Month: July 2016

Do You Believe Being Armed is a Cultural Norm or Not

The Star Tribune has stated that it received confirmation that Philando Castile had a carry permit. Being a permit holder added a unique element to his death because it necessarily means that he had a clean record (no felonies, no history of domestic abuse, etc.). Having a clean record means the boot lickers couldn’t justify the shooting by citing the victim’s history. Instead many of them are claiming that Castile didn’t put his hands on the steering wheel when he was pulled over which in combination with being armed justified the officer’s supposed fear for his life. What’s funny is that many of the people making this argument also claim to be pro-gun.

This is one of my favorite instances of cognitive dissonance. Gun rights advocates usually argue that being armed isn’t threatening in of itself. In fact they often scoff whenever an anti-gunners claims to be in fear for their lives when they see somebody who is armed. These gun rights advocates usually also argue that being armed should be a cultural norm. I agree with both sentiments. However, where I diverge from many supposed gun rights advocates is that my belief doesn’t give an exception to anybody wearing a badge.

Does somebody have grounds to be afraid for their life just because the see somebody else who is armed? If you don’t believe they do then why should an officer be justified in fearing for their life just because they’re interacting with somebody who is armed? It can’t be both ways, which is something a lot of supposedly pro-gun people fail to realize.

As I said, I personally believe being armed in of itself is not threatening behavior and I believe being armed should be a cultural norm. This also means that I don’t believe police officers have grounds to get all “Officer safety! My life is on the line!” just because they’re interacting with somebody who is armed.
You shouldn’t have to expect an officer to treat you any differently if you’re armed than if you’re unarmed. Being armed and not immediately taking a submissive position when being pulled over also shouldn’t justification for an officer to shoot you. People who claim to be supporters of gun rights and also believe that officers are justified in being afraid for their lives just because they’re interacting with somebody who are really anti-gunners who don’t realize it.

Another Man Shot Dead by The Police

The polices’ war on the people continues. This time a supposedly broken taillight initiated a series of events that ended in another black man’s execution. What makes this situation stranger is that the victim, Philando Castile, supposedly held a valid carry permit and was legally armed. Supposedly Castile had his hands on the steering wheel and informed the officer that he had a valid carry permit and was armed. At that point the officer is said to have demanded his identification and permit. When Castile moved his hands to comply with the officer’s demand the officer shot him:

A St. Paul man died Wednesday night after being shot by police in Falcon Heights, the immediate aftermath of which was shown in a video recorded by the man’s girlfriend as she sat next to him and which was widely shared on Facebook.

[…]

The girlfriend said on the video that the officer “asked him for license and registration. He told him that it was in his wallet, but he had a pistol on him because he’s licensed to carry. The officer said don’t move. As he was putting his hands back up, the officer shot him in the arm four or five times.”

The video shows a uniformed police officer holding a pistol on the couple from outside the car. The officer can be heard to say, “I told him not to reach for it. I told him to get his hand out.”

The video, unfortunately, only shows the aftermath of the shooting. But based on the officer’s statements in the video it’s clear Castile didn’t pose an immediate threat as he didn’t have a weapon in hand. Was he shot because the officer gave conflicting orders or because he failed to get into a submissive position fast enough? We can’t be sure but neither act is worthy of execution.

It’s also important to note that both the woman recording the video, Diamond Reynolds, and a young girl, assumed to be Reynolds’ 7-year-old daughter, were in the car when the officer shot Castile. Even when it was clear that Castile was incapacitated the officer aimed his gun into the car again when he was yelling at the camera claiming he told Castile not to reach for his permit. The officer appears to have no concern for the safety of the bystanders, which should give everybody cause for concern.

Finally, as if the officer was purposely trying to make the situation as bad as possible, Reynolds is ordered out of the car, handcuffed, and kidnapped. Why was she kidnapped? If I were to hazard a guess it was because she was collecting evidence that could incriminate the trigger happy officer who is probably desperate to sweep this entire matter under the rug.

While there are some questions regarding the events that lead up to the shooting we do know that Castile is dead because an officer claimed to have seen a broken taillight. Let that sink in. A man was killed because a pathetic municipal revenue generator either saw or fabricated a chance to write a citation for a few bucks. There is no justification for executing a man over a few dollars. Every law is a death threat.

All Laws are Backed by the Threat of Death

When somebody says, “There ought to be a law.” you should ask if they really want people to die for breaking that law. The fact that all laws are backed with the implicit threat of death is best illustrated by the recent rash of shootings committed by officers. Many of these shootings start because officers initiated contact over a petty offense:

There is still no comprehensive study to determine just how many cities pay their bills by indenturing the poor, but it is probably no coincidence that when you examine the recent rash of police killings, you find that the offenses they were initially stopped for were preposterously minor. Bland’s lane change signal, DuBose’s missing plate. Walter Scott had that busted taillight—which, we all later learned, is not even a crime in South Carolina. Eric Garner was selling loose cigarettes. When Darren Wilson was called to look into a robbery, the reason he initially stopped Michael Brown was for walking in the street—in Ferguson, an illegal act according to Section 44-344 of the local code. Between 2011 and 2013, 95 percent of the perpetrators of this atrocity were African American, meaning that “walking while black” is not a punch line. It is a crime.

Failing to signal before a turn, having a nonfunctional taillight, and walking in the street should not be punishable by death. But when those acts are declared law they automatically elevate from minor nuisances to execution worthy acts. The Mother Jones article explains how turning police officers into revenue generators has exacerbated the problem of officer related violence. However, there is a more fundamental issue at hand. Interactions with police officers are never voluntary. One side, the officer, wields all of the power while the other side, the suspect, has no power whatsoever.

When a police officer turns on their attention whore lights you must get out of their way. If they’re turning on the lights because they’ve targeted you then you must pull over and, if you’re smart, place your hands on the top of the steering wheel. During the encounter you cannot drive away until you’re given permission to do so. You also cannot legally defend yourself in most cases if the officer escalates the situation to violence. If you fail to pull over, drive away, or defend yourself it is considered a crime and more men with guns will be sent to hunt you down. In other words, voluntarily disassociating with an officer who isn’t to your liking is a possible death sentence. Under such circumstances the officer has no motivation to treat you decently.

Like You and Me, Only Better

Hypothetically speaking, let’s say you’re in a position where you handle classified data. Through your own actions this data is handled improperly. What do you expect will happen when the higher up find out? If you’re a contractor for an organization that is illegally spying on every American and you improperly handle the data to blow the whistle you will end up exiled in Russia. On the other hand, if you’re a presidential candidate who is married to a former president you’ll have the head of the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) recommending charges not be pressed against you:

Good morning. I’m here to give you an update on the FBI’s investigation of Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail system during her time as Secretary of State.

After a tremendous amount of work over the last year, the FBI is completing its investigation and referring the case to the Department of Justice for a prosecutive decision. What I would like to do today is tell you three things: what we did; what we found; and what we are recommending to the Department of Justice.

[…]

As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.

It’s good to be better than everybody else. What makes this decision interesting isn’t the decision itself; because let’s face it, we all expected this outcome; it’s the brief moment of honesty displayed by FBI Directory Comey:

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.

He flat out admitted that they were giving Clinton extra special treatment. In cases such as Edward Snowden’s the FBI would likely recommend summary execution but in cases involving people whose last name is Clinton it is recommended that no consequences befall the law breaker.

It used to be that the State would at least hold a meaningless public display of reprimand when one of its own did something like this. But more and more the State is moving away from the facade of everybody being equal under the law and outright admitting that some animals are more equal than others. Part of me appreciates this honesty but another part of me knows where this kind of behavior leads and it’s a damn dark place.

Watch Our Brave Boys in Blue Defend Themselves Against a Pinned Down and Helpless Man

It’s a day ending in “y”, which means police officers somewhere in the United States gunned down a man whose only crime was having a complexion darker than mine. But this time some high quality video has surfaced that leaves little doubt that the act was little more than a summary execution (obviously the video is graphic as it involves somebody being gunned down at point blank range):

The new video shows officers Blane Salamoni and Howie Lake II on top of Alton Sterling, threatening him not to move. One of the officers is seen with his gun drawn and pointed directly at Sterling’s head, then the camera pans away when shots are fired. After the camera pans back to Sterling, he’s seen struggling to breathe with a massive gunshot wound in his chest. The officer is still pointing his gun at Sterling, while his partner grabs an unidentified object from Sterling’s pocket.

The suspect, Alton Sterling, was lying on his back. One officer was on top of him, pinning his body down. The other office was pinning his left arm down with his legs. His other arm was stuck under the bumper of the car. From this position the officer pinning Sterling’s left arm apparently felt his life was in immediate danger because he drew his pistol and put it over Sterling’s chest. Shortly after drawing his pistol he fires into Sterling’s chest.

As expected, the neocon news sources have jumped into action and dug up as much dirt on Sterling as they could find in some strange attempt to justify the shooting. Of course none of what they present matters. Whether Sterling was a gang member, a felon, or even a pedophile is irrelevant in a self-use of force situation. What matters in a use of force situation is whether the threat at the time of the situation warranted the amount of force that was used.

The officer drew his gun, which a regular person like you or me could only legally do if we had a reasonable belief that we were in immediate danger of great bodily harm or death. I can’t see how the officer could reasonable believe that with the suspect immobilized on the ground. Even if Sterling was armed he wasn’t in a position where he could retrieve his weapon and use it. Those are the facts that matter in this case. Sterling’s past is entirely irrelevant. But some people hold a misguided belief that all police officers are heroes and will therefore go to any lengths and twist logic in any way to justify what would be unjustifiable if the perpetrator wasn’t wearing a badge.

Until society overcomes its hero worship of police officers and begins to focus solely on the facts the scourge of abusive officers will remain unaddressed. As long as the issue remains unaddressed innocent people will continue to die and the hands of almost entirely unaccountable officers.

All Full-Disk Encryption isn’t Created Equal

For a while I’ve been guarded when recommending Android devices to friends. The only devices I’ve been willing to recommend are those like the Google Nexus line that receive regular security updates in a timely manner. However, after this little fiasco I don’t know if I’m willing to recommend any Android device anymore:

Privacy advocates take note: Android’s full-disk encryption just got dramatically easier to defeat on devices that use chips from semiconductor maker Qualcomm, thanks to new research that reveals several methods to extract crypto keys off of a locked handset. Those methods include publicly available attack code that works against an estimated 37 percent of enterprise users.

A blog post published Thursday revealed that in stark contrast to the iPhone’s iOS, Qualcomm-powered Android devices store the disk encryption keys in software. That leaves the keys vulnerable to a variety of attacks that can pull a key off a device. From there, the key can be loaded onto a server cluster, field-programmable gate array, or supercomputer that has been optimized for super-fast password cracking.

[…]

Beniamini’s research highlights several other previously overlooked disk-encryption weaknesses in Qualcomm-based Android devices. Since the key resides in software, it likely can be extracted using other vulnerabilities that have yet to be made public. Beyond hacks, Beniamini said the design makes it possible for phone manufacturers to assist law enforcement agencies in unlocking an encrypted device. Since the key is available to TrustZone, the hardware makers can simply create and sign a TrustZone image that extracts what are known as the keymaster keys. Those keys can then be flashed to the target device. (Beniamini’s post originally speculated QualComm also had the ability to create and sign such an image, but the Qualcomm spokeswoman disputed this claim and said only manufacturers have this capability.)

Apple designed its full-disk encryption on iOS very well. Each iOS device has a unique key referred to as the device’s UID that is mixed with whatever password you enter. In order to brute force the encryption key you need both the password and the device’s UID, which is difficult to extract. Qualcomm-based devices rely on a less secure scheme.

But this problem has two parts. The first part is the vulnerability itself. Full-disk encryption isn’t a novel idea. Scheme for properly implementing full-disk encryption have been around for a while now. Qualcomm not following those schemes puts into question the security of any of their devices. Now recommending a device involves both ensuring the handset manufacturers releases updates in a timely manner and isn’t using a Qualcomm chipset. The second part is the usual Android problem of security patch availability being hit or miss:

But researchers from two-factor authentication service Duo Security told Ars that an estimated 37 percent of all the Android phones that use the Duo app remain susceptible to the attack because they have yet to receive the patches. The lack of updates is the result of restrictions imposed by manufacturers or carriers that prevent end users from installing updates released by Google.

Apple was smart when it refused to allow the carriers to be involved in the firmware of iOS devices. Since Apple controls iOS with an iron fist it also prevents hardware manufacturers from interfering with the availability of iOS updates. Google wanted a more open platform, which is commendable. However, Google failed to maintain any real control over Android, which has left uses at the mercy of the handset manufacturers. Google would have been smart to restrict the availability of its proprietary applications to manufacturers who make their handsets to pull Android updates directly from Google.

How the State Uses Donations for the Homeless

When you donate funds to a small charity organization that specializes in assisting the homeless there’s a decent chance that those funds will go to help the homeless. When you donate funds to the State for the purpose of assisting the homeless there’s a decent change that those funds will be used to make the lives of homeless individuals more miserable:

DENVER (CBS4)– A CBS4 Investigation has found that the City of Denver used thousands of dollars in public donations intended to help Denver’s homeless with food, shelter and counseling to instead pay costs associated with a sweep of the homeless population out of Denver’s Ballpark neighborhood in March.

[…]

The CBS4 Investigation found that when city administrators were planning the March sweep, they immediately wanted to use donations that had been made to Denver’s Road Home to assist the homeless population.

In a series of city emails obtained by CBS4, city officials from the mayor’s office, public works and a host of other city agencies grappled behind the scenes with an anticipated bill of nearly $60,000 to pay an environmental company to move, store and redistribute personal property confiscated from homeless men and women during the sweep.

I must once again reiterate the fact that the State hates the homeless. The State is an organization built upon theft so it sees those who have nothing to steal as a burden.

A common criticism of libertarianism is that it advocates the charity to help those in need. The critics claim this is proof that libertarians don’t care about the poor. Quite the opposite is true. Libertarians do actually care about the poor, which is why they want to rid society of the State. The State preys on the poor and tries to take what little they have.

Yes, Permit Holders Do Stop Mass Shootings

An awful lot of mass shootings occur in gun-free zones. While correlation doesn’t prove causality it can indicate a trend. When gun rights activists point this correlation out the other side of the aisle is quick to claim that no mass shootings have been stopped by permit holders so the correlation is irrelevant. It’s a false argument that can only be made because when a permit holder shops a mass shooter the event doesn’t turn into a mass shooting. But permit holders are out there and they do stop bad people with guns planning to shoot a lot of people:

LYMAN, SC (FOX Carolina) – Deputies with Spartanburg County said a man faces multiple attempted murder charges after opening fire outside a nightclub early Sunday morning.

The shooting happened around 3:30 a.m. at Playoffz nightclub on Inman Road in Lyman.

Deputies said 32-year-old Jody Ray Thompson pulled out a gun after getting into an argument with another man and fired several rounds toward a crowd that had gathered out in front of the club.

“His rounds struck three victims, and almost struck a fourth victim, who in self-defense, pulled his own weapon and fired, striking Thompson in the leg,” Lt. Kevin Bobo said.

Bobo said the man who shot Thompson has a valid concealed weapons permit, cooperated with investigators, and won’t be facing any charges.

What this story shows is the concept of defense in depth. Police officers were apparently elsewhere when the shooting start, which isn’t unusual as they can’t be everywhere at once. Had the shooter been left to his own devises would have likely shot far more people. However, his spree was cut short because there was an additional layer of defense. An average person with the capacity for force necessary to fight back fought back and in so doing probably saved several lives.