August 2014 – Page 3 – A Geek With Guns

Victim Blaming

With all of the shit hitting the fan in Ferguson I think it’s a good idea to figure out what one needs to do in order to not get their ass kicked or shot by the police. Fortunately Sunil Dutta, a man who was an officer for the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) for 17 years, was kind enough to pen an article explaining exactly that:

Sometimes, though, no amount of persuasion or warnings work on a belligerent person; that’s when cops have to use force, and the results can be tragic. We are still learning what transpired between Officer Darren Wilson and Brown, but in most cases it’s less ambiguous — and officers are rarely at fault. When they use force, they are defending their, or the public’s, safety.

Even though it might sound harsh and impolitic, here is the bottom line: if you don’t want to get shot, tased, pepper-sprayed, struck with a baton or thrown to the ground, just do what I tell you. Don’t argue with me, don’t call me names, don’t tell me that I can’t stop you, don’t say I’m a racist pig, don’t threaten that you’ll sue me and take away my badge. Don’t scream at me that you pay my salary, and don’t even think of aggressively walking towards me. Most field stops are complete in minutes. How difficult is it to cooperate for that long?

Emphasis mine. Did you get that? If an officer uses force, in a majority of cases, it’s the victim’s fault. You see the victim refused to roll over and be an obedient serf so the officer had no other choice but to beat his ass or shoot him! After all police officers truly love us and sometimes we make them do violent things by failing to properly respond to their love. Admittedly there are a few bad apples out there but for the most part cops only beat you because they love you.

Talk about unapologetic victim blaming. Mr. Dutta’s argument can basically be summed up as “Shut up, slave!” It doesn’t surprise me that a 17 year veteran of the LAPD holds this attitude. Although no statistics exist, as far as I know, documenting the reason for police interactions I believe, based on the way laws are enforced, that a vast majority of encounters involve the officer initiating force. A majority of police activity involves extorting money from the populace. We see this in the form of speeding tickets, parking citations, civil forfeitures, fines for drinking alcohol in public parks, littering, and other nonviolent acts. In each of those instances a police officer is approaching a nonviolent individual and threatening them with force (because all laws are ultimately enforced at the point of a gun). In those cases the person approached by police is the victim and the officer is the aggressor.

There is no reason, other than the threat of violence made by an officer, for anybody to be polite to a another person who approaches solely to make a threat. In fact anybody making threats should expect to get an impolite response. Police officers are fortunate that most Americans are polite to a fault. Even when an officer threatens a person that person will usually say a few harsh words, passively resist being kidnapped, or spit in an officer’s face. While police officers often talk about how dangerous their job is in reality they have it pretty easy in this country. Only once in a great while do they have to make good on their threats. Otherwise people blow off a little steam and pay the demanded extortion money.

But, as Mr. Dutta points out, even if your show the slightest amount of displeasure towards a badge-wearing aggressor you risk being pummeled or murdered. And this is somehow the victim’s fault.

I Wonder Where Their Reputation Comes From

More and more modern police departments are getting a reputation for being little more than violent thugs with badges. After reading some of the statements posted by police officers in regard to the Michael Brown shooting it’s pretty easy to see where that reputation stems from. For example, take a look at this gem I came across on Facebook:

Even though the facts aren’t in about what exactly went down this fine officer openly states that he would have tripped up Brown just so he could beat the shit out of him. Additionally he admitted to the fact that he wouldn’t stop until his fellow officers pulled him off of Brown (or, I assume, after Brown ceased living).

Social media has given us access to a treasure trove of information including how many people working for the state really think.

The Angry Mob Has Arrived

A lot of people have been debating whether or not Michael Brown robbed a story and how that justified Darren Wilson’s actions. I feel as though that argument misses the big picture, which is how the situation in Ferguson has been handled by police. To say it was handled stupidly would be giving too much credit Ferguson’s law enforcement. Roughing up and arresting reporters, tear gassing news camera crews, arresting photographers, and tear gassing nonviolent protesters is not a good way to handle civil unrest generated by a general feeling of police corruption. Keeping the name of the officer who shot Brown secret for so long didn’t help matters nor has the secrecy surrounding the internal investigation.

The people of Ferguson are pissed and when the angry mob rises it comes knocking. Protesters apparently tried to storm Governor Nixon’s office yesterday. That doesn’t surprise me but the fact that the building’s security was able to keep the angry mob out does.

In all likelihood this situation is going to burn itself out soon. Riots have a habit of simmering down fairly fast, which is why they’re seldom effective at enacting any meaningful change. But the National Guard could always decided to follow in the steps of the previous law enforcement officers tasked with putting Ferguson back under the state’s foot and bring this entire mass to the flashpoint again. It will be interesting to see how this entire situation turns out. My guess is that the internal investigation, that is to say Wilson’s fellows in the state’s police force, will find no wrongdoing on Wilson’s part. That’s the usual outcome of these investigations. If that happens things could get really interesting.

A Metal Funeral for a Metal Man

Earlier this year the great Oderus Urungus, the now former lead singer of GWAR, left us. It was a sad day for the metal community as Oderus brought us so much quality entertainment. But two days ago he was given an appropriate funeral:

This past Saturday, August 16, the vocalist was given his second memorial service, which entailed sending out his costume on a raft filled with various offerings into the middle of Hadad’s Lake in Virginia, and setting it ablaze with a flaming arrow. The band’s annual Gwar-B-Q took place following the public memorial service.

Fucking metal! May Valkyries carry his spirit to Valhalla so he can do battle against the enemies of metal! By the way, this is what I want for my funeral.

Betsy Hodges Puts Forward a Stupid Proposition

Betsy Hodges is the current mayor of Minneapolis. Those familiar with her probably read the title and said “No duh.” She’s a statist, which means she frequently makes stupid propositions. But her budget proposal really takes the cake. Specifically:

The most significant new spending is in the area of public safety. Hodges wants to spend nearly $2 million to hire 20 community service officers and an 18-person police cadet class, two of the most reliable feeders for the city’s police force. To drive down crime, she wants to boost the number of officers to 860, which is above last year’s budget but equal to the figure Chief Janeé Harteau has said she hopes to reach by the end of the year.

In the name of public safety she wants to add more people to the ranks of Minneapolis’s most violent gang. Talk about failing to understand the problem. The Minneapolis Police Department has a colorful history but even if you put that aside it still performs a lot of crime. For example, it guns down family pets. When it’s not performing raids on suspected drug users so it can confiscate their property (thankfully that’s slightly harder in Minnesota now). Minneapolis’s finest also find time to write a massive number of parking and traffic citations. And the department has a lot of connections with local business, which it helps drum up business for (my friend recently had his motorcycle stolen and Minneapolis Police Department made him pay to get it out of the impound yard after finding it).

What’s especially ironic about her proposal is that she knows that the city’s police officers are trouble:

Hodges wants to spend $1.1 million for police to wear body cameras, a program she trumpeted during her campaign that she hopes will reduce use-of-force complaints.

I’m all for making police departments wear cameras so long as the footage is always available to the public and cannot be tossed down the memory hole by government officials. But her proposal to make Minneapolis’s most violent gang members wear cameras is also an admittance to the fact that the department has a lot of use-of-force complaints against it. She knows the department has a history of unnecessary violence yet she still wants to provide it more funding to hire more thugs.

If Hodges really wanted to reduce crime she would either reduce the number of criminals in city’s officially sanctioned gang or, preferable, disband the department entirely and allow the market to fill the demand for protective services (something the Minneapolis Police Department doesn’t seem to focus on at all).

Wolf Blitzer Demonstrates That He Doesn’t Understand Firearms Use of Force

Wolf Blitzer has never stuck me as a particularly intelligent man. No intelligent man would willingly stay on board the sinking ship that is CNN. Then again he could still be there simply because nobody else will take him. Either way he decided to demonstrate his lack of intelligence by asking why police officers shoot to kill:

Blitzer’s questions arose during a discussion on the unfurling conflict in Ferguson, Mo. over the fatal police shooting of unarmed teenager Michael Brown.

“They often shoot to kill,” Blitzer said of police. “Why do they have to shoot to kill? Why can’t they shoot a warning shot in the air, scare someone off if they think they’re in danger. Why can’t they shoot to, injure, shall we say? Why do they have to shoot to kill?”

Toobin said police are trained to “never fire a warning shot” and to “never fire a shot to injure.” He explained that if police fire their guns, they must “accept the risk” that they are “gonna kill somebody.” Adding that: “If you are not prepared to kill someone, don’t fire the gun.”

A firearm is considered a deadly force weapon and for good reason, they cause major bodily harm that can lead to death. Using deadly force is only acceptable in most areas if there is an immediate risk of great bodily harm or death. If anybody, whether they be a police officer or a peaceful human being, doesn’t feel that they are in immediate risk of great bodily harm or death they shouldn’t be employing a firearm in any way.

But what’s the harm in firing a shot into the air? The fact that Blitzer even asked that proves that he doesn’t understand how a firearm works. What goes up must come down (unless it achieves enough velocity to escape the effects of gravity but no man portable weapon can do that yet). If you fire a shot into the air the damn bullet has to come down somewhere and there is no practical way for the shooter to know where in the hell the bullet is going to land. It may land in an empty parking lot or it may land of grandma’s head. And attempting to inure somebody with a deadly weapon is really fucking stupid. Even if you put a hole in somebody’s extremity they still risk the possibility of bleeding out. It’s the same risk somebody would face if you ran a javelin through them.

The reason use of force continuums usually discourage using deadly force weapons for any situation not needed deadly force is because employing a deadly force weapon necessarily makes the situation potentially deadly. This isn’t rock science, it’s common sense. If a police officer needs to scare somebody they can grab a baton and extend it.

Another Good Reason to Not Vote

Besides statistical reasons there is now another good reason to not vote. As the number of people who show up to polling places goes down the need to entice voters will go up. After all a democratic state’s “legitimacy” depends entirely on people voting. If the number of voters gets low enough the state will become desperate to maintain its legitimacy and attempt to buy voters’ participation:

Alarmed that fewer than one-fourth of voters are showing up for municipal elections, the Los Angeles Ethics Commission voted Thursday to recommend that the City Council look at using cash prizes to lure a greater number of people to the polls.

On a 3-0 vote, the panel said it wanted City Council President Herb Wesson’s Rules, Elections and Intergovernmental Relations Committee to seriously consider the use of financial incentives and a random drawing during its elections, possibly as soon as next year.

Los Angeles may be a preview of things to come. The number of people participating in this sham called democracy has been steadily decreasing. In Los Angeles there are so few participants that the City Council is entertaining the idea of bribing people to show up to the polling places. Imagine if the rest of the country follow suit. It could lead to voting becoming a productive activity as state agents, in their desperation to appear legitimate, begin to offer us money just to show up to polling places from time to time.

All we need to do is hold out and the state may give us some of the money it stole from us back.

Monday Metal: The Call of the Mountains by Eluveitie

So Eluveitie’s new album has been released and it’s awesome (as expected). As part of the album release the band also recorded a new music video for, what I believe to be, the best song on the album (although I’m not terribly happy that the “bonus” tracks were just this song recorded in several different languages but whatever). In addition to being a great song this video also has a lot of Anna Murphy, which is always appreciated:

Who Rules America

Are you sitting down? If you’re not you should be before reading further because I’ve got some news that will shatter your reality:

A shattering new study by two political science professors has found that ordinary Americans have virtually no impact whatsoever on the making of national policy in our country. The analysts found that rich individuals and business-controlled interest groups largely shape policy outcomes in the United States.

The new study, with the jaw-clenching title of “Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens,” is forthcoming in the fall 2014 edition of Perspectives on Politics. Its authors, Martin Gilens of Princeton University and Benjamin Page of Northwestern University, examined survey data on 1,779 national policy issues for which they could gauge the preferences of average citizens, economic elites, mass-based interest groups and business-dominated interest groups. They used statistical methods to determine the influence of each of these four groups on policy outcomes, including both policies that are adopted and rejected.

The analysts found that when controlling for the power of economic elites and organized interest groups, the influence of ordinary Americans registers at a “non-significant, near-zero level.“

Ho. Ly. Shit. You mean to tell me that economic elites and organized interest groups basically own the government? Mind. Blown.

I can’t believe it! Somebody actually had to do a study to figure this out? It wasn’t at all obvious that the people of the United States have had effectively no say in their government for the last several decades (I would argue since the government’s inception but I’ll be conservative for the sake of this post). Like all men are created equal, the fact that we have no say in our government is self-evident. Without much effort you can usually figure out what special interest group bought a law even when most Americans opposed it.

It’s still nice to see more people pointing this fact out since there are a lot of people who don’t seem to realize it.

Highway Patrol Placed in Charge of Ferguson, Missouri

I guess the police operating in Ferguson went too far when they roughed up and arrested a few reporters because, well, that’s how you get reporters to cover your police state shenanigans. Now that the press is actually covering Ferguson the governor of Missouri has decided to finally step in and make it appear as though he cares by ordering the Highway Patrol to deal with the civil unrest:

Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon on Thursday ordered the state Highway Patrol to take over security in Ferguson, the St. Louis suburb roiled by four nights of unrest over the police killing of an unarmed black teenager.

The governor moved after police came under intense criticism for their handling of the protests, including firing tear gas into crowds Wednesday night and arresting two reporters.

Now the Highway Patrol can come in looking like liberators:

Highway Patrol officers — wearing no SWAT gear — arrived in Ferguson late Thursday afternoon. Cheers greeted the announcement by the head of the patrol, Capt. Ron Johnson, over a megaphone that he and his officers were “going to march with you.”

In reality this will merely ensure that the police officers who committed violent acts against nonviolent people will go unpunished. The people of Ferguson will jump for joy that they have been liberated from the oppressive Special Weapons And Tactics (SWAT) teams and forget that those bastards should be locked in a cage like any other violent gang member. It’s a wonderful ploy that probably saved the SWAT team members’ asses.

If Mr. Nixon really gave a damn about the people of Ferguson he would have ordered the Highway Patrol to arrest every SWAT team member involved in perpetrating violence on nonviolent individuals.