Why You Are Wrong About Police Shootings #BaneLion

File under: For Great Justice

"Did you see what happened before the shooting?"

This question is invariably asked by those seeking to defend a law enforcement officer when there are allegations of excessive uses of force. Often, I would like to reply: "did YOU see what happened before the shooting?!" This question is, though somewhat understandable and almost excusable coming from the lay person, is highly non-nonsensical and betrays a limited understanding of justified use of lethal force. It is especially baffling when proffered by individuals who claim to "keep and bear arms" for personal defense and support the Constitution.

When Lethal Force Is "Justified"

In determining if one is justified in using lethal force against another, the standard is NOT whether the shooter was justified at the moment the altercation began or when he or she drew the firearm. The standard is if the shooter had justification to shoot at the moment he or she squeezed the trigger. Justification would be shooting to prevent imminent or immediate bodily harm or death, either in defense of yourself or someone else. In such a situation where a reasonable person would feel fear, lethal force is justified. However, when the threat ends or at a point where a reasonable person would no longer fear death or bodily harm, lethal force is no longer justified. This means that if you have a good reason to draw your firearm that you DO NOT have a hall pass to unilaterally kill someone.

Cops Are Not Street Judges

If this is the standard for everyday citizens, shouldn't the limitations for sworn peace officers be just as stringent if not more so? Well, turns out it is indeed. Police are required to use modes of force that have a lower likelihood of causing death to apprehend a resisting or fleeing suspect, before using lethal force as a force of last resort. Lethal force is authorized only when a felon is an immediate threat to officers and citizens, or the felon is fleeing and likely will be an imminent threat to others. That's it.




This means that at the moment the police officer uses deadly force against a suspect, if the suspect is not threatening or assaulting someone, or is not a dangerous felon in flight, then the use of force in that situation was not justified--meaning it is a crime. That officer has broken the law, should be stripped of his or her badge and tried in a court of law. Just as you or I would if we committed the same offense.

License To Kill?

What about situations where using lethal force IS justified? As mentioned earlier, this is NOT a license to kill. It is protecting your right to defend your life or someone else's with the amount of force necessary to end any and all existential threats. This means self-defense is the application of judicious force--not unlimited force. If one continues to apply lethal force against an assailant AFTER the individual has been sufficiently incapacitated then this transforms from a justifiable self-defense scenario, to an aggravated assault, attempted murder or homicide.




This should be no different for police. If a suspect ceases threatening behaviors and attempts to comply, or if the police use lethal force on an incapacitated target, that is excessive force and a crime. The officer has broken the law, should be stripped of his or her badge and tried in a court of law.

Where Do We Go Next?

The line of reasoning that breaking the law or resisting the imposition of force by the state (a.k.a. resisting arrest) is somehow a justification for abridgment of the Constitution and revocation of all rights without just due process is a bogus argument. The Constitution is here to limit government abuses and protect the rights of the individual--even when the individual is not respecting the rights of others. If we continue to make excuses for this behavior, the situation will never be fixed. Therefore, the first step to solving the problem is, as always, admitting that we have one to being with.

Police officers have a dangerous and difficult job. Holding them to higher standards of conduct makes it even more so, nevertheless we must. It is a tough calling, not for the timid, cowardly, incompetent or those lacking the most superlative moral character and judgement. Therefore, my solution to police excessive force is to weed out the bad cops who represent the uniform with dishonor

It Starts At The Bottom

The Constitution protects the rights of the accused. Police are not super-citizens above the law.

There is a shortage of well-qualified police officers nationwide and leading desperate departments to accept all comers. This is a grave mistake. There needs to be much stronger vetting and much more stringent standards regarding mental health and past allegations of domestic abuse or professional misconduct. Also, departments who employ a policy of only hiring applicants of average or below IQ need to abandon it in favor of hiring more discerning and judicious candidates.

Leading From the Front

What is indoctrinated in cadets in the academy sticks with them throughout their careers. Unfortunately, police training is decades out-of-date with changes in technology and crime, and out-of-touch with the community police officers must patrol. Police officers are being ingrained with a hyper-militarized mindset, leading to an inherently adversarial relationship with the community at large. This tension is highest in areas where crime and poverty is highest, and police resources are lowest.

Police officers need enhanced training to safely and effectively resolve encounters with persons undergoing a medical or mental health crisis. Departments must also audit their standard operating procedures for dealing with: domestic disputes, procuring evidence for warrants, when tactical raids are warranted, how raids are executed, encountering protesters/open carriers/citizens filming public servants, stops/detentions for non-violent crimes and other situations that frequently result in unnecessary injuries and fatalities.

The innocent should not fear harm will come to them at the hands of the state.

The wall-of-silence culture must stop. If you see something say something, should apply foremost to those tasked with upholding the law. In this vein, police officers should face stiff penalties for failing to report abuses of power or corruption. When there is a incident involving use of force by an officer, it should be investigated by a third party, NOT by the department itself. When officers or police administrators violate the public trust, they need to be fired, prosecuted and barred from ever wearing a badge again.

The Right Tools For the Job

When it comes down to an interaction between a public servant and a member of the public, it should never be a case of he-said-she-said. These encounters need to be recording in high definition audio and video. Officers should be outfitted with eye-view, body and dashboard recording devices that capture both video and sound, and there should be severe disciplinary action for not ensuring that such are operable before entering the field and recording during a stop. It has been state numerous times that this is a legal safeguard for the officer AND the community. There is no reason these are not standard everywhere.

Police should be highly visible and available in the community. Every patrol car should have two officers and every neighborhood should have officers walking/cycling the beat. A lack of presence leads to a lack of confidence in the police by the public, and a lack of backup leads to a lack of confidence in themselves by the police. This is a recipe for discord, fear, distrust, anxiety and paranoia. There can be no working relationship between the police and the community in such an environment.

Police should be trusted members of the community, not an occupying paramilitary force.

Officers on patrol, need better firearms and firearms training. This might seem antithetical to the sentiment of a post about excessive use of force by police, but it is nonetheless true. Police officers are notoriously terrible shooters who frequently miss a suspect standing right in front of them or wound innocent bystanders as a result of bad shooting habits. Moreover, entering a situation out-manned and outgunned ratchets up the tension and anxiety to an even higher level. Officers on patrol need to be able to confidently engage a potentially hostile suspect, and if necessary, shoot with accuracy and precision to end the threat quickly with a minimal loss of life or collateral damage. Further, if the common refrain is that "my Taser didn't work," isn't time to replace the Taser with something that works better?

Our Part

Ultimately the power to change this rests in your hands. What will you do?

The responsibility to improve this situation doesn't just fall upon the shoulders of law enforcement. The is a multifaceted issue that must be attacked from multiple angles. The first thing we must do as citizens is curtail the crime and violence within our own community, by refusing to remain silent out of fear. The lawless make the job of the law officer more difficult and dangerous, increasing the likelihood that one day that cop is going to misjudge a situation and harm someone who should not be. We have to root out the bad seeds in our neighborhood, not only to make them safer for ourselves, but also for those who maintain law and order.

We have to take our civic duty seriously. If you see abuse or corruption, record it and report it. If you have a mayor who doesn't hold the police accountable or a sheriff who doesn't keep a tight reign on his or her deputies, that person should be removed posthaste. Extreme poverty is a strong attractant of violent crime; politicians who criminalize person choice or who vote for job-killing taxes and regulations should also soon find themselves out of a job.

Obey the law yourself, provide for your own safety and security, and avoid involving the police when not necessary. Many people who die pursuant to an interaction with the police were individuals in a medical or mental health crisis, and probably did not need the police at all. Make sure that you and your loved ones are receiving the type of care needed to function smoothly in society. If someone is not a physical danger to another person, refrain from involving the police--whether they are physically/mentally ill or not.

Last year over 1,000 persons were killed by police. Calling the police should not be a risky proposition for a law-abiding citizen. If we stop making excuses and start making changes, one day it won't be.




Thank you for reading. If you enjoyed this post, I would greatly appreciate you sharing it on Facebook or Twitter. Please feel free to tell me what you think on my Facebook page. If you would like to keep up with future posts subscribe above, 'LIKE' the Facebook page and follow me on Twitter.

We Cannot Legislate Evil

File Under: Handwriting on the Wall

(If you cannot see the article above, refresh this page or view article on webpage)

You probably will not see this give much if any attention at all in the American Mainstream Media (MSM).  However, you need to bear witness to the simple truth that no matter what laws you pass, it is not the law, but rather it is failed governmental policies and the evil in humankind's hearts that leads to violence.

“When he was dead, they dragged him out into the road and left him there. It was strange, they didn’t run off, they just stood there as if they were waiting for the police. It must’ve taken about 20 minutes for the police to arrive, I think it must’ve been because they were waiting for armed police. [...] Lou Peluola, 53, arrived on the scene shortly after the incident when he saw one attacker standing over a body before the police arrived 20 minutes later. He said: "People were afraid asking: ‘where are the police?’ They took a long time to arrive. [...] I panicked, rang the police and ran away."

This happened not in Iraq, or Afghanistan, or some Sub-Saharan African war zone, but rather this happened in broad daylight, in the middle of one of the world's leading First World nations.  How many people could have put these two sociopaths down while the police took their time arriving?  What if they had targeted civilians?  Well Lou, when your right to defend yourself is violated by your government, that is all you can do - wait 20 minutes while the police find firearms - because, when you criminalize the right to bear arms, only criminals will bear arms.

What will the UK do now: ban cars? Ban kitchen knives? Ban Islam? Give each one of these murderers two consecutive "life" sentences?  Which one of those measures would have prevented this man's untimely, grizzly demise?  None of them.  Not one law could have saved this man because no law would have dissuaded these two monsters from committing this heinous act by any means necessary.  They did not care about having concealable firearms or how many people they could shoot before reloading - hell, they did not even care about escaping justice.  They were intent on venting their hatred and emotionally traumatizing as many people as they could in the process.

All those years ago, when the UK thought they were doing something about the violence in their country all they did was turn their backs on it, close their eyes, stick their fingers in their ears, and pretended it no longer existed.  Ignoring it, did not make it go away.  Evil exists.  It can take root inside anyone one of us; and, no amount of legislation will protects us from ourselves.

"We Didn't Start the Fire (Original)" by Bill Joel from Storm Front released 1989 on Sony

The Apple Has Fallen Far From The Tree

File Under:  Holy WTF People?!?!?

American was once a symbol of hope, justice, prosperity, and liberty.  What do we symbolize today?

Ok.  I am not going to even begin to politicize this post in the area of  firearms or the Second Amendment.  This is not even remotely close to being about that.  So this is the last time you will hear it brought up, in turn  please refrain from asinine rhetoric on guns.  What I do have to ask is: what the hell is wrong with California or America that "at least six" warm-blooded, One-nation-under-God-with-liberty-and-justice-for-all citizens of the greatest democratic republic in modern history could watch one man accost another, pull him out of his vehicle, drag him to the curb, and cold-blooded execute him in broad daylight right on main street?  I ask because that is exactly what happened today in Tustin, California.


When did Americans become that sheepish, that callous, that cold-hearted, and that weak.  When did we lose our lust for justice, morality, and honor and instead doing nothing became part of the "American Way?"  How is it that a grown man can slap someone else's crying toddler and, call that child a racial epithet on an airplane full of mothers and fathers, and still have the physical capacity to walk off that plane under his own power?  How can a a Good Samaritan save another citizen from an apparent mugging, only to be left bleeding to death by not only the would-be victim he saved, but numerous passers-by who gawked at his body and took pictures?  Once pride and courage burned in our American veins; now cowardice, apathy and lethargy rots us from the inside out like cancer.  We won't stand up to our banks, we won't stand up to the corporations, we won't stand up to the media, we won't stand up to our government, we won't stand up for the innocent, and we won't stand up for the poor/oppressed/downtrodden.  What is left of the America our forefathers spilled blood for in the Revolution and the Civil War?  How is it that as a people we have the intestinal fortitude to send unmanned planes all over the world blowing children and democracy to hell, but we cannot stand up to one murderer spreading actual terror right here in front of our eyes?  What great ideals are we spreading across the world behind our tanks and our drones and our bombs?


For goodness' sake, this will continue to happen until the American public stands up and says "enough, is enough."   And that is no symbolic, rhetorical gesture.  We are going on nearly a century of amplified violence, lawlessness, unethical behavior, and amorality all because at some point those who no longer wished to play by the rules realized they could do whatever the hell they wanted because nobody cared.  They knew people could be cowed, doped, fooled, or distracted into ignoring their reckless behavior as it devoured our once glorious republic like a plague.  The few who don't ignore it they are demonized, ostracized, disgraced, and silenced in whatever manner is most expedient because the masses still are not paying attention.  Stop letting the media tell you what to think and believe.  Stop kneeling at the feeding trough of the corporations begging for succor only to eat the scraps of your own blood, sweat, and tears.  Stop allowing the government to tell you what you will do and instead start telling the government what we will do.  Our grandparents and great grandparents are looking down upon the legacy they left, they gaze upon how we have ruined it, and they weep.  They weep for America, and their tears flood down upon us.  It is time for us to retrieve our collective heads from whatever dark, cavernous hole in which it is currently hidden, stand up like men and women of the strongest moral character, and be American again.

"What the Fuck Is Wrong With You" by Combichrist from What the Fuck Is Wrong With You People? released 2007 on Metropolis Records

Don't Confuse Me With Facts, I've Already Made Up My Mind!

File Under: With Both Barrels

The first major "gun control" law (since the Second Amendment) was enacted in 1934, with the idea to curtail the activities of criminals like George "Machine Gun Kelly” Barnes who had run amok (and ironically didn't obey laws) during the economic downturn of the depression and the reign of the equally bad Prohibition laws. However, until that time, with certain exceptions, anyone who could afford them could legally procure with limited difficulty what anti-Second Amendment legislators now call "assault weapons" (i.e. the Thompson Submachine Gun or "Tommy Gun"). In fact, there was a time you could order a shotgun, likely comparable to the one Bowe Cleveland used to wound his fellow student, from a Sears & Roebuck catalog – no I.D., no background check, no wait, no FFL ...right to your front door. Using the data aggregated by the author of this Wikipedia entry I estimate that between 1776 and 1934 at least 5 recorded instances of students bringing guns to school with the intent of committing a crime or killing someone (other than his or herself) occurred. That is 5 surviving reports in a span of 158 years with just one gun control law, just a smidgeon of common sense and a modicum of moral decency. In the just 79 years since 1934, some additional 6 Federal level gun-control laws (not counting the State laws) have been passed by Congress. What has been the sum total effect of these 7 Congressional acts, which endeavored to supersede the wisdom of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America? Between 1934 and 2013 (almost half the time), over 85 additional incidences of violent attacks and murders perpetrated by students in or near institutions of learning – 17 times as much death with 7 times as many regulations as caused in the entire preceding 158 years when all we had was just the Second Amendment as our guide.

Clearly, we have legislated our way to a safer, more secure country where we have stronger values, a deeper appreciation for life, more involvement with the lives of our children, and better ability to intervene before a crisis as evidenced by the hundreds more tales of jilted lovers, disgruntled ex-employees, deranged mental health patients, jealous colleagues, who willfully decide to become criminals and commit the vast majority of these crimes – using students and teachers as targets. I find it personally shocking to note that some of the most tragic school killings, and indeed the actual most deadly school killing in United States history, were not only perpetrated by those sworn to protect students (school administrators, police, military) but also were not carried out with firearms at all. Furthermore, the assault on “assault weapons” is ludicrous. In all these stories unless the “student” had either A) actually served in the military and had access to a military variant firearm or B) had circumvented the law in a criminal fashion to illegally acquire a firearm they could not otherwise legally own, the vast majority of these attacks or deaths occurred by common arms designed for hunting, sport, and personal defense.

A firearm is a tool, just like a hammer is a tool. A carpenter would not use a sledgehammer to drive a nail nor would a homesteader use a framing hammer to drive a wedge through logs. Moreover, simply possessing a framing hammer does not make one a carpenter nor does having a volt meter make you an electrician. Military firearms do not turn civilians into killing machines, they are tools to help highly-trained soldiers protect themselves while they efficiently perform their duties and complete mission objectives. As we have become less agrarian, hunting has become less of a luxury, personal defense more of a concern, material science has changed, and aesthetics has changed – so too has the design of civilian firearms changed. Many of the firearms in highly-publicized shootings for aesthetic or ergonomic purposes had been made to look externally similar to military variants, but in no way functioned internally like military style arms. The firearms that most law-abiding citizens can easily acquire are in actuality comparatively very inefficient for the purpose they are sold – protecting you by wounding someone else. They require an IMMENSE amount of time, training, and money to become proficient at mastering the mechanics of their safe use so that you can instinctively call upon those skills in a crisis. This begs many questions. If firearms do not make it easier to kill people, why do so many people die in these school shootings? These criminals didn't knife their victims, they used firearms – certainly that means firearms need more control, right?

No firearm is a fully self-aware, autonomous walking death-ray with mind-control abilities. Until someone loads it, points it at someone else, and pulls the trigger that firearm is an inert device of no harm to anyone. It is the individual who is lethal, the human brain that is dangerous. Why are school shootings so tragic, why is there so much loss of life? The handgun may have limitations but the criminal has several advantages working in his or her favor – the biggest is that you are following the law while he or she is not. Despite the first “school shooting” in America occurring in 1764 and hundreds having occurred since, the notion that we are safe and secure anywhere persists. Teachers come to school to teach and students come to school to learn, armed with nothing but their experience and imaginations respectively. That puts them at a disadvantage when a criminal comes to school to hurt them if no one is prepared to protect them and no one has developed a plan of what to do when someone starts shooting. Even when you examine tragedies like the Fort Hood shootings where you had a psychiatrist (not exactly a full-time soldier) pitted against politically unarmed individuals he was able to create significant loss of life before someone with a firearm stopped him. That was a United States military base (the largest in the world), how much more poorly would college students and children fair against a deranged, homicidal lunatic intent on causing as much death and destruction as they possibly can? In these shootings, did a lot of innocent people die because the shooter used a scary military look-alike firearm or because the shooter carefully planned the attack and was using the untrained/unprepared children of suburbanite yuppies as targets? Common sense obviously says it is the latter. Finally, humans are easily damaged and without fast, appropriate medical care can succumb to their injuries relatively quickly in the aftermath of a shooting while emergency medical teams wait for law enforcement to secure the crime scene – this is true if the victims are shot, stabbed, or harmed in any other way.

 

Anyone with criminal intent, the impetus to commit violence, and the means to act it out is a danger to someone unwilling or unable to defend themselves: children, the elderly, or the mentally-impaired. A machete wielding obese, asthmatic with arthritic knees could commit a mass murder if his victims are weak and unarmed. However, they are of limited threat to an educated, prepared, and well-armed individual. A military style firearm is just for shock value. If one wanted to cause a massive loss of human life you could in today's economy: walk into a car dealership and with no money down walk out with a new car, buy a few items you found searching the internet, turn your new car into a bomb, plow into a crowd of people at a public place, and detonate the bomb – having spent far less money than you would have for a military look-alike firearm and hundreds of rounds of ammunition, and killing more people than in any shooting spree. Moreover, no one would call for increased regulation on automobiles.

In the wake of tragedy, especially one that we have allowed to happen over and over for more than 200 years it is easy to feel angry. It is easy to feel angry because anger is a lot easier to deal with than guilt. You want to point that anger at someone or something other than yourself, and an easy target is one that cannot fight back on its own. Do not however allow your guilt or your anger to cloud your reason: you are willfully participating in the discourse of your disarmament and IT WILL BE TO YOUR PERIL. Gun-control and the assault on so-called “assault weapons” is really simple. Innocent people have been dying for a very long time.  The legislature is unconcerned about public safety, they do not care about you. They are only concerned with stripping you of your ability to defend yourself and not from criminals – from them. Why? Our government is seeking to strip us of our last line of defense against tyranny enshrined into our Constitution guaranteed by the Second Amendment, so that one day when they turn their guns on us we will be as defenseless as those 20 doe-eyed children at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

Gun violence requires all of our involvement to find an immediate, lasting solution. Perhaps any real insight and a beginning of an answer can be found in the last written words of 1966 University of Texas murderer, Charles Whitman:

“I don't really understand myself these days. I am supposed to be an average reasonable and intelligent young man. However, lately (I can't recall when it started) I have been a victim of many unusual and irrational thoughts. […] Maybe [mental health] research can prevent further tragedies of this type.”

Note: The title of today's blog was inspired by this photograph on a Facebook page.