Minnesota Man Imprisoned for Months for Possession Vitamins

As the famous saying goes, you can beat the rap but you can’t beat the ride. The war on unpatentable drugs has given law enforcement almost completely unchecked powers when it comes to stealing your shit and holding you in a cage. Civil forfeiture laws, for example, grant law enforcement the power to literally take your stuff and they only have to return it if you can prove that it wasn’t tied to a drug crime in any way (and proving a negative is very difficult). Likewise law enforcement officers can put you in a cage if you are in possession of anything that looks like it could be a verboten drug. While you may eventually beat the charge after lab analysis has been performed on whatever you were carrying you will have still wasted months of your life in a cage:

MANKATO, Minn. — A Mankato man was jailed for months while he waited for the state crime lab to process suspected drugs that turned out to be vitamins.

Joseph Burrell was arrested in November and charged with two felony counts of drug possession. His bail was set at $250,000. The 31-year-old Burrell says he’s not happy it took so long for the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension to process the evidence.

In all likelihood Mr. Burrell will receive no compensation for being unlawfully detained for months. This is because the state doesn’t have to compensate you when it makes a mistake, you only have to compensate it when you make a mistake.

Banning Sharp Sticks

The problem with prohibitionist ideals is that it’s hard to decide where to stop. For the longest time the United States has had a mob of people demanding that firearms be banned. They do this under the auspices of safety. When asked if they want to ban clubs, sticks, and other weapons they scoff and claim you’re using a straw man argument. But when they get their way they quickly start moving onto other weapons. As a state that enjoys very restrictive gun control laws New York is finally at the point where other weapons are becoming political targets. One senator is going to present a bill that will band machetes:

The sale of machetes should be outlawed after several recent attacks, a Queens pol said Wednesday.

State Sen. Tony Avella plans to introduce a bill to ban the possession of the scary blades in New York.

“The fact that anyone can easily purchase this potentially lethal tool is just crazy,” he said.

[…]

Under Avella’s proposed legislation, the mere possession of a machete could lead to a year behind bars.

This bill is in response to a single attack. Well a single attack and a strong desire to perform a little political grandstanding. Machetes certainly are lethal weapons but they’re also extremely limited by their size. That is to say a machete is difficult to conceal. Police are quick to question and people are likely to avoid somebody walking around with a giant knife strapped to their body.

I often point out the futility of prohibiting an easily constructed device when the topic of gun control comes up. Making a machete is child’s play compared to making a firearm, which is always child’s play. You can just buy a piece of flat steel, grind down a handle, and sharpen one of the sides. So this bill is not only stupid but it’s even more pointless than gun control laws are.

The Terrorist Canard

With encrypted communications threatening to reduce the state’s revenue stream by letting us little serfs conceal our black market business dealings the political body is getting worried. Whenever the political body gets worried it begins efforts to propagandize the general populace. The propaganda always exploits fear. At one time the fear being exploited was drug usage then it became street crime and now it’s terrorism. Hoping the hamper the development of strong cryptographic tools the political body has been looking at introducing laws that would require software and hardware developers to introduce backdoors for state usage. Because it’s the fear of the day they’re selling these laws under the guise of fighting terrorism:

President Barack Obama is making his position on encryption known: he is a supporter and “believer in strong encryption” but also “sympathetic” to law enforcement’s needs to prevent terror attacks.

“I think the only concern is… our law enforcement is expected to stop every plot. Every attack. Any bomb on a plane. The first time that attack takes place, where it turns out we had a lead and couldn’t follow up on it, the public’s going to demand answers. This is a public conversation that we should be having,” Obama said in a Friday interview with Re/Code. “I lean probably further in the direction of strong encryption than some do inside law enforcement. But I am sympathetic to law enforcement, because I know the kind of pressure they’re under to keep us safe. And it’s not as black and white as it’s sometimes portrayed. Now, in fairness, I think those in favor of air tight encryption also want to be protected from terrorists.”

Can we stop with the terrorist canard? Nobody expects law enforcement to stop every terrorist plot. In fact nobody, at least nobody sensible, expects law enforcement to stop any terrorist plot. What people expect of law enforcement is to clean up after a terrorist attack. If people actually expected law enforcement would stop terrorist attacks they wouldn’t be afraid of terrorist attacks.

Furthermore the state’s widespread surveillance efforts haven’t stopped a single terrorist plot. Every claim made to the contrary has been thoroughly debunked. This isn’t surprising. Widespread surveillance creates a sea of data from which no single piece of useful data can be extracted. What makes widespread surveillance even more worthless is that no single piece of data can reveal a terrorist plot so you need to find multiple pieces of connected data to being revealing a plot. If finding a single piece of useful data in a sea of noise is difficult try finding many pieces of connected data that aren’t obviously connected.

The only way law enforcement can stop terrorist plots is to utilize old fashion investigative techniques. But these techniques are expensive in both money and time and don’t lead to revenue for departments. Why would a law enforcement agency put resources into uncovering a terrorist plot when it can rely on anonymous tips to kick down the doors of drug deals and legally confiscate all of their property to auction of later? To add insult to injury solving a terrorist plot is actually detrimental to a law enforcement agency since they rely on successful terrorist attacks to justify buying surplus military equipment.

It’s time to put the terrorist canard to bed. Only the completely gullible are being fooled and they’re not the ones that need to be convinced. In order to put backdoors into software and devices the developers and manufacturers have to be convinced and they won’t be convinced because their users will stop buying their products if they implement said backdoors. Since many of their users are gullible idiots the state’s terrorist propaganda won’t accomplish its goal and thus the exercise is a waste of everybody’s time.

Self-Defense is for Thee Not for Me

I firmly believe that every human being has a right to self-defense. That believe is what motivates my opposition to gun control (as well as the fact that gun control can only be enforced with the violence of the state). A source of constant amusement for me are advocates of gun control who believe only certain people, themselves always included, have a right to self-defense. They usually don’t state this hypocritical believe openly but it shows in their actions. One example of this is when gun control advocates are arrested for carrying a gun:

David Malik, a well-known civil rights lawyer, was arrested Saturday afternoon after authorities discovered a handgun in his carry-on bag at a Cleveland airport, but the attorney said it was a simple mistake.

According to a statement by Malik, he had recently been target shooting with a concealed carry instructor when he apparently forgot to remove the gun from his bag. He then used the same bag to pack for the trip he had planned to take and inadvertently brought the .22-caliber handgun, along with ammo, to the airport. Authorities confirmed that the gun was unloaded.

[…]

Steve Loomis, president of the Cleveland Police Patrolmen’s Association, pointed out the irony of the case.

“What’s interesting about David is he is such an anti-gun person,” Loomis said. “He’s such an anti-violence person, and of all the things for him to get arrested for, that really surprises me.”

This isn’t an unusual attitude for gun control advocates to hold. They will constantly condemn personal firearm ownership and laws allowing individuals to carry firearms. Then they will turn around and buy and carry a firearm because they’re so super important that an exception must exist for them. It’s nothing more than evidence that they see themselves as somehow better than the average individual.

I believe a life is a life. My life is no more or less important than yours. Therefore my belief in my right to self-defense necessitates I also believe in your right to self-defense. Many advocates of gun control believe they should be defended either by a personally carried firearm or armed body guards but you shouldn’t enjoy the same right.

Why Nobody Likes the Republican Party Part 2

The Republican Party continues its downward spiral into political irrelevancy. This downward spiral is being pushed, nearly at the speed of sound now, by the party’s social conservatism, which no decent person supports. Yesterday saw a trifecta of Republican Party social stupidity. First the governor of Kansas decided to repeal a previous governor’s executive order that prevented the state from discriminating against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) employees:

Kansas will no longer ban discrimination against gays, lesbians, bisexuals and the transgendered in hiring and employment in much of state government because of an action announced Tuesday by Republican Gov. Sam Brownback.

Brownback rescinded an executive order issued in August 2007 by then-Gov. Kathleen Sebelius barring discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. The order applied to hiring and employment decisions by agencies under the governor’s direct control and required them to create anti-harassment policies as well.

Over the century the state has set a precedence for prohibiting itself from discriminating against employees. It started with the women’s suffrage movement and continued on through the civil rights movement. Since then the state has ruled that it cannot discriminate against people based on sex, race, religion, or national origin. As time continues on more groups are added to the list. It’s almost certainly a matter of time before LGBT individuals are added to the list. But the governor of Kansas is a fucking asshole that should be hauled out to a deserted island in the middle of the Pacific and stranded. By repealing the executive order he has demonstrated his desire to discriminate against LGBT individuals and that alone proves he’s a horrible human being.

Speaking of discriminating against LGBT individuals, one of the neocon’s rising stars decided he wanted to get in on the action. Ted Cruz, who is often mistakenly referred to as a libertarian by idiots, has introduced a bill to strip federal benefits from married same-sex couples:

U.S. Senator Ted Cruz is pushing the State Marriage Defense Act, legislation that if signed into law could accomplish two objectives. First, redefine marriage at the federal level to remove from hundreds of thousands of same-sex couples the federal government’s recognition of their marriages, and thus, any corresponding federal benefits they are afforded, now or in the future. And second, should the U.S. Supreme Court not find a right to marriage for same-sex couples, encourage states that do not wish to recognize those marriages to potentially nullify them.

Cruz is, not surprisingly, selling this as a states’ rights bill even though it would strip same-sex couples of federal benefits. Once again one must ask why any senator is wasting our time with discriminatory legislation. Only the socially conservative zealots want this and they’re the last group of people anybody should be listening to with any seriousness. The state should not be in the business of discriminating against anybody for any reason. Doing so destroys the fiction its tried to hard to establish that it is representative of the people. Just toss this on the tall pile of reasons not to support Cruz if he decides to run for the presidency.

The third act in this trifecta is rather bizarre. Montana State Representative David Moor introduced a bill that would outlaw, and I’m not kidding here, topless men in public. The representative also had some choice words for yoga pants:

A Republican legislator from Montana has proposed a law that seems like something out of another decade — or perhaps even another century.

State Rep. David Moore has proposed a new bill that would ban “any device, costume, or covering that gives the appearance of, or simulates, the genitals, pubic hair, anus region, or pubic hair region.”

“Yoga pants should be illegal in public anyway,” he added following a debate over the bill. Although the law would not make yoga pants or speedos illegal, it does call for the elimination of all nipple exposure, male or female.

Government so small it fits in your wardrobe! More and more the Republican Party beginning to reflect the rulers of Saudi Arabia. Like the Saudi rulers, members of the Republican Party continue showing an unhealthy obsession with sex. I’m not sure if this is because they’re trying to suppress desires that go against their socially conservative values or they’re just raging assholes that hate everybody that doesn’t fit into the tiny box that makes up their worldview. Either way they’re only pushing Americans way from their party, which is a good thing because they’re also a bunch of war mongering assholes (but their only real competitor is almost composed of war mongering assholes so this is a moot point).

Michael Bloomberg Demonstrates the Racist Nature of Gun Control

History isn’t a topic researched thoroughly by enough Americans. This is unfortunate because history has so much to teach. Consider the modern gun control movement. Few proponents of gun control realize that their movement was founded on racist ideas. Gun control in the United States started as a way to prevent newly free blacks from acquiring arms. If you want a quick overview of this history the Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership put together a good documentary a few years back:

For those who prefer to read history Clayton Cramer put together a short, well-cited summary. The more things change the more they stay the same. Today the big player in American gun control is Michael Bloomberg. Considering his stated support for the New York Police Department’s stop and risk program, which heavily discriminated against black and Hispanic individuals, it’s not surprising to see racist motives in his push for gun control:

Bloomberg claimed that 95 percent of murders fall into a specific category: male, minority and between the ages of 15 and 25. Cities need to get guns out of this group’s hands and keep them alive, he said.

Statistics are a funny thing. If you massage numbers properly you can get whatever result you want. But if you look at the Federal Bureau of Investigations’ (FBI) Uniform Crime Report for 2013 you will see that the age range of 15 to 25 isn’t the majority. There were 12,253 murders reported in 2013 and a majority of the victims fell in the age bracket of 25 and above. Furthermore 5,537 victims were white, 6,261 were black, 308 were listed as other, and 147 were unknown. Nowhere could you get the 95 percent figure Bloomberg cites.

But it’s not surprising, considering his above mentioned history, that he’s specifically targeting young male minorities. History of the gun control movement, after all, arose because people wanted to disarm that particular segment of society. Even so it’s rare that you see a gun control proponent so openly state such a desire.

Proving Once Again Police Are Better Than Us

Tony Cornish is a busy man. Last week he was helping introduce legislation that would classify any police body camera footage not being used to prosecute a prole, which would help ensure bad police officers continue to be shielded from the consequences of their misdeeds. This week he’s proposing a special emergency system just for the police officers:

ST. PAUL, Minn. (WCCO) — Minnesota lawmakers are debating a statewide alert system that would be used by law enforcement and broadcasters when a police officer is hurt.

The Blue Alert system would help get the word out quicker to the public to help identify and locate a suspect who seriously hurts or kills a law enforcement officer. This would apply to local, state and federal police in Minnesota.

Rep. Tony Cornish, who introduced the bill, says the system would use the same format already in place that issues Amber Alerts.

Police officers are like you and me only better! You have to love the fact that this would help get the word out to the public when a perpetrator has hurt a law enforcer but won’t do squat if a perpetrator rapes, murders, or assaults anybody else. I can’t wait to see Cornish’s next attempt to hoist the police further above the general public. Maybe his next bill can require all emergency services be diverted from whatever they are doing to respond to any incident where a cop is injured. That would forsake any lowly prole who is having a heart attack but sometimes we have to make sacrifices to ensure our oppressors are safe.

With All of This Surveillance Equipment the Police Couldn’t Find a Lone Man

Yesterday in St. Louis Park the police came into altercation with a man sleeping in his car in a Byerly’s parking lot. Apparently one of the employees of the store went to scope the man out, noted a gun on the front seat, and call the cops. As usual the situation escalated for a man sleeping in his car to a gunfight. Somehow the man escaped the parking lot and the mother of all manhunts (for Minnesota anyways) began:

Police soon converged on a home in the 700 block of 8th Avenue S. in Hopkins where the suspect used to live, and ordered anyone inside to come out.

Resident Ryan Coplan said his girlfriend was there alone when officers “came on bullhorns with, ‘Whoever’s inside, come out with your hands up!’ ”

Coplan, who said he moved in less than a year ago, said his girlfriend later called him and said the officers had “guns drawn, searched the house and went on their way.”

With all of the fancy license plate scanners, Stringray cell phone interceptors, and other surveillance gear the police have proven wholly incompetent at finding this single man. This just goes to show that pervasive surveillance networks are worthless when it comes to actually finding a suspect.

As an aside you almost have to feel bad for the police in this case. They ended up raiding the wrong address. If only there was some way to verify when somebody has moved out of a dwelling. Something like a Post Office notice of change of address, a lease or title to the property, or a billing account with the new address. But since none of that exists the police ended up having to harass an innocent women because she made the mistaken of living where a future criminal lived.

Nipping the Sauron Problem in The Bud

Zero tolerance police in schools have lead to some very interesting suspensions. One student was famously suspended for eating a Pop-Tart into the shape of a gun. Another student was suspended for drawing a firearm. And we all probably remember the student who was suspended for making a gun with his fingers. But it seems these zero tolerance policies have reached a new absurdity. A student in Texas was just suspended for claiming to have the One Ring:

Tolkien lore led a Texas boy to suspension after he brought his “one ring” to school.

Kermit Elementary School officials called it a threat when the 9-year-old boy, Aiden Steward, in a playful act of make-believe, told a classmate he could make him disappear with a ring forged in fictional Middle Earth’s Mount Doom.

We’ll have none of your shenanigans little Sauron! At this point I can only guess what the next zero tolerance suspension will be. Perhaps a student will be suspended for bringing Mjölnir to class. Or maybe a student will get suspended for bringing a cardboard Excalibur. Now that students are being suspended for mythical weapons the options are limitless!

St. Paul City Council Finally Bans a Deadly Scourge in Our Society

It’s not very often that I can actually compliment government employees but I believe in giving credit where credit is due. For far too long now a dangerous scourge has plagued the denizens of St. Paul. This scourge has killed many, left children orphaned, and filled the hospitals with maimed shells that once were men. As you’ve probably figured out I’m talking about backyard archery. After waiting far too long to address this issue the city council of St. Paul finally made it illegal for practice archery in your backyard:

After more than a year of debate and postponement, St. Paul finally banned backyard archery yesterday.

The movement was started when Council Member Russ Stark got a complaint from one of his constituents about a neighbor who lets his kids practice archery in the backyard.

Watching the kids next door zipping deadly arrows all over the place is an unsettling experience, writes Kimberly Koempel.

And by scourge that has killed many I meant a harmless activity that has killed exactly zero people and injured about as many. This is a perfect example of some nosy no-fun zone neighbor taking offense to something entirely unoffensive, sucking the dick of a government official, and laughing manically as the activity is banned. Every second spend debating this issue and banning it was time entirely wasted. That time could have been more productively used by having members of the city council dig holes with a spoon and fill them back in again.

Personally if I had a backyard in St. Paul I’d be practicing archery every evening.