• Things that Make You Go, Huh?

    So, we were out this bright sunny morning doing a couple of chores after a nice jaunt around Green Lake. On our way home we noticed something—um, let’s go with—interesting.

    A city street cleaner was cruising down the street cleaning loose debris. As a motorcyclist, I appreciate clean roads. But it was also laying down a sheen of water. It was 31 degrees! The roads were dry–well, had been, anyway.

    And, as if we needed more validation of the silliness of a city street sweeper impersonating a Zamboni, a few blocks later we saw the telltale lines on the asphalt, indicating a city de-icing truck had recently passed this way.

    Not sure there’s much more to say about this one.

     

     

  • “Without Malice and/or in Good Faith” is Necessary when Judging Police Actions

    Setting aside that making life and death decisions in split seconds is one of the most difficult things for any police officer, what’s all this noise about changing Washington law to make it “easier” to prosecute cops for using deadly force?

    People in every profession make mistakes. But in some jobs, mistakes can mean people die. Perhaps mistakes that lead to death should never happen, but in real life, they simply do.

    The way I read the law change proposal, advocates want to remove the “malice” and “good faith,” elements from the prosecutor’s requirements to convict a police officer. Meaning, they have to prove the officer acted maliciously (evil intent) in killing a person or that the officer did not act in good faith—knew his or her actions were wrong.

    This is what is scary for a police officer: If the language were changed, an officer could have acted without malice and in good faith yet still be prosecuted for murder or manslaughter.

    Put yourself in the officer’s place:

    Let’s say you’re an officer, it’s dusk—almost dark, on an early winter evening, and a robbery victim flags you down. The victim is pointing to a fleeing man and yelling, “He took my iPhone, and he’s got a gun!” You chase the robbery suspect who runs across the street and then between the houses. You continue to pursue with the suspect in sight. You broadcast the suspect’s description and direction of travel over your radio. Then you lose sight of the suspect as he rounds the corner to the back of a house. You slow as you approach the corner of the building to avoid being ambushed.  

    You slowly round the corner. You see a young man matching the suspect’s description crouched near some shrubbery in a corner of a fenced yard. You pull your gun and command, “Show me your hands!” The man does not comply. Instead he asks you what you’re doing in his yard. You command the man show you his hands several more times, but the suspect still refuses to show his hands. As you tell the man once more to show his hands, he yells that he doesn’t have to and aggressively points an object at you. In the low light and based on the suspect you’re chasing reportedly being armed, the object could be a gun. Would you bet your life that it isn’t a gun? You fire your sidearm, killing the man.

    Later, investigators discovered that the man shot was not the suspect. Evidence shows the real suspect had run through the yard and jumped the fence and continued running. The deceased man actually lived at the house. Investigators don’t know if the man saw the suspect run through his yard. The object the man had pointed at the officer was a garden trowel.

    This is nothing but a pure tragedy. It can’t be described any other way. If you, the officer, were white and the homeowner black, it also would become a political calamity. Now, there are a many elements to consider here, but let’s stay within the realm of changing the “malice” and “good faith” language in the current law.

    Clear thinking people would instantly recognize the nature of the tragedy here and understand you had no choice but to shoot. However, these days we are not dealing with only clear thinking individuals. We are dealing with anti-police hysteria.

    You obviously did not have any malice, as you simply responded to a victim’s call for help—you did your job. You also clearly acted in good faith as you had a valid complaint from a legitimate victim who identified a man he said had a gun and had just robbed him. This is also the ONLY information you had to work with at the time.

    You were chasing an armed robbery suspect. In the shadowy low light of dusk. Alone.

    You had the suspect in sight until the suspect disappeared behind a house. Officer safety dictates you slowed to avoid an ambush. You updated radio with your current location for responding back up officers.

    Using proper officer safety techniques, you rounded the corner and observed a man matching the suspect’s description. He appeared to be hiding in the bushes. You do not know the man lived here, and even if he did, the man could still be the armed robbery suspect.

    You radioed you had the suspect at gunpoint in the backyard and gave the address. You, without malice, using proper police procedures, and acting in good faith, fully believing this is the robbery suspect you’d been chasing. The suspect refused to show you his hands when instructed. The victim had told you the suspect was armed with a gun. As a trained police officer you knew just how fast an armed suspect could point and shoot if he wanted to. Rather than immediately open fire (the safest course for you) you ordered the man—repeatedly—to show you his hands.

    The man would not comply. Instead, he asked you why you’re in “his” yard. You may have wondered if it was the man’s yard, but you could not automatically believe this. You had to proceed as if the man was the suspect. To do otherwise would have been foolish.

    We can’t forget the man is refusing to comply. If the man had simply put the trowel down and shown you his hands, the officer would have had the man lay on the ground and most likely waited for back up officers to assist taking him into custody. After which, his true identity would have been determined.

    But, what should have happened didn’t happen. Sadly, the man contributed to his own tragedy. He refused to obey a police officer’s lawful commands—for whatever reason, and a man who shouldn’t have died, died. But it wasn’t your fault. You did exactly as the police department trained you to do. Shouldn’t that be enough? Yes, but it’s not.

    Now, am I wrong to wonder, with a change in the law, what would happen to you? Without the malice/good faith language, could you be convicted of criminal homicide because somehow, anti-police, Monday-morning quarterbacks decided you “should have known” the man was the resident, not the suspect, and had a garden tool and not a gun. How could you have known? The best you could have done would be to guess. And what if you were wrong? The man did everything but wear a sign saying you should believe he was your suspect. Still, with new legislation, you could be in serious trouble—for doing your job.

    Remember the Cambridge police officers who detained Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. after someone reported Gates as a possible burglar at his home? Even President Obama concluded the officers acted “stupidly.” But how in the world were the officers supposed to know Professor Gates was who he said he was simply by his word? Isn’t that what a criminal would say? They’ve said it to me in similar circumstances. Again, they don’t issue cops crystal balls in the academy. So, if a simple detention is deemed “stupid,” what would they say about an incident where police shot a man?

    Governments at all levels are horrible at teaching the public what police do and why they do it. When a high-profile incident occurs, too many leaders would rather “teach” the public what the cop did “wrong,” even if it was “right” when he or she learned it in training. And if the officer is truly wrong and legally judged to be so, then let the punishment fit the crime. But when officers act as they were properly taught, how about government and law enforcement leaders start teaching the public that, though things turned out wrong, what the officer did was right.

     

     

  • Handcuffed Does Not Mean Harmless

    Suspects handcuffed by police are helpless, right–harmless? Well, let’s see about that. I’ve been assaulted by handcuffed suspects—every cop with some time on has been. Suspects have spit at, scratched, bitten, kicked, head-butted, stolen patrol cars, stabbed, shot, and killed police officers—all while handcuffed.

    Still, police chiefs often discipline or even fire officers for using force against the so-called “helpless” handcuffed prisoners who’d assaulted them. Police Chief Kathleen O’Toole recently fired my friend, Adley Shepherd, from the Seattle Police Department (SPD) despite his force being applied within a split-second of a suspect having kicked him in the head and in spite of SPD’s lead defensive tactics training instructor commenting, “I thought he did it perfectly.” How else can an officer perform and still keep his job if “perfectly” is not good enough. This expert assessment did not come from a liberal city council member, a Black Lives Matter activist, or a police chief appointed by a liberal mayor–it came from the guy who teaches this stuff to cops.

    Of course departments should be concerned about police officers using excessive force and punish it where it truly occurs. But is any force excessive just because the resisting suspect is handcuffed? Simple logic tells us a handcuffed suspect who assaults an officer is, by definition, not harmless.

    We have to ask this question: Was the officer’s response reasonable for the specific circumstances? An officer must bring an uncooperative suspect under control, quickly. I once had a handcuffed suspect kick out the rear passenger window of my patrol car. Just imagine if such a kick were to my head or face? The force of a kick is greater than that of a punch. It’s even worse if the assailant is wearing hard shoes or boots.

    With all the cop ambushes (four more souls taken from us, yesterday), an officer cannot afford distractions. A part of bringing a suspect (handcuffed or not) under control includes gaining physical compliance, either voluntarily or by force. An officer has certain use-of-force options with any combative suspect. Should certain force options be unavailable just because the suspect is handcuffed, regardless of their level of resistance?

    One of the officer’s force options is to strike a combative suspect with an impact (or body) weapon (hand, foot, etc.). If a suspect is not handcuffed and kicks an officer, you would probably think it reasonable that a punch would be one possible force option used. So, if a handcuffed suspect kicks an officer, what’s the difference? It’s not like Officer Shepherd continued to beat the suspect; he only struck her once to prevent her from assaulting him again and to bring her under control. And just try doing that while the combative suspect is leaning against the backseat, hands behind her back, with perfect leverage to kick the officer.

    Another factor is any human being’s reaction to pain. Pain does not distinguish between that inflicted by a handcuffed or non-handcuffed person, kicking a police officer in the head. Within the heat of a human’s response to pain, the initial force used, due to adrenaline and stress, is likely to be higher than intended. Human beings avoid pain and do not wish to have it repeated.

    We also need to remember it is the handcuffed suspect who triggered the officer’s use-of-force. The suspect committed a felony by assaulting a police officer, to which the officer has no choice but to respond.

    Besides the natural reaction to pain, one has to consider a cop’s response to a suspect’s physical resistance. As long as a suspect is not under control, both the suspect and officer remain at a higher risk of injury. A lieutenant once told me that officer safety requires an officer to end any resistance as soon as possible because anything can happen when officers don’t have suspects under control. A distracted officer is a target for anyone in the vicinity who might take offense to a cop using force to facilitate an arrest. Does that sound likely these days?

    What would you do?

    Put yourself in the officers shiny black shoes: You have dedicated your life to serving and protecting your community for almost a decade. You arrive to investigate a domestic violence incident. You have determined the primary aggressor who will go to jail. You handcuff the suspect and while placing her in your patrol car, she leans back against the seat and kicks you in the face—with her boot.

    This stuns you, and you react to the pain and non-compliance by punching the suspect in the face–once–to prevent another assault, deescalate the situation, and bring the combative suspect under control. It works. The suspect’s assault and your reaction occurred within seconds of each other. The department’s head defensive tactics trainer, the person responsible for your training, has determined your use-of-force was, “perfect” (you performed precisely as your training taught you).

    Yet, your police chief, after months of deliberations, has decided she knows better what force was necessary and proper than the officer involved did in that split second and knows better than the person she has in charge of teaching her officers how to overcome combative suspects in myriad dangerous circumstances.

    So, yet another police officer is sacrificed on the altar of left wing political correctness. Seattle’s police chief commented on Shepherd’s case, “Common sense alone was sufficient to determine that the level of force used was not reasonable or necessary.” Sounds more like uncommon nonsense to me.

    It would be interesting to see how Chief O’Toole would have reacted if she had been the arresting officer and that suspect had kicked her in the face (I know, a chief of a large city make an arrest, hah!). Interesting how her “common sense” does not match the common sense of patrol officers who confront these situations daily with only a split-second to respond. And what about her own police defensive tactics instructors who go beyond common sense and teach officers “best practice,” specific, techniques on ways to counter combative suspects?

    How do you think police defensive tactics trainers feel when the police chief fires officers for using techniques they taught in training? Why should officers trust anything they learn in defensive tactics if applying those tactics in the real world gets them fired–or prosecuted? Why should cops trust their leaders at all?

  • Defending Democrats–Well, Sort of

    Hold on to your hats. I’m going to defend Democrats. This may seem a bit odd coming from me, especially only days after Hillary Clinton suffered such a stunning defeat. I consider the defeat well deserved, if for nothing else, for her part in what four Americans suffered in Bengazi. Her myriad other alleged crimes may be illegal and unethical, but what happened in Bengazi appears to have been immoral. As they say, time will tell.

    Of those she’s been accused of, I don’t know what crimes she’s actually committed or policies she’s violated. She’s an American entitled to due process. However, just the amount of information that she and President Obama still haven’t released regarding the attack on the Bengazi consulate staggers credulity. We still don’t even know what Clinton and Obama were doing during much of the Bengazi attack. This reality is not fabricated by her detractors; this empirical information exists, but for some strange reason remains unanswered.

    Where I’ll defend the Democrats is against the hypocritical radicals protesting President-elect Trump’s election because their side didn’t win (Waaaaahhhhh!). I can easily imagine what those civic-minded protesters would be saying about political right people if they dared to protest Hillary had she won. It’s only academic, anyway, as the right doesn’t hit the streets in wild-eyed protests. The right would simply have prepared for the end, having made an unconscious, collective mass suicide pact in case she won! Well, at least we wouldn’t have watched the news for a few months, after which strongly worded editorials would begin to appear in the nation’s newspapers. The right sucks at disrupting society—and, that’s a good thing.

    But seriously, those violent protesters aren’t Democrats. Some of their political desires just happen to intersect with Democrats rather than Republicans. It’s similar to why some of the ultra-right groups’ wishes run tangent to some Republican causes. For example, Democrats tend to want open borders; Republicans want strict control of our borders. It’s not surprising that those on the extreme right, who’d prefer only certain white immigration, would prefer the party opposed to open borders.

    As much as I have a problem with the modern Democrat Party, even President Obama, Senators Warren and Sanders, and Secretary Clinton were magnanimous in defeat and showed patriotism with their statements of concession and congratulations to Mr. Trump. What was in their hearts, I can’t know. But I can appreciate the outward demonstration of respect for our electoral system they conveyed.

    The Trump protesters would have you believe that they are ordinary, mainstream Democrats who are fed up with an oppressive system and were impelled to get off their couches and hit the streets in defense of democratic ideals against a xenophobic tyrant. Yeah, right! These are perennial malcontents. And, unfortunately, statements by Democrats such as President Obama and Secretary Clinton, calling Trump a racist, misogynist, generally a hater, and associating him with the KKK, can’t help but enflame and legitimize the rioters. Hell, if Trump truly were everything the left says of him, I might be out protesting too. Problem is, he didn’t become these things in all the decades he’s been in the public eye. He only became a “degenerate racist womanizer” after he began running for president.   

    The protesters are perennial agitators for whatever cause comes down the left wing pike. They are Socialists, Communists, and Anarchists who clambered out of their parent’s basements, shook off the pot induced fog, grabbed an appropriate sign and mask, and then slithered into the protest pit with the rest of the anti-social vipers. These are poisonous people who are not simply on the other side of political issues; they want nothing less than to bring America down so they can start over in creating their own warped version of America. Imagine what that Utopia would look like.

    I actually feel bad for true, “old-school” Democrats for what their leaders have done by dragging their party so far left. When I was a kid, adults I knew, Republican and Democrat, revered JFK. Today, the Democrat Party would be unrecognizable to President Kennedy. If the Democrats are smart, they’ll do what the Republicans just did. Go outside the establishment for leadership.

    Oh, wait. They tried that with Senator Sanders. But the Democrat Party establishment, especially Hillary Clinton, slapped Bernie down like he was a peasant attempting to rise above his “station.” The sad thing is, Bernie helped them do it. Where was he in the final weeks? Throwing flaccid support to Hillary here and there, leaving his supporters grasping air where there was once substance.

    Though he is a socialist, a belief I abhor, the Vermont senator was honest and was not establishment—well, until he knuckled under to them at the expense of people who believed in him. What did they promise him? Doesn’t matter, now. It’s a promise they won’t be able to deliver. What a disappointment for Democrats looking for change that he let you all down. Democrats should have stuck with Bernie the way Republicans stuck with Trump. Fortunately, Trump didn’t abandon his followers—and that seems to have made the difference.   

  • Who Are They to Lecture Us about Guns?

    Whenever the left argues about their “support” for the 2nd Amendment, they argue they are only interested in “common sense” gun laws. This is funny. No, really. Think about it. People who know nothing about guns attempt to lecture (and legislate) about guns to people who know a lot about guns.

    One “common sense” gun law the left promotes are “assault weapons” bans. Liberals say, “No one needs military-styled, automatic combat weapons for personal or home protection.” Unless you are federally licensed, you are not allowed to own an automatic weapon (machine gun). Still, many “common sense” politicians have no clue which end of the gun you hold and which end the bullet thingies come out. Still, they lecture us.

    Former New York Mayor, and anti-gun zealot, Mike Bloomberg gave a seminar on the difference between semi-automatic and automatic weapons: “a pistol, you have to pull the trigger each time. An assault weapon (AR 15, et al) you pull the trigger and it goes (insert childlike machine gun noise here).” Nope! So-called assault weapons (semi-automatic rifles that “look” like badass military automatic rifles) shoot pretty much the same way as common hunting rifles—one trigger pull, one bullet.

    When talking about an “assault weapon,” California Senator Kevin de Leon used his expertise in firearms using this terminology, “…can shoot a thirty-magazine clip in ½ a second.” Hmmmm, I always thought a clip was another word for a magazine—you know, the thingie that you put the bullets into. At any rate, he’s about as clear on automatic vs. semi-automatic as Mayor Bloomberg. And Senator de Leon was flip flopping terms all the while handling the rifle as if he were a six-year-old child holding a fifteen-pound lobster by its claws.

    Diane Feinstein tells us that it is, “legal to hunt humans with 15-round, 30-round, even 150-round magazines.” Maybe she meant “clips.” She appeared upset people can only use three rounds to hunt ducks. I know I’ve been retired a couple years now, but last I checked, it wasn’t legal to hunt humans with even one bullet. She must be thinking of the Black Lives Matter claim that police (I think cops still qualify as humans—maybe) are hunting young black men in the streets, so…

    Not to be outdone, the Executive Branch needed to make its own profound contribution to the great gun debate. Infamously, Vice President Joe Biden once advised his wife to scare intruders off by firing a shotgun off their back porch. In another brilliant stream of genius, Biden also advised that if people want to “keep someone away from your house, just fire the shotgun through the door.” Holy moly, Batman! Get a shotgun!

    So, if non-gun people ever wonder why gun people get so frustrated with liberal politicians claiming they have cornered the market on “common sense” gun laws, just do a quick internet search on some of the intellectual luminescence emanating from the liberal side of the gun argument. On second thought, if you value your sanity, don’t. Or better yet, have a few sips of your favorite alcoholic beverage first.

  • Does Hillary Hate Cops? Duh!

    I was listening to the Todd Herman Show on KTTH 770 AM yesterday, and he gave Donald Trump sound advice: Pick only a few of Hillary’s “difficulties” (out of an untold number) and hammer her on those.

    For me, Hillary Clinton sparks a paraphrase of noted French philosopher Jean Rostand: break one law, you’re a criminal; break a thousand laws, you’re a corrupt politician; break all the laws, you’re a goddess.

    One of the subjects Todd suggested was Hillary’s disdain for American law enforcement. I agree, Todd. Great idea—mostly because it’s so true. And it’s not hard to find examples of her cop-hating ways:

    Alicia Powe writes in DailySurge.com, “The incident [Freddie Gray] is just one of a number of controversial police-involved deaths of African-American men. Clinton attributed to their[Brown, Garner, and Gray] deaths to a racist criminal justice system and said their deaths were a part of a pattern.” She quotes Secretary Clinton, “From Ferguson to Staten Island to Baltimore, the patterns have become unmistakable and undeniable.”

    Hillary’s statement is baffling when you consider two of the examples: The DOJ ruled Ferguson a justified shooting relegating “hands up; don’t shoot” to myth status. And, except for one officer’s trial which resulted in a hung jury, a black judge acquitted all of the officers who had been charged by a politically partisan, overzealous prosecutor. Even in Eric Garner’s case, there were extenuating and exacerbating circumstances brought on by Garner himself. These are Hillary’s examples of an “undeniable” pattern of police systematically harming black men?

    Just her opinion, right. So, what’s the big deal? Well, only that she may be our next president…. Thump! (Sorry, passed out for a minute. I’m okay now.)

    Anyway, I’ve been against leftists for a long time, so I opposed Hillary, going into this election. But I’m no huge Trump supporter, either. However, the amount of trivial crap I have to ignore to vote for Trump compared with the voluminous and serious crap Hillary supporters have to ignore to vote for her is stark (come on… the FBI told us she lied, U.S. secrets were compromised, and people died!).

    Moving on…

    The DailyCaller.com’s Derek Hunter quotes Hillary at the “Brown and Black Forum” in Iowa earlier this year, “I think that when you have police violence that terrorizes communities, that doesn’t show the respect that you’re supposed to have from protecting people in your authority.” Is she kidding me? “police violence terrorizing communities??? How insulting is that to American law enforcement?

    There’s more…

    John Hayward, writing in Breitbart.com quotes former Secret Service Officer Gary Byrne’s, speaking about his experiences with Hillary Clinton: “And the truth is that Hillary Clinton has become so angry—you mentioned about the security detail at the State Department trying to get away from her. Like you said, I talk about it in my book Crisis of Character, she gets so angry one day, sitting in her limousine, she strikes a Secret Service agent in the back of the head with a Bible. That’s not normal behavior. That’s bizarre behavior, and it’s criminal behavior. And that’s the real Hillary Clinton.”

    The officer has found it difficult to get the attention of the mainstream media. Hayward writes, “Byrne said the media blackout of stories damaging to Hillary Clinton was frightening, ‘because you’re never going to know what the truth is’ under a new Clinton Administration.” Mainstream media helping Hillary? Say it ain’t so.

    Byrne also talked about the broader issues of how law enforcement from local to federal view Hillary. He believes that FBI agents are upset about the way the agency handled the email investigation. Byrne believes agents and other employees of these agencies will continue to leak materials about Hillary that will vindicate the “stuff you hear in my book.” Byrne finishes with this: “Anybody that doubts what I say about Hillary Clinton: read George Stephanopoulos’ book, and read Dee Dee Myers’ book. They say the same things.” And those two are hardly right-wingers.

    And how about what was said today just before the debate…

    I have enormous respect for Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke. In fact, I’ve said if he were Seattle’s police chief, I might still be working today (Anyone else just feel that collective shudder from Seattle’s liberal politicians).

    This morning on Fox and Friends (from: www.infowars.com, Sheriff Clarke made no bones about what he thinks about Hillary’s view of law enforcement officers: “Hillary ‘is a straight up cop hater.” He continued, “She has made it clear from the convention that she is all in with the criminal element, she doesn’t care about victims of crime, she’s a straight up cop hater, and so she is, like I said, rolling the dice on not having support of law enforcement. The problem for her is that middle America, mainstream America does not share her sentiment in having sympathy for criminals.”

    Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani backed Clarke’s assertion: “The Democratic Party has become an anti-law enforcement party. And this [Hillary refusing to even seek an endorsement from the National Fraternal Order of Police, but supporting anti-police groups such as Black Lives Matter] is the best demonstration of it.”

    Like Todd Herman says, if Trump can stay disciplined in tonight’s debate and limit his points to a few strong ones, such as Hillary’s disdain for American law enforcement, we can avoid allowing a lying, criminal security risk to contaminate the White House—the American people’s house.

  • Gunpoint

    It’s no longer enough that a suspect has a gun before a cop can use lethal force. Now, apparently, armed criminals pose no lethal threat to cops until they actually point their guns at police officers.

    In fact, Charlotte-Mecklenburg NAACP President Minister Corine Mack said, “In my mind, and in most of the community’s mind, it really doesn’t matter if he had a gun.” Really, reverend? What chance do police officers stand in this surreal environment of yours?  

    Okay, now that my head has stopped spinning from the gross negligence of such thinking, let me put on my teacher’s cap. I’m always railing about how the cop leaders are guilty of their own gross negligence in their failure to educate the public about what cops do. So, here goes…

    When cops are dealing with a suspect and an officer sees that a suspect has access to a gun, no matter where the gun is, you’ll hear the officer shout, “GUN!” at the top of his or her lungs. No, the cop won’t wait until the suspect pulls the gun out and points it at one of them before yelling to warn other officers of the imminent—yes, imminent—danger.

    Try this experiment: Tuck an object into your pocket or waistband as if it were a gun. Have another person hold an object in his hand—maybe a book—as if it were a gun.

    Okay, you are the “police officer.” Your “gun” is in its “holster.” The other person is the “suspect.” He or she is holding a “gun” but is not pointing it at you at the moment.

    Now, stand about ten feet apart, facing each other. Okay, here’s how it works: The officer, you, may not draw your gun until the suspect points his or her gun at you.

    How long did it take the suspect to point the gun at you? One second? Less? Did you even touch your gun before he pointed his at you? Bang! You’re dead.

    Even if you already had your gun out of your holster, how quickly could the suspect turn his gun on you? Would you get your shot off before the suspect could shoot you? Maybe? Is maybe good enough for your spouse and kids?

    If the standard for using deadly force changes so cops have to wait until suspects point their guns at officers before officers can shoot, we’re gonna have a bunch of dead cops.

    Oh, wait. That’s the point for some people, right? What was that Black Lives Matter chant during a march in New York City last year?

    “What do we want?”

    “Dead cops.”

    “When do we want them?”

    “Now!”

  • Seattle’s Homeless Camp Removal Protocol: If They Refuse to Obey, Let ‘em Stay

    How’s this for a government vagrant removal “protocol?” As I understand it, as explained on a morning radio talk show, the city of Seattle has set into place a system to remove “homeless” encampments from city streets. One of the city’s many homeless hovels is currently blighting 2nd Avenue, Downtown.

    Seattle’s protocol for sidewalk encampment removal requires all agencies involved in the cleanup, police, DSHS, solid waste, etc., be present at the location to complete a removal. All of them for the entire time.

    Since the police had to leave—you know—to do real police work, and some of the lovely “beneficiaries of liberal largess” refused mother city’s request to stop defiling Downtown sidewalks, the “eviction” ended.

    This protocol is insane and is designed to appear as if liberal city leaders are doing something about the vagrancy problem when they are doing the opposite: making it worse.  

     

    Liberal government has been the rule in Seattle forever

    Except for a few respites with a conservative city attorney, liberal government presided over Seattle during my police career. Over more than two decades, the city hasn’t solved the “homeless” problem; they’ve made it worse—much worse.

    This is not a new problem. Several years ago, shortly before I retired, I remember walking on the sidewalk northbound on Broadway between Madison and Union Streets. I was in uniform, on duty. Someone had set up a tent on the sidewalk next to a city telephone pole.

    Even many Seattleites driving by looked at me incredulously, as I did nothing. What could I do? My city had de-policed me. If I had rousted the occupant, the city might accuse me of a civil rights violation. Why would any cop risk that?

    Ironically, it’s illegal to camp in a city park. At least, it used to be.    

    The above lunacy recently led to the death of a 19-year-old street-camper run over by a car at an I-5 off-ramp in the U. District.

     

    Liberal policies have never been and never will be successful—by design

    The liberal’s attempts to solve Seattle’s vagrancy problem has been a disaster and will continue to be. The people living in tents along freeways and on city sidewalks are not the homeless families and mentally ill folks Seattle’s bleating hearts would like you to believe. Not most of them, anyway. Most I’ve dealt with were chronically inebriated criminals who eschewed civil society and reveled in their make-believe, makeshift communities. 

     

    Seattle: no respect for “homeless” as people responsible for their lives

    The situation will not be resolved until Seattle’s liberal, political power seekers begin to respect these people as human beings, not children, by holding them responsible for the state of their lives and for their actions.

    There is nothing wrong with also offering these folks any services available. However, if they are not held accountable for the condition of their lives or their irresponsible actions, why not choose the handouts and false sympathy that keep these folks perpetually contemptuous of civil society and dependent on liberal government?

    It’s an insult to those who have courageously dragged themselves out of the mire of drug and alcohol addiction, crime, and the resulting poverty, to give the sidewalk campers a pass.

  • Myth Affects Cops

    I went to a retirement party the other night for one of the best cops I’ve ever known. The term legendary came up many times during the evening. Most of the stories we told about him were great fun to tell, but it was something he said during his speech that struck me.

    After acknowledging “going out while still vertical,” he said, “I make no apologies for being a cop. I am not ashamed of being a police officer. I am proud of my career.”

    What a sorry state for American law enforcement that a cop like him felt it necessary to say this. The room was full of cops, friends, and family. Yet, the mood of the nation (as expressed by anti-police factions) descended on the celebration.

    As an officer and a sergeant, this man served his community for over three decades. Nearly all of it was in patrol where most police work is done. Sadly, there are people who couldn’t care less about this man’s service and dedication.

    Those people work hard to perpetuate the myth that the cops are “broken,” so they can destroy what cops work hard to build–safe communities.

    The cop haters should be the ones making apologies and feeling ashamed, not the cops.

  • Supreme Court Selections Matter

    Been busy with a manuscript lately but not too busy to respond to the importance of the Supreme Court nomination(s), riding on this election. Seems the split in the Court between conservative and liberal has never been clearer.

    There is a California case involving teachers’ union dues being collected from members which is then used to support political “speech” with which some members disagree. The Court, absent Justice Scalia, split on the case, sending it back to the 9th Circuit, which had ruled in the union’s favor.

    Sitting on a bar stool, around a picnic table, or at supper with family, how many people do you think would support the government taking money from people and using it to promote political positions they don’t agree with?

    With ordinary citizens, Republicans, Democrats, indeed libertarians, nearly no one would agree with this notion.

    Nevertheless, the Court is currently split on the issue. At this august, judicial supper table, 50% of the eight people see nothing wrong with the government using a person’s hard-earned income to pay for political “speech” they oppose—in this case, left wing speech.

    Conversely, thankfully, the other four justices, like most fair-minded people, know the idea of subverting free speech rights through the confiscation of Americans’ money is just what it sounds like—at best corrupt, at worst, theft!