they change their beliefs one whit? Goldberg also asserted that white people are a contemporary terrorist threat. Hope and change spring eternal.

Great Moments In Marital Bliss #257

Yesterday while in the checkout line at a local sporting goods/gun store, my wife, observing the purchases of others, turned to me and said, "Don't ever buy me a pink gun case...or a pink gun."

Yes Dear.

Gun Control Advocate to Head BATF

Barack Obama has been shy of acting on his radical anti-gun tendencies since he jumped on the campaign trail, but he has found someone with a similar agenda to run the BATF. Read about the nightmare that is Andrew Traver in my latest post at Pajamas Media.

Me? Own A Gun? Article 2: Is Killing Justified?

The first article of this series ended with this paragraph:

“But let us assume that this article has, at least, persuaded you to the point that you are willing to tentatively concede that an individual, inalienable right of self defense is probably necessary. What then? The next installment of the series explores the legal, moral and spiritual issues revolving around taking the life of another, legally and illegally.”

IS KILLING MORALLY JUSTIFIED?

This is an ancient argument, an argument about which countless volumes have been written. I can only touch on a few of the salient points, but fortunately, for our purposes, that is all that is required. Since Western culture is built on the foundation of the Judaeo/Christian tradition, and America is, by and large a Christian nation (which tolerates, even embraces all faiths), I’ll focus on that tradition and its holy texts.

The Sixth Commandment, in the King James translation, says “Thou shalt not kill” (Exodus 20:13 / Deuteronomy 5:17). It is the misunderstanding of this Commandment that has caused much confusion. The Bible--particularly in the Old Testament--makes clear, explicitly and implicitly, that killing is both justified and unjustified, and that unjustified killing is murder. In fact, more recent translations of the Bible use that word, the word closest to the correct translation of the Greek and Hebrew: “Thou shalt not murder.” It is this ancient distinction between justified and unjustified killing, between lawful and unlawful killing that is the foundation of our criminal justice system. Such a distinction requires one additional, vital, understanding: Each individual, each human life, has value and that life may not be taken except under the very narrow exceptions imposed by God’s law and man’s law, so long as it faithfully reflects God’s law in embodying the importance and value of each life.

The Bible also, in many ways, makes clear that killing is anticipated by God and is permitted when it is justified. Ecclesiastes 3 states: (1) “To every thing there is a season and a time to every purpose under the heaven: (3) A time to kill, and a time to heal...” And while the Bible enjoins believers to respect governmental authority because God allows it to exist, it makes clear that each individual, because of his or her intrinsic worth, has not only the freedom to protect their most precious, God given gift--their life--perhaps even the duty to do so. This was, at one time, almost universally understood. Decades of relativistic thinking have, to greater and lesser degrees, and in some quarters, muddied what were once clear philosophical waters.

In Jewish tradition, the word for murder is based on the concept of longing for or desiring, in other words, invoking passion, a passion to kill--to murder--in an unjustified manner and for unjustifiable reasons. Killing, however, is a matter of necessity or of justifiably applied justice. Neither the Bible nor the Torah prohibit self defense and both recognize the inherent value of each human life. Therefore, the distinction between justified and unjustified killing seems clear.

NON-VIOLENCE:

But what about those who believe in and practice non-violence? Isn’t that a viable way to live? What about Ghandi and Martin Luther King, for example? Ghandi and Dr. King were educated, intelligent men who clearly understood that their methods could be effective and held little or no risk of death because they were employed against peoples and governments who recognized the rule of law informed by the Judeo/Christian tradition. In effect, they knew that the people who ran the governments whose policies they opposed might imprison them for a time, but were highly unlikely to seriously harm or kill them. They also know that their respective governments could be made to feel shame and embarrassment, and that those feelings of shame and embarrassment could be harnessed to cause desired social change. Such tactics employed against a great many governments, then and now, would be virtually certain to result in torture and death. Non violence as a method of social change is effective only if those who oppose you have a conscience and you or your followers are around to take advantage of that change, and to that end, the governments to be opposed must be carefully chosen indeed.

While non-violence as an individual lifestyle may be, in some respects, a noble choice, its effectiveness ends at the moment its practitioner meets one bent on murder. At that point, the choice becomes immediate and stark: Noble words in a eulogy affirming a non-violent life tragically cut short, or survival. The world will certainly be better served by the continuing existence of one who rejects violence unless it is absolutely necessary.

A central lesson of Christianity is the practice of love and mercy. There is no inherent contradiction in one who believes and practices those virtues but who must protect their life or the life of another. In fact, the Bible teaches that there is no greater love than that a man lay down his life for a friend. General George Patton said that you don’t win wars by dying for your country, but by making the other poor bastard die for his. Similarly, perhaps it is also a great expression of love and mercy to make one who would take your life, or the life of a friend, lay down his life instead.

THE SOCIAL UTILITY OF KILLING:

What about those who reject killing under all circumstances, who claim that killing can never be a social good? Take the case of India under the British Colonial Government of 1829. A common Hindu practice was to burn a man’s widow on his funeral pyre. The story goes that when the British Governor-General, Lord Bentinck objected to this practice, he was told that it was the Indian custom. He reportedly replied something to the effect of: “Very well, you may practice your custom, but we too have a custom which we will practice. It is our custom to hang those who burn widows.” Needless to say, the Indian custom was hastily abandoned and soon outlawed under Indian law. The social utility of being willing to kill those who were, for reasons of custom, killing innocent women, can scarcely be denied.

Some people of good will oppose capital punishment, arguing, among other things, that to put men to death is playing God, capital punishment is not a deterrent, and that with life imprisonment, capital punishment is no longer necessary as a means of protecting the innocent. Perhaps the strongest argument against capital punishment is that human beings make mistakes and sometimes execute the innocent.

But if the individual may act in self defense, why is the state, a government deriving its just powers from men, prohibited from acting in defense of men? True, it is the nature of our criminal justice system that execution takes place not on the spot, but after many years of the exhaustive application of due process, but this long, careful process would seem to be an argument for, rather than against, the capital power of government.

Christian theology recognizes that killing is sometimes justified and necessary, hence men acting in good faith under those conditions are not playing God, but acting in ways anticipated by and approved by God. And while capital punishment does not deter the psychopath, common sense (and my own police experience) suggests that some will be deterred, and that we will likely never know their names or numbers, yet some will live who would have otherwise died.

Life imprisonment is all too commonly anything but. True, there is such a thing as life without parole, but this is far from universal. Killers sometimes continue to kill while behind bars, taking lives that while not entirely innocent, are not deserving of that fate. In addition, escape from prison is not unknown, and foolish politicians have been known to commute the sentence of or pardon those who might be in political favor, a case in point being the cop killer Mumia, who, for the moment, remains behind bars. As we have already agreed that evil does indeed exist, there is a strong argument for destroying evil wherever it exists, for evil lives only to destroy the good and innocent. To put it simply, to protect others, some people deserve to be killed.

It is indeed disturbing that some innocent people have been put to death. This is not an argument against capital punishment but an argument for the perfection of the criminal justice system to the greatest degree possible. And while we must always strive for perfection in every human endeavor, we cannot cease our endeavors because they do not, at all times and in every way, reach perfection. It is indeed terrible when the innocent are executed, but error is a part of humanity and it cannot be allowed to paralyze us from achieving worthy ends. Of course, the argument about whether the good of capital punishment is greater than the tragedy of executing the innocent goes on.

LAW AND THE BALANCING ACT:

How does this apply to governments? To individuals? Each sovereign state may adopt its own laws which may be applied within its own borders and within territories under its control. One of the essential powers of sovereignty is the power to punish those who transgress the law, including the power of capital punishment. Our laws come from the British tradition, under which, during the Medieval period, there were some 200 capital offenses. This led to many bizarre spectacles, including that of pickpockets happily working the crowds gathered to watch the execution of other pickpockets.

Fortunately, American law has evolved such that there are commonly only two capital offenses: Murder and treason. While kidnapping, under some circumstances, may also invoke capital punishment, these two are our primary remaining capital crimes. Our society has devolved to the point that it is difficult to imagine anyone being prosecuted for treason, let alone being put to death for treason, such old fashioned values having fallen out of fashion among the self-styled cultural and political elite.

For example: With the fall of the Soviet Union, Soviet archives were opened and it was discovered that the late Senator Teddy Kennedy (Democrat of Massachusetts) actually contacted the KGB (through an intermediary Democrat Senator) in 1984 trying to enlist their aid to defeat Ronald Reagan and his arms control policies to pave the way for a Kennedy presidency. While there is no evidence that they took him up on his offer, it’s hard to imagine a sitting US Senator committing a similar transgression during WWII not being tried for treason, but now it’s a completely different matter (this was known during Kennedy’s lifetime).

ERRARE HUMANUM EST (To Err--Sin--Is Human):

Is killing, in every instance and always, a sin, and if so, may that sin be forgiven? Again, these are questions that have been argued for millennia, but there are several possibilities:

(1) Killing, under any circumstance, is always a sin. God’s gift of life is precious and to take life is God’s province, not man’s.

(2) Killing, when justified, as in self defense, is not a sin. God is omniscient--all-knowing--and understands that his creation--man--will be subjected to situations where killing is necessary, therefore why would God consider that which he has set into motion, ordained, to be sin? Man has free will, also ordained by God, so he who tries, without justification, to take the life of another sins, but the person who defends them self against an unjustified attack and takes the life of the attacker as a consequence of that defense does not sin. They have preserved God’s greatest gift while their attacker tried to destroy it. Sin lies with the attacker.

(3) Killing, even when legally justified as in self defense, is a sin. However, there is no degree to sin, therefore one may ask for and receive forgiveness for any sin. But what about a serial killer who asks for forgiveness after each murder? It is inconceivable that God does not know whose plea for forgiveness is sincere and whose is not. God pardons whom He chooses, and He knows the hearts of all men.

Even if one should consider killing under any circumstance, whether homicide, self defense, killing while serving in the armed forces during war, or by accident to be sin, our shared faith tradition makes clear that even this sin, if one sincerely repents and begs forgiveness, will be forgiven. This does not mean that the aftermath of a justified killing will be trouble free or ever forgotten, but one need not worry for the final disposition of their soul if forced to defend their life or the life of another.

THE AFTERMATH OF KILLING:

America has, since its founding, had the experience of citizen soldiers reintegrating back into society after exposure to combat. Men, and recently, women, who have killed others, have, by and large, successfully become productive citizens. Indeed, some have suffered from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, some few have been driven mad by their experiences, but the overwhelming majority have learned to deal with the experience of taking the life of another.

So too have police officers who have been forced to kill in the line of duty, and citizens who have been forced to kill to protect their lives or the lives of others, been successful at living with their experiences. Some have been able to simply and effectively compartmentalize, to wall off their experiences as past and done. They accept what they did as necessary and justified, and it does not haunt them. Others have sought and found peace through faith and forgiveness. Some periodically deal with the doubt and pain of their experiences, experiences that never entirely leave their minds. Such is the burden of being honorable people, people of good will and conscience, people who deserve to live that society might benefit from their example.

That these issues are of concern to you speaks well of your conscience, of your humanity, for if you were not concerned about them, you might very well be a sociopath and as such, completely unconcerned. Have no doubt that if and when killing ever becomes necessary and is justified, the aftermath will be, personally and in every other way, intense, demanding, and difficult. The way in which one deals with it will depend upon their upbringing, their faith, the strength of their character, their beliefs and those who love and support them, but it will always, always be better to be around to have to deal with the aftermath than the alternative. I’ll cover this issue to a somewhat greater degree in the next article in the series.

CODA:

Let us further assume that you now accept the inalienable right and necessity of self defense. Let us also assume that you accept the idea that killing--never murder--is justified and is not sinful. Or in the alternative that it is a sin, but that sin may be forgiven for those who sincerely ask for forgiveness. The next article in this series will outline the realities, legal and moral, of employing deadly force. We’ll get to the matter of attitudes, weapons and accessories a bit further down the line.

The Outcome Is...Trying

Eric Holder and Barack Obama are, in many ways, alike. Men of few actual accomplishments but unlimited, astronomical self-regard, they have been elevated far past their abilities, living examples of the Peter Principle, people rising to and greatly surpassing their own level of incompetence. Despite having little prosecutorial experience and having less experience in management, Mr. Holder was elevated to the office of the Attorney General, apparently on the strength of his slavish devotion to leftist philosophy.

Rewind a year to the outrage over Mr. Holder’s decision to try those responsible for “man caused disasters,” and/or “overseas contingency operations” in civilian courts. All of the downsides of this kind of thinking have been exhaustively catalogued and are obvious to those possessed of common sense. The upside is, according to Mr. Holder, that jihadist murderers will appreciate the transparency and fairness of the American civilian court systems and that this will somehow, magically, improve America’s standing in the world. And Mr. Holder, a man of scant trial experience, was absolutely certain that such trials would be won. In fact, he guaranteed that every alleged man caused disaster causer tried in civilian court would, without exception, be convicted. The common man might be forgiven for wondering how the outcome of a fair trial could be guaranteed beforehand, but Mr. Holder apparently knew better. In fact, in the case of Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, Mr. Holder declared that “failure is not an option.”

Failure is indeed the option, despite Justice Department and White House attempts to spin it otherwise. Of 285 counts, including multiple counts of murder, Ghailani was, only this week, convicted of only one. One count of conspiracy for which he may be sentenced to 20 years to life. Considering time served and good behavior, perhaps he’ll be released next week (yes, that’s an exaggeration, but sadly, likely not enough of one). Ghailani, for those who have not been following his case, is the self confessed man caused disaster causer responsible for the murder of 224 people (and the wounding of many more) in the 1998 bombing of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Because he was tried in civilian criminal court, Ghailani, a mass murderer, a terrorist combatant dedicated to killing Americans, received all of the rights and benefits of a common American criminal. Vital witnesses and evidence were excluded--properly under American criminal law--and other vital evidence could not be used lest intelligence sources and methods be disclosed. To anyone not Eric Holder or Barack Obama, the outcome was a foregone conclusion.

Still, Mr. Holder and Mr. Obama gamely claim that even if Ghailani had not been convicted, he would still be held as an enemy combatant, making any claim of transparency, fairness and the glories of the American criminal justice system a farce. But not to worry; we can hold Ghailani and his like as long as the war continues. Worry indeed, for Mr. Obama intends to end all hostilities as soon as possible and only just announced that he is confident that we will pull our troops out of Afghanistan on a predetermined schedule. And when that day comes and Mr. Obama declares that the war is over (he is psychologically, perhaps even physically, incapable of declaring an American victory), what becomes, morally and legally, of our justification for holding illegal enemy combatants, combatants who have not been tried with a guaranteed, pre-determined outcome, in civilian, criminal court?

We have been lucky thus far. Despite having suffered, during the first two years of the Obama era, multiple successful terrorist attacks and attempts on our soil, the body count has been blessedly low. Mr, Obama has also recently observed that America can “absorb another 9-11,” and one might be forgiven for believing that his policies are designed to ensure that we’ll have the opportunity to demonstrate the American resilience he seems to prize so greatly. After all, when the underwear bomber was thwarted by dumb luck and hands-on fellow flyers, Janet Napolitano, our hapless DHS chief, proclaimed that the system worked. That's the kind of success we can't afford.

Our current government cannot bring itself to identify our enemy, cannot admit that some people are more likely than others to commit acts of terror, cannot even admit that we are fighting a global war, a war being dictated by our enemies. We are on the defensive and depending on luck and the occasional alert, lucky officer fortuitously in exactly the right place at exactly the right time to protect us against people who are willing to give their own lives to take ours, and our government thinks that making nice in civilian court will impress them.

And so we have the bizarre spectacle of forcing people least likely to jaywalk, to say nothing of commit acts of terror, subjected to nude imaging, intrusive searches and interminable delays when we know that the Israeli method which focuses on the reality that certain kinds of people are terrorists and most are not, has a perfect record of performance. And we try mass murderers in civilian court when any rational person would know that so doing is the virtual definition of insanity and incompetence.

And how is all of this working in terms of international relations? Mr. Obama’s recent trip to Asia is instructive. Even democrats are admitting that he accomplished nothing at all, that he was seen as a weak, pathetic figure to whom few foreign leaders pay attention and fewer respect. Even the Palestinians have publicly admitted that his anti-Israeli interference in the Peace Process has forced them to adopt positions they did not want to adopt and has harmed, probably fatally, the potential for any meaningful talks and for peace.

When common sense and human nature are ignored, there is a price to pay. There is always a price to pay. Pray gentle readers, that the price won’t be too high, that absorbing the next attack won’t involve you or those you love. And remember that Mr. Obama, Mr. Holder, and anyone who thinks even remotely like them cannot be trusted with the lives of Americans and with American national or domestic security, and act accordingly.

Anybody Watching the Fights Tonight?

So I let it slip during the dog days of July that I am an avid mixed marital arts fan. There are few individual sports that require as much technical proficiency, raw power, and heart as this modern combat sport, which has evolved to be the domain of an incredible new breed of hybrid fighter.

Unlike the early days of MMA when pure practitioners of various martial arts stepped into the cage with the mastery of one style, today's athletes cross-train as wrestlers, Brazilian jujitsu submission artists, kick-boxers, and brawlers.

That is part of what makes tonight's UFC fight between Quinton "Rampage" Jackson and Lyoto "The Dragon" Machida interesting to me.

Rampage is a hotheaded brawler with a wrestling background that tends to be best on his feet, but who has decent submission defense. He's powerful and emotional and simply pours it out in an a rush, but isn't a technician, despite his championship belts. He's just a tough son-of-a-gun, without much quit in him, who prefers to push forward. Detroit seems to be pulling for him, as well, making this a"hometown" fight for him, of sorts.

Machida, on the other hand is one of the more disciplined martial artists in modern MMA, using Brazilian jujitsu, Shotokan karate, and even Sumo in an elusive, counter-punching style.

Those of you interested in sports gambling are going to have a tough choice to make tonight as Rampage and The Dragon face off.

My pick? I'm guessing Machida on points in a unanimous decision after three rounds, with Machida not really hurting Jackson but frustrating him as he points his way to a win.

UFC 123's other big fight is the rubber match between legends BJ Penn and Matt Hughes. I'd like ot talk this up, but I can't. Penn is slower and less flexible and doesn't seem to have the heart he used to, while Hughes is recharged and evolving.

Hughes by submission early in round 2.

Update: Penn destroyed Hughes in seconds, and Rampage outpointed Machida to a split decision. Did I mention that the unpredictability of the sport is another thing that fascinates me?

New Co-Blogger Coming Soon

Fair warning, folks: we have a lady in the house, or at least we will soon. She'll introduce herself when she's ready (and after I get her account set up). I think you'll be very impressed with her, just as you were when Mike joined up.

Best,

Bob

Heavy Metal Moves to the 'Stan

There is a steady escalation of force occurring in Afghanistan, though it seems few in this country realize the pressure being brought to bear. The volume of precision air-delivered munitions has been steadily increasing. The Army has now brought in a handful of futuristic XM25 25mm grenade launchers for field (combat) testing, and if they perform as well as hoped, additional XM25s are assured for wider deployment. On top of that, the Army is introducing a company of M1 Abrams main battle tanks to the conflict for the first time in the nice-year war, with the goal of using the 120mm main gun to crack open Taliban safe houses and fighting positions.

The Abrams will likely excel in Afghanistan as it has in the other environments in which it has been used, but the mil-geek in me wonders if the Stryker-variants armed with 120mm mortars (which have seen use in Iraq, but I don't know about Afghanistan) or the 105mm Mobile Gun variant (still in testing?) wouldn't be a better option for many Afghan missions because of their relative stealth and mobility advantages.

In any event, it appears the Taliban are in for a vicious fight.

Advice

Brigid is really good at it, or really bad at it, depending on your point of view.

Profiteering from the Sheep

Joshua Rhett Miller has made a rather disgusting display of bad journalism on FoxNews.com today, in an article about the TSA's invasive news passenger screening program that either irradiates passengers or results in their sexual assault by TSA employees.

In an apparent effort to buttress the TSA position, Miller goes to Carie Lemack and Mary and Frank Fetchet for their opinions. None of the three are air security professionals, bomb techs or terrorism experts. Their only uniting thread is that they had relatives killed as passengers on planes on 9/11.

This is nothing more or less than a false appeal to authority, as if traumatic loss granted security expertise or insights. The Fetchets and LeMack have no special knowledge. Their opinions are no more relevant to a discussion of air security than is a Kalahari bushman's.

We're plagued by incompetence in Homeland Security, and journalists like Miller are clouding the issue by asking the unqualified for advice.

Neither the millimeter-wave or backscatter X-ray technologies increase security for air passengers, anymore than does taking off your shoes, surrendering corkscrews or nail files, or reducing the size of your mouthwash bottles. All of these are gimmicks developed to give the impression that authorities are making us safer, even as the real gaping holes in air security remain as wide-open as they always have been.

Anyone could walk through the most advanced millimeter-wave or backscatter X-ray machines on the market with enough explosives to down an airliner. This isn't up for debate. It is an unassailable fact.

Homeland Security is spending hundreds of millions of dollars because Janet Napolitano likes to pretend she is worth her salary, while former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff turns a tidy profit from the machines themselves. It isn't about your safety. It's about profiting from your fear, and with something around 80% buying the government's claims, it appears they are succeeding.

Baa. Baa. Baa.

Really... This is News?

It's hardly surprising that TMZ has jumped at the chance to embarrass Willow Palin for calling another teenager names. It is also tediously predictable that gay progressives immediately savaged her for using the exact same pejoratives and slurs that they themselves used at that age, and which many of them still utter now in their own fits of rage, or for other Very Important Reasons, like someone giving them a dirty look.

Human beings are imperfect. Hormone- and judgement-challenged teens (i.e., all of them) even more so. They use harsh language to attack one another.

Big effing deal.

The simple fact of the matter is that the legion of the easily offended who are now going after this teenager for, well, being a teenager, are generally far more offensive, hateful, and vicious than the child they attack. Teenagers use such language as they off-gas raw emotion without a filter. The savages who attack her, however, are calculating in their assaults, and more chronologically mature, if nothing else.

They revel their own intolerance and viscous evil, and then are dim enough to think it is intolerance of their sexuality that leads to them being shunned.

Happy Birthday, Pajamas Media

Five years already?

My, how time flies. Pajamas has always been a great organization to work with, and Roger, Aaron and the other editors and executives I've worked with have always been straight-shooters. As Roger notes, there have been mistakes, but there have been solid scores as well, both in terms of content and personalities, which seems to have spread over to PJTV as well. It's been a great ride so far, and I' love writing for them.

In related news, progressives are going to war with themselves over the success of the Huffington Post, and I suspect it will get nasty.

Tomorrow We Honor a Hero

U.S. Army Staff Sergeant Sal Giunta will be presented with the Medal of Honor tomorrow.

If You Build It, They Will Charge--UPDATED!

UPDATE 11-16-10:

Chevrolet has announced that the Motor Trend Car of the Year for 2011, beating out such strong contenders as the much anticipated Ford Fiesta, is...Maestro, drum roll please!...The Chevy volt! The Chevrolet Volt pseudo-semi-electric car is Motor Trend magazine's 2011 car of the year. According to the AP:

"Motor Trend says the Volt has some of the most advanced engineering ever seen in an American car. The Volt can run up to 50 miles in pure electric mode before a backup gas engine kicks in to give it more range. Motor Trend also said Tuesday that the car is a great value. It costs $33,500 with a federal tax credit, but will likely be cheaper to run than a traditional hybrid. The Volt goes on sale next month."

The EPA has yet to announce a mileage estimate for the Volt (it can't go on sale without it) and Chevy expects that to happen anytime now. Apparently Motor trend has now upped the Volt's range by 10 miles over Chevrolet estimates and is somehow seeing amazing value in a compact car that costs $33,500.00, but only with a $7500.00 tax credit. Oh well. Motor Trend also made the Chevy Vega its car of the year back in the 70's. The more hopeful you get, the less things change.

The ways of American automobile companies are mysterious indeed. Recent evidence would seem to suggest that the three remaining American manufacturers have abandoned any and all knowledge of how to successfully do business in a capitalist democracy, if, that is, they ever truly knew. There was a time when the “Big Three” as they were once known, all but completely owned the domestic market. But then came the 70’s, Jimmy Carter, long gas lines, and the Japanese, who did learn how to do business in a capitalist democracy from--wait for it--us! Patiently, over time, they improved their products and quality, and always offered high mileage, reasonably priced vehicles, vehicles that slowly but surely began to gain market share.

That was then; this is now. The Japanese are now dominant and the South Koreans are daily gaining market share. The Japanese have even made significant inroads into a mom and apple pie slice of the market: Pickup trucks. GM is a majority controlled subsidiary of the Democrat party (OK, to be fair, it’s the US government--the taxpayers--in a for 61% share) and the United Auto Worker’s Union. Chrysler is a slow-walking zombie with pieces falling off every second. The only good news is Ford, the only company that resisted the siren song of government money (and overweening control) which is showing real signs not only of survival, but of long term viability. It introduced, for instance, a standard V6 Mustang with more than 300 HP, capable of 30+ MPG on the highway. Perhaps you can have your cake and eat it too.

Perhaps the single most unfathomable practice of American auto manufacturers is how and why they decide to build a given vehicle. It’s widely understood that they spend millions on sophisticated demographic models and surveys, striving to understand and predict every niche of the market so that they can tell how many units of a given model they can expect to sell versus the manufacturing costs and profit potential of that model. Yet, they still manage to produce vehicles that the guys hanging out in the local hardware store could have told them would be major league turkeys before the first vehicle rolled off the assembly line. A case in point: The Chevy Volt.

By now, most have heard the ever changing propaganda emanating from Chevrolet in a manner reminiscent of, of, well, of the Obama Administration explaining why all of the negative effects of Obama Care aren’t bugs, but features! Magnificent selling points that all would embrace if they were only smart enough to understand them. Consider the following conversation between Mr. Average Consumer (MAC) and Obama Motors (OM):

MAC: So the Volt is absolutely, positively electrically driven and will employ super hi-tech battery technology?

OM: Absolutely! Hi-tech! Battery! Green! No pollution! Save the planet!

MAC: So how far does it go on one charge?

OM: Forty miles!

MAC: Forty miles? That's not very far.

OM: Well, up to 40 miles, under, you know, ideal conditions.

MAC: But is that 40 miles with just the driver? What if you actually carry passengers?

OM: Well, maybe, probably less than 40 miles if you actually carry people...

MAC: Less than forty miles? That’s awful! You couldn't even get to work and back for sure...

OM: Oh, not at all! Studies show that most people don’t commute that far.

MAC: What studies?

OM: Have I mentioned the 40 mile range?

MAC: But what if I have to use things that drain power, things like lights, turn indicators, air conditioning, the radio, windows, stuff like that?

OM: Well, you know, up to 40 miles, but maybe, probably, less if you insist on using such frivolous, outlandishly luxurious accessories.

MAC: What if I go fast, like 70? Won’t that reduce the range?

OM: Have I mentioned the revolutionary, hi-tech battery? It's really quiet! Save the planet?

MAC: Don’t lithium-ion batteries contain substances that, if they combine even through a pin hole, spontaneously burst into flame?

OM: Well...did we mention 40 miles...?

MAC: And doesn’t one of those batteries cost about $10,000?

OM: That’s an absolute lie! No more than $7,000-$8,000, maybe...I think...

MAC: How long do they last?

OM: A really, really long time. Trust us on this. We’ll even guarantee them.

MAC: (Sigh) How long does it take to recharge?

OM: With standard 110 volt house current, 8-12 hours.

MAC: Eight to twelve hours?!

OM: Well, maybe longer...

MAC: Longer?! Can’t you do it faster?

OM: Of course! You just have to install a special 220 volt fast charger in your home.

MAC: How much does that cost?

OM: Oh, you know, about, well, $2000.00...

MAC: $2000? For a battery charger?!

OM: But it charges the battery in only about four hours, and if we sell a million or so Volts, it will probably cost less...

MAC: Less? A million or so? Four hours? If the battery is drained, I have to wait four hours to drive the car again?

OM: Of course not! But if you don’t fully recharge, your range will be a lot less...

MAC: Less than what?

OM: Well, 40 miles...

MAC: Never mind. What about charging the car away from home?

OM: Oh, I’m glad you asked! There are plans to install charging stations, you know, like a lot of interest flowing...

MAC: Yeah? Where? How many?

OM: Plans, you know, like real plans...lots and lots, you know, here and there, lots of places, and lots of interest by interested...parties...

MAC: But I’d still have to sit there for four hours?

OM: Not at all! You could, you know, take as little as, for example, two hours...but your range would be less... Catch up on your reading! Commune with nature! Do you knit?

MAC: Knit? Less than...never mind. Doesn’t the Volt actually have a gas engine too?

OM: Well, yes, but that’s just to charge the battery when it drains too far. It will never drive the wheels.

MAC: Wait a minute! You mean that if the battery drains too far, I’m stuck?

OM: Oh no! The gasoline engine will provide enough electric power to the battery to allow you to limp--I mean, sedately motor-- home at a very reduced speed, I mean, as long as it’s not too far, you know...40 miles and all...

MAC: What?!

OM: Did I say that? Ha-ha! I mean that the gasoline engine actually drives the wheels if, you know, the battery gets too low, or if, you know, you want to drive at really crazy speeds...

MAC: What do you mean, crazy speeds?

OM: You know, like around 70...or so...

MAC: What?! But that means that the Volt is just another hybrid!

OM: Have I mentioned hi-tech? Quiet? Revolutionary? Green?

MAC: Oh never mind. Where can I buy one?

OM: For the time being, only in Texas, California, Michigan, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Washington D.C.

MAC: What? Why only those places?

OM: Green?

MAC: Never mind. How much does one cost?

OM: We’re really proud of that! A basic model is only MSRP $41,000!

MAC: What?!

OM: But the government will give you a $7500 tax credit for each and every Volt you buy!

MAC: But that means the car still costs $33,500 for a base model...

OM: Isn’t that great...

MAC: ...plus $2000 for a home battery charger! That’s $35,500! For a compact car with a range less than 40 miles! Wait a minute...I also have to consider how much in taxes I have to pay to buy my own car!

OM: Green! Revolutionary! Save the planet!

MAC: Hey, you guys said you were gonna make 60,000 of the things. How many are you actually making?

OM: Oh, we’re making, a whole, complete, absolutely making, you know...10,000...

MAC: Ten thousand? Just for those six states?

OM: On no! For all of North America.

MAC: What?!

OM: How many can I put you down for? Green...

And so Chevrolet is producing a compact car with a range of less than 40 miles, a car that is not, in fact, an all electrically driven car, but another sort of hybrid, a hybrid that costs, even with additional taxpayer support beyond the taxpayer’s 61% stake in GM, at least $33,500. And what, pray tell, niche market does Chevrolet hope to fill or create with the Volt? The hopenchange, “yes we can” niche market has been, of late, severely depleted and disheartened. What family could afford to employ a Volt as their sole vehicle? For most, the Volt could not serve as even a reliable second car.

There remains yet another factor that has not been discussed in the media (Hmmm. I wonder why not?): Cold weather. Cold drains, even disables, batteries, even revolutionary, green, hi-tech, lithium-ion batteries. The colder the temperatures, the more quickly batteries drain, and in much of America and virtually all of Canada it gets cold enough for long portions of the year to render an all electric vehicle an expensive driveway awning. Patchwork fixes like heated garages and battery heaters are essentially useless. An onboard battery heater will drain the power of the battery it is working to keep warm, further reducing an already reduced range. Will there be a heated garage at work? An outlet for keeping the battery warm enough while it’s being recharged so that it can be recharged? And if it’s cold enough, will a Volt actually make it to work before it loses all of its battery power and is forced to rely on its underpowered gasoline engine? It’s a delicious irony that the Volt works best in warmer climates like Mexico or Central and South America where most people can’t afford to buy one. It’s almost as if it was designed by the government!

Perhaps I’m being too harsh on the Volt and GM. Perhaps this really is revolutionary, green technology so powerful that millions will rush to buy this ridiculously overpriced better mousetrap. According to George Will, writing in the November 14 edition of the Washington Post, Marc Reuss, GM North American Division President said: “The early enthusiastic consumer response--more than 120,000 potential Volt customers have already signaled interest in the car, and orders have flowed since the summer--give us confidence that the Volt with succeed on its merits.” Ah! I see. “Enthusiastic response...signaled interest...orders have flowed.” GM is sounding more and more like the Obama administration trying to defend the indefensible every minute. Would this enthusiasm and signaled interest translate to flowing orders without say, the $7500 taxpayer funded tax credit? What merits? And, Mr. Reuss, exactly how many orders, accompanied by cold hard cash, have flowed into GM coffers as yet? Mr. Reuss? Can we expect the same stunning, economic success that was Cash for Clunkers?

But let’s assume, just for fun, that the Obamite dream of a bold new green future, led by the hard charging (get it?) Volt, comes true and millions of all electric (sort of) pollution free (not really) cars take to the roadways. Imagine gas at $10 per gallon rising on the skyrocketing energy rates for which Mr. Obama so fondly dreamed when he was candidate Obama, accompanied by tens of millions of convenient electric fast charging stations! What does an hour of fast-charge 220 volt electricity go for these days anyway?

Not so fast. America is just about tapped out on electric capacity, capacity flowing through a crumbling electric generating and transmission infrastructure, an infrastructure that cannot be replaced or augmented. Why not? Because Mr. Obama and all of his allies oppose the building of new power plants, nuclear, coal, even solar and wind. No, I’m not kidding. The enviros are opposing the building of a solar generation facility in the Mojave Desert. Yes. The Mojave Desert. Something about lizards or toads I think. In addition, the Sierra Club and various other animal rights organizations are preventing the construction of electric generating windmills across the land because their blades kill birds and bats. Electric facilities and transmission towers despoil pristine--and not so pristine--wilderness, etc. And there are various politicians keeping windmills from despoiling their favorite views of nature. You name it, someone on the left opposes it and has it tied up in litigation and red tape. Add EPA Chief Carol Browner altering scientific documents and lying about it to make it appear that scientists supported a drilling ban in the Gulf of Mexico, combine that with Administration refusal to authorize the building of additional refinery capacity, and the Obama Administration has succeeded in creating a lose/lose situation.

All of us, the American taxpayers, are building a car with not ready for prime time technology. A car that offers no advantage over any other car on the market, to say nothing of any car against which it will directly compete. For the price of a single Volt and charger, one can buy two well equipped Ford Fiestas, cars which achieve 40 MPG in highway driving, are fun to drive, and have a range of at least 400 miles, after which a ten minute stop at any gas station will restore a range 10-20 times that of a Volt.

The Volt should not exist, except as an engineering exercise. That it does exist suggests two possibilities: The Obamites intend to so damage the economy that a Volt will actually be economically feasible, even desirable, or they have no idea whatsoever of reality on any level. On second thought, rack up both of those possibilities. If they get their socialist wishes, we’ll have no choice but to charge. Charge, that is, if there is anyone left in America who can afford a Volt or has access to electricity.

Expert Opinion: The "Felon With a Gun" Photo Is Real

I asked you yesterday whether or not you thought the purported photo of a felon holding a gun was real.

Those of you who responded, either in the comments or via email were convinced that the photo is real... and according to an expert I've contacted you are most likely correct.

Bob,

I have reviewed the photo you sent me showing two men win one apparently holding a pistol in each hand.

It is my opinion that there are no picture elements or artifacts consistent with manipulation of the photo in the area of the arms, hands, and pistols. The shadow patterns on the clothing are consistent with shadows produced by the pistols and they are consistent with the shadows on the ground. The light reflecting from the pistol surfaces are consistent with the scene illumination.

The photo does not appear to have been manipulated. The pistols appear to have been in the man's hands when the photo was taken.

Alexander Jason, CSCSA, CFPH
Senior Certified Crime Scene Analyst
Certified Forensic Photographer
www.alexanderjason.com

This analysis by Mr. Jason validates the two eyewitness accounts from the photographer and the other man in the photo, who claimed to have gone shooting with Lee Booth in a range near the North Carolina/South Carolina border.

BATF Supervisory Special Agent Earl Woodham told me last week on the phone that BATF managers had reviewed all the claims about Booth made in the Pajamas Media article, and that the were "not interested" in pressing charges again him.

I somehow suspect that something more is going on here than a felon holding a gun.

Is the"Felon With a Gun" Photo Real or Photoshopped?

In the comments of my most recent Pajamas Media article, a skeptic calling himself "L.Booth" questioned the validity of the photo accompanying the article, stating:

Notice the "photo" funny shadow on the big pistol, what is the big white blotch on the left sleeve………fun never ends.

The photo in question shows a man holding a pair of firearms... or does it? The comment provided by "L.Booth" seems to suggest that the photo used in the article was manipulated, or "PhotoShopped."

So let's put that claim to the test, by providing the photo and subjecting it to the scrutiny of Internet experts and laymen alike.

Below is the uncropped photo that the image in the Pajamas Media article was created from (click the photo for the full-size 2048 x 1536 image or follow this link).

Is the man in the photo really holding firearms...

...or is it faked?

Veteran's Day (Repost)

The monuments in Washington all seemed false in the cool morning mist. They were big and white and extravagant, yet the tourists cheapened them somehow as they gawked, took photos, and scurried to the next place on their list of things to see. Their attention seemed to focus on what things were rather than why they were. The scene was a poor example of Americana. Even Honest Abe seemed to frown from his throne. Of all the walls of stone only one seemed real.

This wall's long black marble slices into the ground. On it are engraved fifty-eight thousand American names from an undeclared war that no one wants to remember in the jungles of a country half a globe away. There are no ornate scrolls or stenciled directions, no fancy faded pieces of parchment, no self-serving sentiments, just names.

There's also a statue some distance away. Three bronze soldiers stare into the wall, waiting for word of their fellow soldiers, or perhaps morning their loss. The soldiers don't talk; they simply stare. They are all just boys, most of them only six years older than I was then: nineteen.

Under the statue-soldier's gaze, an elderly man lagged behind a tour at the wall. He caressed it and knelt to leave a single rose at its based. He sobbed. He had difficulty standing up. A nearby park attendant helped him and asked, "One of yours, sir?" The old man shook his head and replied, "Not just one of them. All of them."

I penned those words in the fall of 1989... 21 years ago.

They are an excerpt of a story I authored as an 18-year-old college freshman. It was based upon a trip to Washington D.C., and to the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, simply known to all as The Wall. It is fictionalized, but only just. To this day it remains one of the most emotional places I've ever visited.

At the time, Vietnam was our most recent "major" conflict, though I know all wars are major are those who fight them. We were still several years away from the first Gulf War, and more than a decade from 9/11 and the wars that followed in Afghanistan and Iraq that we still fight today.

I'm met dozens of veterans since that time, from World War Two, Korea, Vietnam and our current wars. I've tried to thank them for their service, but mere words always feel inadequate to capture the gratitude I feel for all they have sacrificed so that I can live in a land of freedom and liberty.

I've tried to explain the sacrifices they've made as best I can to my older daughter. I've told her some of what I know about my Uncle Bobby's war in Korea, where he had the harrowing duty of splicing damaged communications lines for forward observers while in combat. I tried to tell her of how her grandfather—who we buried just before last Veteran's Day—stood guard against saboteurs in the wet salt spray as victory ships burned from to the torpedoes of German U-boats off the Carolina Coast.

I've told her what I know of some of our local heroes that I know she's heard of and seen, and of those who quietly walk among us with little recognition at all.

Today is the day we thank all veterans who have served this nation and who put their lives on the line to preserve our way of life.

Words are not enough, but all the same, thank you.

Update: I'm blessed to live in a community where veterans and their families aren't just remembered, but celebrated.

The Erik Scott Case: Update 8--Eyewitnesses, Video and Coincidence

Information relating to the reward offered by the Scott family for video evidence can be found here. Information relating to the lawsuit filed by the Scott family may be found here.

THE SCENE: A classroom much like any classroom supported by public dollars. The occasional fading poster breaks up the routine of bland, institutional paint. The ubiquitous round clock hangs on the wall above the lectern, making odd and disjointed ticking and whirring noises, its hands occasionally speeding up or slowing down. It’s either too hot or too cold and there is an odd smell that no one can quite identify. But this classroom is different. In the chairs with the worn, torn covers, their arms resting on the chipped particle board tabletops covered in cheap, peeling wood grained vinyl, sit 25 police recruits, young men and women eager to learn all that they can about their jobs before being allowed on the streets.

It’s 1030 in the morning. The topic is the finer points of diagramming traffic accidents, and attention, and wakefulness, are beginning to lag. The instructor drones on, when suddenly, without warning, the door at the back of the room flies open and slams into the wall with a resounding bang. Someone sprints into the room, assaults the instructor who ends up flat on his back, and sprints from the room through the wide open door. The entire incident has taken mere seconds. The recruits are now wide awake, but are frozen and have no idea what to do. The instructor rises, calmly brushes off and straightens his uniform, and directs the class to write a report about the crime they just witnessed.

All too soon, each recruit has the dubious pleasure of reading their report for the entire class. At the end of the reading, it is clear that the assailant was a tall/short, slender/fat, man/woman who was balding/had long hair and who said a variety of things/was silent, as he assaulted the instructor/or didn’t, with his fists/a baseball bat/something big and dark/a rubber chicken. Most recruits did not mention the location, the date, and left out most pertinent facts. Only a few thought to write down the time of the incident despite the large clock hanging a few feet over the action. Only one noticed that the weapon used was in fact a yellow rubber chicken, and only one--not the same one--noticed that the assailant was a man with a beard wearing a long, curly blonde woman’s wig. None recognized him as one of their instructors. Only one correctly put the duration of the incident at ten seconds while the others ranged from half a minute to a minute.

Variations on this scenario are played out across the nation for new police officers because it teaches very important lessons about the nature and reliability of eyewitness testimony. If the instructor in this scenario was particularly capable, he would have pointed out all of the factors that can color eyewitness testimony and would have taught his recruits how to question witnesses to properly evaluate and to clarify, not color or coerce, their testimony.

While investigating any crime, the police must, at the scene, identify any and all potential witnesses and take complete statements from them, carefully comparing them to see which, if any, common elements appear. Even the differences are important because no investigator can know, particularly early in an investigation, which of these differences might be important. Really smart officers will immediately, upon walking into a group of people who might be potential witnesses, say “show of hands: How many of you saw what happened?” while simultaneously raising his own hand. He would do this because he knows that Americans are conditioned by their experiences in the public schools to raise their hands in response to questions, and if caught off guard, will tend to respond honestly without thinking too hard. Those who raise their hands--or partially do before thinking better of it--will be quickly and politely segregated and questioned.

Initial statements are often taken informally, by means of handwritten notes taken by officers, or are written by each eyewitness. Later, depending on the seriousness of the crime, detectives commonly conduct taped or videotaped statements, carefully asking questions designed to bring out details and insights that might have been missed in the initial statements while being careful not to contaminate statements by the power of suggestion. These more complete interviews are commonly done after detectives have had the chance to review the physical evidence which can often clarify events and also bring up questions that need more in depth answers. During this process, detectives also determine--if they have the luxury to choose--which witnesses will be most effective in court.

Done correctly, this process works very well and leads to correct conclusions. Done incompetently or with a pre-determined result in mind, it leads to miscarriages of justice such as allowing the guilty to go free or convicting the innocent.

Some few readers have suggested that because eyewitness “A” testified that Scott pointed a gun at the Officers, the case is, from that point, closed. If only these matters were so easily decided. From what is currently known, the witnesses in the Erik Scott shooting--and there were many more than presented by the Prosecution at the Inquest--are no different than in most cases. They fall into two general groups: Those who believe that Scott, at some point or in some way, touched, reached for, grasped, drew, or pointed a gun at the police who immediately shot him, and those who saw no gun, before, during or after the shots were fired. Even so, there appear to be widely accepted common observations. Virtually all witnesses agree that:

(1) The Police began shooting almost immediately after identifying Scott.

(2) The Police fired multiple shots, including multiple shots into Scott’s back as he was falling face down to the ground or was face down on the ground.

(3) Something was on the ground near Scott’s body, something variously identified as a gun, a cell phone, a zippered gun rug, or a black or otherwise colored object of some kind. Some witnesses saw nothing at all.

(4) The shooting took place in the midst of a large crowd of people leaving the Costco at the request of the Police, a crowd who unknowingly walked into the middle of a circular firing squad.

(5) The Police were yelling a variety of conflicting commands at Scott in the few seconds before they opened fire.

(6) Scott’s hands were more or less continuously in the air in response to the commands from the Police. Some witnesses felt he never lowered them.

(7) Scott appeared very surprised when confronted by the police and particularly when the first shots hit him.

(8) The Police rendered no medical assistance to Scott and handled him roughly when assisting medical personnel.

Let’s return to the classroom where the instructor points out some of the factors that can have a substantial influence on the accuracy of eyewitness testimony. His careful questioning reveals that none of the recruits in the back row had a clear (some had no) view of what happened. Even the recruit sitting closest to the door couldn’t write a clear description of the “suspect” who was at two instants, within two feet of him, because “it all happened too fast.” None of the recruits saw the entire incident from the moment the suspect entered the room until he left. Several were only fully aware of the suspect as he turned his back to his “victim” and sprinted from the room. The most alert recruit, the one who correctly identified the “weapon,” just happened to be in the front row, closest to the assault, and seated to one side of the podium, giving him a clear view of the action. The rubber chicken stuck in his memory because he had always enjoyed slapstick comedy and the sight of it was funny to him. Even so, his account was only about 60% accurate. All other accounts were worse.

As with everything about the Erik Scott case, little is known of the facts and of what the Police actually did at every step of the investigation. Exactly how they interviewed the eyewitnesses, when and where, and how they chose those who would testify at the Inquest remains unclear or unknown. It’s obvious that they chose only those witnesses they believed would support their version of the story, but even so, ran into several witnesses who did not hold to the party line. The Prosecutors found themselves in the bizarre and embarrassing situation of savaging their own friendly, supportive witnesses in a hearing without an adversary.

It’s an old legal truism that no attorney should ever ask a question of a witness without knowing the answer they’ll provide. Many unwise attorneys who have done this have found themselves badly embarrassed and have even lost cases. That the Prosecution found itself surprised in a hearing without an adversary, a hearing it totally controlled, a hearing with a predetermined outcome, does not speak of competence, attention to detail, adherence to procedure and careful preparation.

There are questions that any competent officer should ask in evaluating eyewitness testimony. Among them are: Did the Police determine exactly where each witness was standing? Did they have a clear and unobstructed view of the confrontation? Through the entire confrontation, or only portions? Which portions? How much of the shooting did they see? What first called their attention to the shooting? How far away were they standing? Did they stand there watching or dive for cover? Did they see it all, or is their account a mixture of what they heard, saw and filled in with guesswork and supposition? Did they have any relation to anyone involved? Does their occupation have any bearing on their observations? Would it make them more or less likely to be accurate? Do they have any physical impairments that would be relevant? Do they have any axes to grind against anyone or any entity involved?

Suggestion is very powerful, and the human brain will attempt to fill in the missing puzzle pieces of any situation using logic--or sometimes, emotion--filtered through the experiences and biases of that individual personality. Did the Metro Police ask some or any of these questions, or did they simply choose witnesses who were willing to present the most favorable testimony? At the upcoming civil trial, a version of the shooting very different from that favored by the Police will surely be presented. It will likely be revealed that those witnesses will have been asked these, and more, questions--and those who testified at the Inquest were not--and their testimony will be, therefore, more reliable to and more believable by a jury than those who have not been so carefully, professionally interviewed.

THE BOTTOM LINE: Eyewitness testimony is tricky and prone to inaccuracy. It is foolish to take it at face value. It must be professionally and dispassionately evaluated and presented in court. As with so much else in this case, what is currently known does not give the informed observer confidence in the ethics and professionalism of the Police or the Prosecutors.

THE STRANGE AND EXCELLENT JOURNEYS OF A SEAGATE HARD DRIVE:

It is time to revisit the issue of video records. While substantially more is now known than was available in earlier updates, the picture remains incomplete and often contradictory. This, and the reasons therefor, will be no surprise to regular reader of this series.

Shortly after the shooting, the Police issued statements suggesting that any video would likely be unusable, that there was video but it was corrupted, that the video was malfunctioning, and eventually that there would be no video at all, either indoors or outdoors, of the Costco and the events of Saturday, July 10, 2010. Within a short time and before the Inquest, the Police settled on the story that the video recording system at Costco had been malfunctioning beginning on Wednesday, July 7, and no attempt was made to repair it until after the shooting, therefore, no video was recorded. Yet, the police did, at some point, take the system into custody and sent it off to experts for examination, which examination, unsurprisingly, confirmed their official story. It would not be until the Inquest that the strange tale of the video was, in some very odd ways, clarified, or perhaps more accurately, augmented.

Shai Lierley, the Costco security officer, testified that he called Las Vegas Valley Locking Systems (the company that installed and maintained the Costco system) on Wednesday, July 7 about the store video system, which he said was completely non-functional. However, Jason Swords (phonetic spelling) of LVVLS testified that Lierley called on Thursday the 8th. His testimony suggested that he did nothing to repair the system as he was essentially a call taker rather than an on-site technician, and that Costco would have to wait until a technician was available on Monday, July 12.

This is odd testimony in that Swords had nothing material to add, particularly considering the fact that the Inquest was not an adversarial proceeding. Nothing Lierley said would be in any way called into question or refuted. Unless the Prosecution considered Lierley’s testimony and/or credibility to be so potentially weak as to require buttressing by Swords, his appearance at the Inquest makes little sense. By his own admission, Swords merely took a call from Lierley, told him he could do nothing, and took a message for someone who could. This testimony appears to be nothing more than at attempt to support Lierley’s version of events, and in that it failed even to establish a consistent date of the call.

In addition, the prosecution did not pursue a very important matter: Was there a back up server, either on site at Costco or a remote server elsewhere? Considering the nature of the Inquest and the Prosecution’s goals, this failing is not surprising, but it is a crucial matter. Security companies, particularly in large, competitive markets, often offer remote back up hard drives for security video, so even if a clever robber or thief stole or destroyed the primary recorder of a business, their images would not be lost and would be recorded and preserved on a remote and/or back up hard drive. In particularly competitive, security minded markets like Las Vegas, such services are not extra cost options but essential features of security packages, yet the Police and Prosecutors have made no mention of this. If there were such backup capabilities, the entire case changes. No longer is this about the data stored on a single hard drive, or hand full of hard drives, as the Police would have us believe. In fact, it is entirely possible that it never was about a single hard drive.

Another interesting and contradictory bit of Inquest testimony was provided by Metro employee Brian Wyche who apparently works in IT for Metro. Wyche testified that on Satuday, July 10 at about 1715 (approximately four hours and fifteen minutes after the shooting) he rebooted the Costco video surveillance system at Costco and found that it worked properly, however, he also said that it contained no footage of the shooting. It will likely surprise no one to discover that the Prosecution did not press him for further details, nor did he volunteer any.

The police did testify at the Inquest that they did not, after the shooting, take the video system into custody and place it into evidence. This is yet another omission--like so many commissions--that defy rational explanation. Call them all coincidences.

Coincidences happen. They happen every day. But there is a point at which coincidences cease being happenstance, random, inexplicable acts or omissions of unknowable, unreasoned fate. That point is reached when coincidences, taken as a whole, form a pattern. Put aside, for the moment, the simple fact that two or more coincidences occurring in close proximity relating to a single incident are essentially prima facie evidence that coincidence is not at work. Consider that when the consequences of all coincidences benefit only one side and harm only the other, it would be foolish, even dangerous, to consider such acts and omissions coincidence. In this case, every act, omission, every coincidence, has redounded to the benefit of the Police and is either supportive of their version of the shooting, or has prevented a complete, competent investigation, an investigation that they apparently did not do themselves.

The Police did not take the video evidence into custody, not immediately, not until days after the shooting and only in the most roundabout way, despite repeatedly having their hands on it--figuratively and literally--during the intervening period. In fact, they testified that they did not take it into evidence because it was “proprietary hardware.”

Any competent investigator hearing such testimony would, at that point, be picking his jaw up off the floor. Not only do the police have the legal authority to take any evidence relating to a crime into immediate custody, they have, in virtually every state, an affirmative obligation under state law to do so. In any professional police agency, making such a basic, elementary, boneheaded mistake would immediately and legitimately call into question any detective's fitness to continue to serve as a detective. I have actually taken entire sections of the walls of homes into evidence, chainsawing them out, shut down businesses for hours and days, seized motor vehicles, homes, and virtually anything one can name, and have done so lawfully and rationally. Of course, when such seizures involved the property of innocent citizens, I have taken pains to carefully explain why it was necessary, to apologize for the necessity, and have even taken steps above and beyond the call of duty to assist them and to make them whole. Whether a particular piece of evidence is proprietary or generic has no bearing on whether the police may or should seize it, none whatsoever.

An officer involved shooting is one of the most important cases any investigator can handle, and when the person shot dies, must be handled as a homicide until it can be unquestionably proved otherwise. Failing to immediately search out, locate and take into custody every potential bit of video and audio evidence where it might exist is akin to leaving a murder weapon in plain sight on the ground and driving away. It is yet another example, as was outlined in Update 7 in the theory of the case, of the police willfully, knowingly making themselves look incompetent because the alternative was much, much worse.

Why wouldn’t the Police want to take such evidence into custody? The most obvious possibility is that whatever happens to the evidence cannot be blamed on them if it is not in their custody. In addition, any break in the Police chain of evidence may very well destroy the value of any given item as evidence and render it inadmissible in court. A harmless, rational explanation for this behavior may someday be forthcoming, but it is difficult to imagine what it could be.

Another interesting side note is that Det. Calas, reportedly during his initial turn on the Inquest witness stand, showed video from outside Costco and made a point of showing a segment of it suddenly blacking out, apparently to further buttress the Police story. He also testified that the internal clocks of the Costco system were some 18 minutes off. It’s impossible to know, at the moment, the significance of this, but it is certainly something to keep in mind in the future, particularly should a mysterious, 18 minute gap appear at some point.

Additional testimony indicated that on Monday, July 12, the LVVLS technician (name unknown) who was reportedly unavailable on the 7th or 8th, met with Lierley at Costco and the two of them apparently drove the system to LVVLS. Testimony is unclear on the exact times, and the exact number of hard drives involved, but ranges from one to three at various times. Remember that all Inquest testimony was aimed only at proving the Police version of events to the historically very low standard of proof necessary under Clark County rules. Therefore, a great many details remain murky.

Swords' testimony becomes coincidental in that he testified that on Monday he examined the drive (as in single drive) and described it as having been damaged as though it had been dropped from a height of four feet. He described the arm holding the read/write heads as being badly damaged. This is in direct contradiction to the testimony of Metro IT tech Wyche who testified that he rebooted the system at about 1715 on the 10th and found it to be functional. If Swords is correct, Wyche cannot be unless someone damaged the system after Wyche rebooted it. There is certainly more than sufficient time for this to have happened. This is also interesting in that Swords was the person who testified that he was essentially a call taker and could not assist Lierley when he called for help on the 7th or 8th. Why then was he examining the internal mechanisms of the hard drive on the 12th? Where was the missing LVVLS technician who was unavailable on the 7th or 8th? Let’s not bother asking why such examination was taking place outside of police custody, and apparently, without their knowledge.

From there, the date/time trail becomes even more cloudy, but it is known that the equipment--however many units and hard drives--made its way to Metro. Whether it was ever entered into evidence or merely tossed on a shelf or desktop and for how long and under what conditions is unknown, but from there it was sent to the Secret Service in Los Angeles where it was, at some point in time and for an unknown amount of time, examined by a Secret Service Agent/technician (this too is unclear). From the Secret Service, the hard drive (or drives) was sent to Seagate, the manufacturer, in Santa Clara, California where it was examined by their technicians. At some point, the equipment was apparently returned to the Secret Service in Los Angeles, and possibly, to Metro, but the exact disposition of the original video equipment remains unknown.

What is known through Inquest testimony is Seagate, through their technician David Teigen (phonetic spelling), some time in August, recovered a substantial amount of data. Teigen did not confirm Swords' assertion of a badly damaged read/write arm. Tiegen made three copies of that data and reportedly sent one copy to Metro and two to the Secret Service. Testimony suggested that from a one terabyte drive, Tiegen recovered some 600 gigabytes of data, and this was apparently the data contained on the copies sent to Metro and the Secret Service. This is where Tiegen’s testimony becomes very interesting.

Tiegen testified that there was a “glitch,” but unsurprisingly, was not pressed on this and did not volunteer information. He testified that he was tasked merely with recovering data and that he did not look at any of the video/data. He testified that there may have been video, but it was not his job to determine that, but merely to recover files. Keep in mind that a standard DVD has a capacity of 4.7 gigabytes. If the figure of 600 GB is accurate, this is the equivalent of approximately 128 DVDs of video data, some 256 hours.

Secret Service Agent/technician Jody Okawaki testified that she recovered “583 folders,” but like Tiegen, testified that she was tasked only with recovering data and had no idea whatsoever what they were, or what they might contain. It is not known if this represents the same data discovered by Tiegen or additional data, nor is the exact number of involved hard drives known. Okawaki apparently did not confirm Sword's assertion of a badly damaged read/write arm. Remember that we are speaking only of hard drives--video storage media--on site at Costco. We do not know if there were backup hard drives on site at Costco, or remote backup at LVVLS or a third party location, though all of this remains a distinct, unexplored possibility.

UNANSWERED QUESTIONS/UNEXPLAINED COINCIDENCES

Since the Police did not immediately take all video evidence into custody (and this remains an omission of inexpressibly gross incompetence), its value as evidence is greatly diminished, perhaps utterly destroyed, which may have been the point. Understanding this, a great many questions remain:

(1) If the Police believed, as they testified, that there was no video evidence on the Costco equipment, why bother to send it anywhere for examination, particularly since it was not in their possession?

(2) Las Vegas has no shortage of highly competent computer/video technicians. Since the Police were not treating the equipment as evidence in an officer involved shooting and were at best handling it casually, why would they bother to take possession of it and send it outside Las Vegas to search for data that they believed did not exist?

(3) Why would the Police send it to the Secret Service, who are not known for their expertise in forensic video examination, rather than say, the FBI, who are? In fact, why would they involve a federal agency at all?

(4) Why would a Secret Service Agent/technician tasked with recovering video that could potentially cause law enforcement officers to be charged with the unlawful shooting of a citizen studiously refuse to look at such video to determine if it was relevant? There are no statutes, no privacy laws that require such rectitude. How could anyone searching for such video evidence be said to be doing their job to the most minimal standard of competence if they didn’t bother to confirm that what they found was video rather than, for example, word processing data or audio files? This, like so much else in this case, makes no sense at all. No sense, that is, unless she was operating under orders not to look, not to know.

(5) Did the Secret Service attempt to maintain any chain of evidence? Did they receive the equipment from Metro in such a way that indicated that it was to be treated as evidence?

(6) Why, if the Secret Service found some 583 folders, did they send the drive (drives?) to the manufacturer?

(7) Why did Seagate technician Tiegen also fail to confirm the nature of the data he recovered? While the private sector may operate under standards of privacy that are commonly and primarily self-imposed, it beggars belief that any competent technician, particularly one tasked by the Secret Service to recover video data, would not take the minimum steps necessary to confirm that he had, in fact, recovered video data. Such confirmation would take no more than opening and playing, for a few seconds, potentially relevant video files. Of course, Tiegen too may have been under orders, potentially orders specifying that he, like Okawaki, must know nothing about what he did. With this in mind, one might be forgiven for believing that this coincidence in a long, pattern of coincidences would allow the unchallenged modification or destruction of any potentially damaging data.

(8) What, exactly, is the nature of the recovered data, data recovered where Lierley and the Police said there was no data to be recovered? Where are the copies of that data and under what conditions are they being held and by whom? How were the copies recorded and transmitted? Such an a large amount of data would have required an external, portable hard drive of sufficient capacity or a great many DVDs and/or CDs depending on the type of data.

(9) Were the files recovered by the Secret Service the same data recovered by Seagate, or additional data? Was the data recovered from one hard drive? Three? More?

(10) Were there video and/or audio recordings made by police vehicles/officers on the scene? A great many patrol cars are video equipped and officers with that equipment wear wireless microphones to simultaneously record audio. Were Officers Mosher, Stark and Mendiola wearing wireless microphones or carrying personal recorders? If so, what became of that evidence? There were many police vehicles on the scene. It would be an incredible coincidence if they recorded nothing. Even an officer’s microphone recording nothing more than the gunshots from a distance would be important evidence, and many officers carry portable, personal recorders.

(11) Was video recorded by the Police helicopter on the scene? If so, what became of that evidence?

(12) Was video recorded by any local media organization? If so, what became of that evidence? The complete lack of media video evidence in this case is another amazing coincidence.

(13) Was video or were still photographs recorded by any citizen on a camera or cell phone? If so, what became of that evidence? The apparent complete lack of citizen video in this case is yet another amazing coincidence.

THE THEORY OF THE CASE, CONTINUED...

Sometime after Scott’s body was tossed into the ambulance and was long gone from the scene, officers realized that there might be video. Perhaps one glanced up and noticed a video camera, perhaps they just suspected it, but certainly the thought occurred to them. A hurried visit to a monitor for playback revealed...what? That Scott was not the raging lunatic inside the store that they had been mistakenly led to believe? That Scott was, when confronted, just another Costco customer calmly going about his business, walking out of the store? That they engaged in a circular firing squad in the middle of a crowd of innocent citizens whose dives for cover and shocked expressions and cries were clearly visible and audible? That Scott did not, in fact, have a gun in his hand when he was shot? Of course they knew this, for no gun was on the ground after Scott was gone; it was still in its holster, on his body in the ambulance. But seeing the video confirmation of this fact must have been the mother of the mother of all sinking feelings. They knew that if the video ever saw the light of day, they were toast.

Of course, if the video confirmed the Police version of events, or even if it could be spun to support their version, there would have been no difficulty and that video would have been played at the Inquest. It would have immediately been taken into custody and entered into evidence, but this was, horrifically, not the case. Something had to be done and done quickly.

Then began a comedy of errors, characterized by heated arguments and recriminations between officers, detectives, supervisors, command staff, perhaps even the Sheriff, over how to bury the video without leaving too many fingerprints on the evidence and the attempt. Lierley’s cooperation was essential, but that wasn’t difficult to obtain through promises, threats, whatever was necessary. The rest could be handled over the ensuing weeks and months by the mere assertion of seemingly legitimate Police authority, authority accompanied by Metro’s well known and often practiced reputation for punishing its perceived enemies in the community. Personal connections between Metro officers and the Secret Service obtained their assistance, perhaps their unwitting assistance, and the meandering, nonsensical trail of a traveling hard drive began, giving the Police plausible deniability. “Hey sure, we made a mistake, but we tried to find the evidence!”

Among the most important elements of the entire charade was avoiding entering the video equipment into Police evidence. True, this would, yet again, make the police appear to be incredibly incompetent, but in the unlikely event that something was found on the hard drive(s)--after concerted attempts to be sure that nothing could be--the Police would argue that since it was never really in their care and custody, anything could have happened to it. It was tainted and should not be allowed in court.

THE REWARD:

On October 28, the Scott family announced a $25,000 reward payable for a legitimate copy of the video evidence of the shooting. The family reasonably believes that such video exists. It’s possible that even in Las Vegas, $25,000 may be enough to shake it loose. Visit the link in the first paragraph of this update for additional information and for contact information. The Scott family has also purchased four billboards around Las Vegas advertising the reward. None of this will be pleasing to the Police.

THE CIVIL SUIT:

On October 28, the Goodman Law Group of Las Vegas, on behalf of the Scott family, filed a lawsuit against Officers Mosher, Stark and Mendiola, The Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, Sheriff Doug Gillespie, Costco and Shai Lierly for violating Erik Scott’s civil rights. This language is significant in that it may be calculated to encourage federal involvement in the case. Federal involvement may be the only mechanism capable of forcing actual change in the Metro Police.

The suit alleges that Lierly “falsely reported that Erik did pose a threat to the safety of other persons.” It also alleges that there have been “numerous prior incidents in which Metro officers engaged in unreasonable seizures and use of excessive, including lethal, force,” and that Sheriff Gillespie has behaved with “deliberate indifference” by failing to properly train, supervise and discipline officers who behaved unprofessionally.

And so the hunt for facts and the truth begins. The degree to which Metro cooperates in this endeavor will tend to indicate the degree of their adherence, or lack thereof, to professional standards, ethics, and the law.

CONTINUING HARASSMENT:

Early in the week of November 1, a female friend of the Scott family was pulled over by the Police twice within a three hour period, allegedly for failing to signal within 100’ of a lane change. This woman is a supporter of the Scott cause and was present at the Inquest. She did, however, unquestionably commit a sin unforgivable to Metro Police: She displayed an Erik Scott remembrance ribbon on the back of her vehicle.

It is known that the second stop was made by Henderson officers (the officers making the first stop are not currently known). By the second stop, she was so frightened that she, upon stopping, immediately stuck both of her arms out her window, expecting to be shot at any moment. She was shaking with fear. The Officer toyed with her, asking why she was afraid. She told him that it was because of Scott’s shooting and he acknowledged that he saw the ribbon on the back of her car. He taunted her a bit longer and let her go without a citation (she was not cited for either “violation”). She has since, fearing for her life, removed the ribbon from her vehicle.

Competent, professional police officers will recognize this as a classic chickenshit traffic situation. Professionals never issue citations, and rarely stop citizens, for failing to signal unless their driving behavior nearly caused an accident or figured in an accident. This is so because it is virtually impossible, even for officers who become, through long experience, very good at judging distance and velocity relating to moving vehicles, to be sure that a citizen began signaling at less than 100’ before making a lane change or turning. In many vehicles, turn signals do not activate instantly when the lever is pushed, and a vehicle could easily cover 30-50 feet before a signal begins. And in reality, particularly in heavy, metropolitan traffic, people must change lanes--and do so every day with complete safety--without the possibility of signaling and traveling 100’ before making the change. Officers know that it is almost impossible to drive at all without inadvertently committing at least some violation of the multitude of traffic laws. Most police officers aren’t aware of every potential local and state traffic law. The point is that professionals do not harass the public when they could very well be doing their best to obey the law.

In this case it is clear that the officers involved, apparently at least two separate officers, were acting as uniformed thugs rather than professional, honorable guardians of the public. What kind of man delights in so frightening an innocent woman as to make her fear for her life, fearing death at the hands of the Police who are sworn to protect her? Such a man is not a man at all. He is certainly not an honorable police officer. And what kind of police supervisor allows this kind of behavior to go unpunished and uncorrected? Such a supervisor is, at best, enabling thuggish, perhaps even criminal behavior, and at worst, complicit in that behavior. And what kind of Sheriff, knowing of this kind of malfeasance on the part of his officers--and he does know of it--allows it to continue, allows it to go unpunished? Why does he not immediately and personally call--even visit--that woman and assure her that she has nothing to fear from her police force? Why does he not call a press conference and announce to the public that he has taken steps to ensure that his own officers are and always will be the protectors of the public rather than indistinguishable from those who prey upon them?

But the most damning question for the Metro Police is this: Why should such discipline, correction and assurance be necessary in the first place? How could things have ever been allowed to deteriorate so badly?

Sadly, the Police, through their campaign of thuggish, criminal harassment, are achieving at least some of their goals; people are afraid of them and many are removing Erik Scott remembrance ribbons from their vehicles recognizing that displaying them puts them at risk of chickenshit, even illegal citations or worse. It is a great tragedy, and an inexpressible outrage, that the citizens of Las Vegas may reasonably believe that their lives are at risk at the hands of their police. One wonders why the Clark County Commissioners, the elected officials who hold the ultimate power over the Metro Police--the power of the purse--apparently hear, see and do nothing about such gross abuses of power.

Wise police officers and agencies understand that having the good will and support of their citizens is crucial. They understand that even in dealing with criminals, it is foolish to harass and mistreat people. Such behavior on the part of the police builds up bad will, hatred, even the desire to engage in violence against the police. Such bad will is cumulative. It’s like a bank account that eventually grows so large that the vault can no longer contain it. When it bursts, and it will, lives--citizen and police--can be lost. Sadly, it would not be unreasonable to believe that this has been the case in Las Vegas for a very long time, that the Erik Scott case was only the most recent bursting, and that the vault continues to fill. It will burst again and again, unless affirmative and absolute steps are taken to once again restore the Metro Police to a position of trust and respect within their own community.

LAST THOUGHTS:

It has been said that there is no such thing as an ex-Marine. To a lesser degree, the same might be said of police officers. It is very unsettling to have to write as I have in these updates. As I’ve stated before, I strive to provide information and analysis that will allow people to understand the police and to better judge what may have happened in this case, and what may be happening in Las Vegas. In this effort, I am continually hampered by a lack of complete information, information that is closely held by the Metro Police, and of course, by the Scott family and their attorneys. I encourage any Metro officer or other person having pertinent information to contact me or my co-blogger, Bob Owens. If we have made any mistakes, misrepresented any fact or incident, we are anxious to learn of it and to make appropriate corrections. And, of course, we always appreciate the insights and comments of our readers.

In the communities where I worked as a police officer, virtually anyone hearing of a citizen who feared for their life at the hands of the police would have thought them paranoid, unstable, irrational. They would have thought it possible that the police might have been occasionally unreasonable, perhaps even a bit rude, but capable of threatening the lives of innocent citizens? Certainly not.

Everything I have learned--and much of that has not been reported in these updates--about the Metro Police and their relationship to their community has lead me to the belief that Las Vegas citizens may very well reasonably fear for their safety at the hands of their Police. Certainly not every officer is out of control. The majority likely are not, but when a citizen is pulled over by a Metro--or even a Henderson--officer, he or she cannot know if that officer is among the professional majority or the thuggish minority. Citizens see only a blue--or tan--suit and their impression of all officers, professional or thuggish, will be formed by their treatment by that suit. Professionals know this and act accordingly. It appears that the involved officers--far too many of them--do not.

With this in mind, one of the most tragic ironies of the Erik Scott case is that Scott’s death may be nothing more than a symptom, a periodic outbreak, of a Police disease that has long infected Las Vegas.

Jim Demented

You can’t be a fiscal conservative and not be a social conservative.

So says Jim DeMint in his latest poorly thought-out public pronouncement. It takes a special kind of arrogance, ignorance, and outright stupidity for a Senator to find a way to offend so many potential allies at once.

Americans on both sides of the political center are coming to the inevitable conclusion that our nation's current spending habits are unsustainable. There is recognition, even in the most socialist of enclaves, that government spending and growth must be curtained, else the entire nation fall.

In such an environment, a conscientious Senator that imagines himself a leader of men should have the common sense to build a coalition of as many allies as possible in order to affect the fiscal agenda so important to this Republic's viability.

But Jim DeMint isn't conscientious, or a leader of men, or, apparently, blessed with common sense.

He has now potentially damaged relations with fiscally conservative libertarians, gays, agnostics, non-Christians, and Christians like myself that are opposed to forcing our religious beliefs onto others. The Tea Party attracts people from all walks of life that simply want to be left alone. Jim DeMint reveals that he represents nothing more or less than another would-be elite, just one cut out of a slightly different cloth.

The fiscal conservatives of the Tea Party and their allies can have a major impact on this Republic, but only if they keep narrowly focused on the all-important work of fiscal reform. If any of the more traditional and fragmented groups and agendas manage to hijack the movement, then the Tea Party will lose the essential wide base of support that is needed to force both parties to reform.

We don't need you, Jim DeMint, and we don't want you telling us what we are, or what should become. Lord knows, we have enough of that coming out of Washington already.

Convict that Bankrolls Media Matters Betting to Get Rich On U.S. Collapse

And you can bet you last (devalued) dollar that Media Matters, Think Progress and all the other anti-American organizations will be cheering the entire way down.

The Fed's new action, labeled "quantitative easing" or QE2, follows a first attempt at "QE," known as QE1. QE means that the Federal Reserve is printing more money and buying more government debt. In total, according to Investor's Business Daily, "the Fed will have created $2.5 trillion out of the blue."

Diamond said the result of the Fed's policy will be to "increase the debt, devalue our currency and create a bigger problem that won't solve the crisis."

Eventually, America could "collapse under its own weight of massive debt," he warned.

The QE2 "will devalue the dollar and lead to higher commodity prices, asset and price inflation. It may even lead to the end of the U.S. dollar as the world reserve currency," Diamond predicted. He noted that Obama Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner floated the idea of the dollar losing its status as the world’s reserve currency, "only to backpedal from it when it raised some eyebrows."

"What is most troubling to me about this," Diamond added, "is that the Fed's QE2 is in alignment with George Soros's agenda to destroy global capitalism."

The decline of the dollar "is what George Soros wants and what he has proposed in the past," he noted.

Soros, the billionaire hedge fund operator who finances various leftist and Marxist groups, including Media Matters, has made his fortune by betting on the collapse of national economies and currencies. He was convicted of insider trading in France.

Soros also has no regrets about collaborating with the Nazis, so that tells you something about his moral character.

Economists try to make the "science" painfully difficult, but it really isn't complicated. Every thing has worth, and that worth will fluctuate based upon supply and demand. If the object in question (currency) is scarce and/or in high demand, the relative worth of that object increases. If that object is common/in low demand, the relative worth of that object decreases.

The Fed, acting as Soros would like, is literally printing money that is not backed by demand. That makes the value of all the other U.S currency in circulation worth less on a dollar for dollar basis. For example, a dollar today may be worth a dollar, but after the government printing presses kick and spit our $2.5 trillion dollars without much worth behind it, your dollar may be worth only $.80, or even less. By printing too much money, the government is literally robbing your salary of its worth, decreasing your purchasing power.

We talk about higher taxes and the damage that will do to American business, but I suspect that if more Americans knew what the impact was of the Obama Administration's intentional devaluation of the dollar how it hurts the majority of Americans, and who it makes rich, then riots would ensue... and with just cause.

Criminals are the Reason to Buy Handguns To Protect Your Family. Totalitarian Liberals are the Reason You Buy Battle Rifles

Thank you, Ted Rall, for proving precisely why the Founding Fathers felt so strongly about the right of the people to bear arms that they felt it second in importance only to the freedom of speech and religion.

Ted Rall and spoiled rich kid radicals like him still fashion themselves as the would-be elites, and still shrilly regard themselves as absolutely right and good, and their ideological opponents not only wrong, but evil. It is this warped belief system and imagined supremacy that has convinced Rall that you must be killed... or at least bullied into thinking you will be killed if you don't adopt or bow down to the "right" values.

It should be no surprise that his profoundly homicidal views are shared via an increasingly radicalized MSNBC. Nor should it be surprising that his rhetoric mirrors that of some of the most dehumanizing rhetoric of the most blood-soaked totalitarian regimes of the past century.

Update: With tedious predictability, totalitarian leftists are coming over, attempting to claim that posts I've written in the past also advocate violence. As usual, they can only make such claims by taking my comments out of context or purposefully misinterpreting them. Their shared intellectual rot is so pronounced that I wrote this post months ago to address their willful ignorance.

The Post-Responsibility President

Mr. Obama has diagnosed the problem, the malady that caused his electoral faux-Greek columns to collapse: It was all a failure of messaging. Well, at least he has taken some meaningless faux-responsibility. Yet, even in this, he is in the process or transformation. He is, as he is so fond of saying, moving America forward, making progress. Until his recent admission on 60 Minutes, it was George W. Bush’s fault. Everything. All of it. You name it, he did it. Then (actually, more or less simultaneously) it was the fault of the American people, the bastards. Too fearful and stupid, one and all, to understand the brilliance of the scientific, factual communists who rule them. Ingrates, every man, woman and child, unable to be properly grateful for the bounty bestowed upon them by The One.

But now, at long last, Mr. Obama has it. The problem is, finally, absolutely, wait for it...the messaging! It is true that this explanation has been periodically trotted out, only to be quickly flattened like a shooting gallery target, but this time Mr. Obama appears to have settled on it. It is at least a grudging, tacit admission that we, the people are possibly sane and smart enough to understand and accept the brilliance and majesty that is Barack Obama, his policies and all of those who worship him if only he would formulate and speak the correct message! Forget the endless speeches and press releases, forget that Barack Obama is the single most over-exposed President in history, nay, should America persist to a trillion generations, the most over exposed President in perpetuity, all Mr. Obama need do is trot out the proper message and the scales will fall from the eyes of the electorate. Is it not fitting that the subjects of The One should be healed if only he spake the word?

Herein lies, as plain as the peasant noses on our dull, collective, ungrateful faces, the answer to a question that seems to perpetually vex the chattering classes: Will Obama change course and tack toward the center? Of course not. There are two primary reasons, reasons that rely upon science and fact (of course), that explain what seems so difficult for the intelligentsia to understand.

It can, no doubt be proved by means of countless studies in the fields of sociology, biology, and particularly, psychology, that one can only change a lightbulb if the lightbulb really wants to change. In this case, Barack Obama, the embodiment of hope and change, cannot change, will not change, unless he recognizes that his policies have failed and that change is, therefore, required. Mr. Obama acknowledges only (without actually saying it, of course) that perhaps we are a little brighter than he thought and he will labor to craft the correct message that will trigger the proper receptors in our reptilian brains, forcing us to embrace him and his ideas, which is his destiny.

The second, and larger issue is that Mr. Obama is a committed socialist/communist. Even Mr. Obama’s two (?! Don’t get me started...) autobiographies clearly outline his lifelong communist mentoring, education, friendships and associations. As a true believer, he cannot admit error or failure, for the socialist path never ends, is inevitable and non-falsifiable. Anyone who believes that socialist policies are failing is mistaken. The problem, the only problem, is that insufficient socialism has been envisioned and/or applied. Thus the only possible solution to any mistakenly perceived problem is the application of more and more fervent socialism.

But wait--as an informercial would say--there’s more! Mr. Obama is a narcissist of epic, heretofore unseen, proportions. As such, the recognition of personal failure or error is a virtual impossibility. Hyperbole? Consider this quote by Obama advisor Valerie Jarrett from “The Bridge,” an Obama biography by David Remnick: “I think Barack knew that he had God-given talents that were extraordinary. He knows exactly how smart he is...and I think he has never really been challenged intellectually...somebody with such extraordinary talents that had to be really taxed in order for him to be happy...He’s been bored to death his whole life. He’s just too talented to do what ordinary people do.” No doubt Mr. Obama, upon hearing such fulsome praise, immediately blushed and bade Ms. Jarrett tone it down. Hey! I just saw a flying pig!

Imagine a man who has never held a real job, has never had to keep regular hours while working for his living, yet has enjoyed every benefit America has to offer: Exceptional educational opportunities, mentors and supporters willing to extend not only social connections but substantial cash to his upkeep and advancement, and slavering worshippers who cannot praise him enough. Imagine a man who has never had to endure the rigors of accepting or discharging responsibility. Recall, please how Mr. Obama and his advisors, shortly after his ascension to the minor office of the presidency, which is no doubt terribly boring, complained that they really hadn’t anticipated how, you know, like, hard it was. I mean, long hours, governing and people complaining and stuff, geez!

And so Mr. Obama has adopted socialist foreign policy as American domestic policy: If one talks to the enemy, that is, in and of itself, a transformative, real accomplishment. Mr. Obama has recently revealed that the American public is the enemy, and he is now contemplating how best to talk to it. He was the post-racial president, the post-American president, and he has nearly transcended all “posts” to become the post-responsibility president, a man who need no longer be bothered by doing, but merely by speaking.

A nation of enemies breathlessly awaits the messaging.

UPDATE ON 11-10-10: Several readers have taken me to task for suggesting that Mr. Obama is a socialist/communist. It is, as others have observed, remarkable that many of those who identify themselves as socialists and agree, in significant ways, with Mr. Obama's policies, bridle when Mr. Obama is identified as a socialist. In making such statements, bloggers must rely upon known evidence, and in Mr. Obama's case, it is considerable and of long standing. May I suggest reference to Stanley Kurtz's new book on Mr. Obama's long socialist pedigree, and for more handy and brief reference, a posting only today on the excellent Powerline blog on the same topic. No doubt there are various flavors of socialism/communism and true believers and gatekeepers may consider such matters of some importance. But among the unmistakable strategies of socialists are denying socialist intent, attacking anyone who identifies it, and keeping their long term agenda hidden as part and parcel of achieving their eventual socialist goals. Many American socialists, being rather unsophisticated and inexperienced and realizing that most Americans have little patience for socialism, have actually made the mistake of making explicit that strategy in discussing the eventual goals of Obamacare which include driving private insurance firms out of the market to pave the way for a socialist single payer system, which Mr. Obama himself has, on more than one occasion, expressed his explicit desire to achieve. In brief, when one is up to one's hips in a socialist snake pit, they need not wonder what all the hissing is about. Communists are merely a more generally murderous version of socialists.

I Know... Bad Blogger, No Donut

I apologize to my regular readers for the long dry spell, but I've been busy *gasp* having a life, spending time with my family, focusing on a major project at work (no, I don't blog for a living), and spending what little time I have left in the day trying to complete a personal project I started a coupe of weeks. ago.

Unless there are unexpected surprises, I should be back in action Wednesday.

Felon Gun Story Correction

Counsel for Lee Booth asked for a retraction of the Pajamas Media article, Felons Can't Own Guns. So How Did This Guy Acquire Three … Gun Companies?

Here are the corrections.

Light Blogging Again

We've got a big push going on a my day job and I'm dedicating my evenings to another project, so blogging will probably be lightish again the next few days.

I do have some thoughts brewing about the election and where we go from here, and I'll get that up as soon as I have the time.

Election Tweeting

Returns are coming in too fast to blog, so check out the CY Twitter page for snarky, 140 characters or less coverage.

Vote

Left my house to vote at 8:04 and was back home by 8:16. Granted, my polling place is literally around the corner, but it seems that so many people took the early voting option that there was no line and no wait.

Folks, voting is not going to be a hassle. No excuses. Get out there, and make the change you need.

On What Comes After

Conservatives have been joking for quite a while now that we "can see November from our house!"

Well, I'm looking a the calendar, and November is here.

A lot of my fellow pundits are going to make predictions on what they think the outcome of tomorrow's elections will be, hoping that they will hit the mark and gain some credibility for their precision, when what happens tomorrow at this point is nothing but a SWAG.

I'll leave the prognosticating to the man I think is best at it, my fellow North Carolinian (and a very nice guy) Scott Elliott. He'll have his final numbers up soon (and they may be up by the time you read this).

I'll shock precisely no one when I tell you that if I was betting on the election I would bet heavily on the Republicans, but I might surprise a few if I told you the specific final results of the elections don't mean that much to me.

I'm certain we can count on our would-be betters in the MFM to throw some digital chicken bones on the floor screen in a lame attempt to declare that they understand the divine meaning of the ballots cast, but you know better.

This election is about one thing, and one thing only... trust. When it comes down to it, that is what all elections are about. Which candidate or party do I trust to make the big decisions that will affect the country for the next few years? Which party can we trust with our nation's economy? Our security? Our history? Our future?

In the 2006 and 2008 elections—and with quite a bit of help from the MFM—voters went to the poll and decided the nation's future would be be run by the elitist far-left wing of the Democratic party.

Well, we've had our liberal Congress. We've had our liberal Senate. And we have a liberal President that would rather bow to foreign dignitaries or talk to half-empty college auditoriums or play golf or watch ESPN than actually lead a nation desperate for real leadership.

But when the leaders fail, the people will lead. It's what Americans have always done, since before we thought of ourselves as "Americans."

It is a beautiful accident of our collective DNA that we are populated by people always looking for a fresh start and more opportunity, who never quit, and who refuse to be told they can't do more, have more, dream more, and be more.

And so tomorrow will end, I suspect, with Republicans firmly in control of Congress, possibly in control of the Senate, and facing one of the most bitterly partisan Presidents in living memory and his rabid followers in the press.

If history is any guide, the professional Republicans will declare themselves as riding a mandate from the people, which they will them immediately scuttle as they return to being the other craven party of Beltway elitists that helped get us into this present predicament.

And so I would remind my fellow fiscal conservatives—which at this point should be all Americans—that when the smoke clears tomorrow, the campaign against the Republican Party and what remains of the Democratic Party begins in earnest.

The Tea Party drove this election, and attracts the sympathies of a growing number of Americans because it found the common ground we must share and exploit if we are to weather the tough times ahead and come out of this worldwide financial crisis still holding our heads high as a nation.

We cannot allow the GOP Elite or the RNC or the pundit class or social conservatives to hijack and divide a movement built upon a promise of returning to the first principles of small government.

That means ending entitlements. That means removing withered social safety nets already collapsing from their own rot. That means reconsidering how we live as individuals and families, and if we are really better off being a nation of reckless, overextended consumers.

I hate to sound dour. Perhaps you, like many people we know, have already rediscovered people as a far more rewarding way to spend your time. You don't miss much when you miss today's Hollywood's movies, just special effects unable to cover the absence of a plot.

In some ways austerity helps up refocus on those things that are really important, even if the adjustment was uncomfortable or even sometimes traumatic.

Our bloated government, far too large and unhealthy for its own good (or ours) similarly needs to go through a period of adjustment, belt-tightening, and refocusing, so that it, too, focuses on "We, the People" yet again.

But that will not happen.

Or at least it won't happen if won't continue to grow the movement for small government fiscal conservatism, if we don't continue to pressure the old guard and support the newly victorious US we're sending to Washington.

We can't let ourselves get distracted, or greedy, or preachy, or too proud.

The hard work of rediscovering and rebuilding America begins with sweeping up the ticker-tape.

Let's roll.

Allegations of Voter Fraud Continue In North Carolina

In the North Carolina early voting, a growing number of Republican and Democrat voters reported that when they voted a straight Republican ticket, their votes were flipped to Democrat in North Carolina in numerous precincts by a default setting that came up and flipped the ballot to straight Democrat as their hand was moved half way down the touch screen.

Shocking, the Board of Elections is dismissing these complaints, even though the voting machine problem is consistently turning Republican votes into Democrat votes.

Thanks to near constant polling by a number of organizations we can ascertain what the outcome of the elections should be once the votes are counted, and if the Democrats take seats all data suggests they should lose, then these elections must be contested.

In the meantime, I'd suggest that voters in both parties select their candidates individually instead of relying up the straight party ticket option.

Yeah... I Miss Him

I disagreed with some of the things George Bush done in office, but one thing I've never questioned is his utter and complete love of this nation.

I wish I could say the same about the current President.