Two hostages who died in the siege in Sydney were hailed as heroes for sacrificing themselves. It is the best that emerges in our selfless sacrifice in such moments.
But how much better would it have been if those heroes had been armed when the siege began and could have saved themselves and others through quick self-defence action? This is where all the anti-gun rhetoric fails; when it disarms the law-abiding to make them helpless in the face of those who will never obey the law. So it leads them to hear such stories and opine that all guns should be banned, it leads them to ask why this Muslim madman was not in jail for the many crimes with which he is accused. It leads me to ask why could the unfortunate hostages not protect themselves, why were they disarmed?
So, yes, we end up with jerk-offs like the plant Mike the Gun Guy (give me a break) on Huffington Post, making big deals of small numbers of concealed carriers who may commit crimes (I am not as keen as he is on taking the numbers from the Violence Policy Center for granted). Their answer - make firearms the purview of the unlawful and make the rest of us victims in waiting.
Not going to happen; Mike the Gun Guy, Vivik Murthy, Barack Obama, and anyone else can say as they will; They can choose to be defenseless if they like, but not for me. I will never give up my right to defend myself with all the force necessary as I see fit. I will not be held on my knees in a coffee shop by a Muslim adman.
Tuesday, December 16, 2014
Friday, December 12, 2014
Taking us down a treacherous path
Perhaps it is not a surprise, given the notion that many hold that we are not citizens of our nation, but global citizens, that we are walking a dangerous path. The inescapable conclusion is that, whether consciously or unintentionally, liberals are defining a foolhardy worldview that will lead to the end of the nation that has allowed them the right to promulgate their foolishness.
This is probably nowhere brought into clearer relief than in the recent torture debate. How many people may have vanished or been vanquished for the belief that we must fight a moral fight, that we must be kind to enemies who would destroy us? How dangerous is the fairy tale that treating others in humane ways that they would not treat us will somehow insure our survival? It leads to capitulation, not cooperation.
The bizarre kabuki theater in all of this is those who are now screaming most loudly about torture are those who cried most vociferously for someone, anyone, to defend them in whatever ways were necessary. Oh, the luxury of being safe in your bed, pulling the covers over your head and letting others fight the fight that keeps you safe.
There is little doubt that Jack Nicholson's tirade as COL Nathan Jessup was meant by liberals to be an awful and critical caricature of the mindset of those we task to protect us, making them look inhuman. Still, the kernel of truth is there.
Weasels, cowards, blowhards, self-righteous politicians and pundits, cowering in their hallowed halls, pushing others out in front of them like human shields, seeking only their own safety and security, later criticizing the means whereby those they task do their work. They should all pick up a weapon and stand a post or STFU. They want rights and freedoms but lack the courage to defend them.
But this is the view of those who would blame themselves for others' misbehavior; crime, riots, and other lawlessness are the fault of those who have not decided to support the "less fortunate". Terrorism and discontent are our own fault. This is where they decide, in the name of some amorphous philosophy, to turn their fate over to those who would kill them with no thought. This is where there notion of diversity and cultural sensitivity fails. Quite simply their notion that all have won and all must have prizes will lead to their own culture being overrun and decimated in favor of other, less charitable cultures.
This is not an issue of ethnocentricity, that our culture is better and another worse. it is an issue of survival and an ideology that allows murderous, dictatorial cultures to whom the notions of freedom and rights is anathema to flourish and eventually gain precedence, will be ground under. these cultures do not have a Bill of Rights, there is no freedom of speech or religion, there is only submission.
This is probably nowhere brought into clearer relief than in the recent torture debate. How many people may have vanished or been vanquished for the belief that we must fight a moral fight, that we must be kind to enemies who would destroy us? How dangerous is the fairy tale that treating others in humane ways that they would not treat us will somehow insure our survival? It leads to capitulation, not cooperation.
The bizarre kabuki theater in all of this is those who are now screaming most loudly about torture are those who cried most vociferously for someone, anyone, to defend them in whatever ways were necessary. Oh, the luxury of being safe in your bed, pulling the covers over your head and letting others fight the fight that keeps you safe.
There is little doubt that Jack Nicholson's tirade as COL Nathan Jessup was meant by liberals to be an awful and critical caricature of the mindset of those we task to protect us, making them look inhuman. Still, the kernel of truth is there.
Weasels, cowards, blowhards, self-righteous politicians and pundits, cowering in their hallowed halls, pushing others out in front of them like human shields, seeking only their own safety and security, later criticizing the means whereby those they task do their work. They should all pick up a weapon and stand a post or STFU. They want rights and freedoms but lack the courage to defend them.
But this is the view of those who would blame themselves for others' misbehavior; crime, riots, and other lawlessness are the fault of those who have not decided to support the "less fortunate". Terrorism and discontent are our own fault. This is where they decide, in the name of some amorphous philosophy, to turn their fate over to those who would kill them with no thought. This is where there notion of diversity and cultural sensitivity fails. Quite simply their notion that all have won and all must have prizes will lead to their own culture being overrun and decimated in favor of other, less charitable cultures.
This is not an issue of ethnocentricity, that our culture is better and another worse. it is an issue of survival and an ideology that allows murderous, dictatorial cultures to whom the notions of freedom and rights is anathema to flourish and eventually gain precedence, will be ground under. these cultures do not have a Bill of Rights, there is no freedom of speech or religion, there is only submission.
Thursday, December 4, 2014
Foolhardy conflation
It is foolish for people to conflate the two refusals to indict LEOs in the recent deaths in Missouri and New York. I suspect that if I have to explain why, you would not listen anyway.
But let's be clear - one protest is justified, one is not.
Michael Brown was killed by an individual defending himself. It could have happened just as it did, whether the shooter was a LEO or an armed citizen, being attacked and defending himself. The evidence supports the determination; this was a tragic, but justified homicide. Garner was killed for no such reason, with no such justification. This would be murder if it were committed by a citizen and so it should be when committed by an LEO.
So there is your standard;
- Defending one's self from a threat that could be reasonably assumed to be lethal is a justification for using lethal force in defense. Brown, a larger man was assaulting another person. Whether it was Wilson or anyone else in this scenario, Brown's death was justified by his actions. If a civilian would be justified committing this self-defense shooting, then so is a LEO.
- If Garner's death resulted from a civilian attack then it would be murder - there was lethal threat and no need to use lethal force, no justification. Hence, it was illegal and unnecessary. The only possible and totally misguided justification for it was that it was committed by a NYPD officer. That is no justification at all.
It is foolish and manipulative to conflate the two cases. Only those who are using Brown's tragic but justified death for their own purposes would do so.
But let's be clear - one protest is justified, one is not.
Michael Brown was killed by an individual defending himself. It could have happened just as it did, whether the shooter was a LEO or an armed citizen, being attacked and defending himself. The evidence supports the determination; this was a tragic, but justified homicide. Garner was killed for no such reason, with no such justification. This would be murder if it were committed by a citizen and so it should be when committed by an LEO.
So there is your standard;
- Defending one's self from a threat that could be reasonably assumed to be lethal is a justification for using lethal force in defense. Brown, a larger man was assaulting another person. Whether it was Wilson or anyone else in this scenario, Brown's death was justified by his actions. If a civilian would be justified committing this self-defense shooting, then so is a LEO.
- If Garner's death resulted from a civilian attack then it would be murder - there was lethal threat and no need to use lethal force, no justification. Hence, it was illegal and unnecessary. The only possible and totally misguided justification for it was that it was committed by a NYPD officer. That is no justification at all.
It is foolish and manipulative to conflate the two cases. Only those who are using Brown's tragic but justified death for their own purposes would do so.
Wednesday, December 3, 2014
Running over Protesters, V.2
So, there it is - the modern Missouri version of Reginald Denny.
"Begic was in his vehicle in the 4200 block of Itaska in the early hours of Sunday when the teens advanced on him and began damaging the car, police said. After Begic exited the car, the teens started beating him with hammers. Begic was taken to St. Louis University Medical Center where he was pronounced dead. He had injuries to his head, abdomen, face and mouth, the Post-Dispatch reported."
Note - they are "teens" - not black or Hispanic teens (although they are). White cop kills black teen - color is everywhere. But here a 32-year-old Bosnian man is killed by thugs with hammers. No one mentions race. No one will be say this was in retaliation. No one will say it is racist or a hate crime when a white male is attacked and killed for no reason other than his whiteness by teenage thugs-of-color.
Folks - he was white, they were not. If he had driven over a couple of them, his whiteness and their color would have been critical information - central to the slaughter of innocent young men. He doesn't defend himself against such disparity of force and they beat him death. He's Bosnian and they are teens. Go figure; move long race-baiters, nothing to see here. Haven't seen the President, who loves to use race as a tool, condemn this one yet. Either race matters or it does not.
"Begic was in his vehicle in the 4200 block of Itaska in the early hours of Sunday when the teens advanced on him and began damaging the car, police said. After Begic exited the car, the teens started beating him with hammers. Begic was taken to St. Louis University Medical Center where he was pronounced dead. He had injuries to his head, abdomen, face and mouth, the Post-Dispatch reported."
Note - they are "teens" - not black or Hispanic teens (although they are). White cop kills black teen - color is everywhere. But here a 32-year-old Bosnian man is killed by thugs with hammers. No one mentions race. No one will be say this was in retaliation. No one will say it is racist or a hate crime when a white male is attacked and killed for no reason other than his whiteness by teenage thugs-of-color.
Folks - he was white, they were not. If he had driven over a couple of them, his whiteness and their color would have been critical information - central to the slaughter of innocent young men. He doesn't defend himself against such disparity of force and they beat him death. He's Bosnian and they are teens. Go figure; move long race-baiters, nothing to see here. Haven't seen the President, who loves to use race as a tool, condemn this one yet. Either race matters or it does not.
Wednesday, November 26, 2014
Running over protesters
Well, you had to figure it was going to happen at some point with protesters thinking that blocking the public way was a great idea.
But before everyone decides to jump on the bandwagon of how terrible this is, let me utter one name that would resonate in my mind if I were to have to decide whether to stop for protesters or drive through them:
REGINALD DENNY.
But before everyone decides to jump on the bandwagon of how terrible this is, let me utter one name that would resonate in my mind if I were to have to decide whether to stop for protesters or drive through them:
REGINALD DENNY.
And then there's this...
An answer to the question why mob violence will not get you what you want.
Let me see if I can channel this properly:
- You need to treat us fairly, as equals! When frustrated we will lash out, have tantrums like children, even when the targets of our violence are not guilty or even are those who support us.
- We are not criminals! How about we loot that store over there!
There is a clear disconnect here with regard to the social covenant we all agree to so as to live in a peaceful society and be treated with respect and dignity. I realize that, in modern times, a ideology has emerged that asserts that we are all allowed to do as we please simply because we are alive. But a society functions as a unit when its members all hew to common standards and goals. That being the case, to demand that one be treated with respect when one is incapable of treating others that way, is pointless. When one considers the most viable means to attaining a respected position in society to be acting in a lawless manner, they defeat their own purpose.
We hear a lot about stereotypes of young black males. Where to you think they come from? They emerge from the same process that leads to stereotypes of white Americans. Please tell me how acting in violent and lawless ways helps to overcome the stereotype, how the apparent lack of emotional control helps to change such views? When you seem to be trying so hard to fulfill every negative stereotype you can, when you decide to lash out at those who are blameless, then you are creating enemies, not supporters.
I wonder what all those liberals will do if the "protesters" decide to come and burn shit down in their neighborhoods. I suppose they probably have gates and private security. For me in my world, with no gates or security except what I bring with me, the answer is, quite blunt; don't bring that shit to my neighborhood, to my front yard. You won't like how it goes down. If defending myself against your indiscriminate violence makes me a racist, then I guess I'll have to be one.
Let me see if I can channel this properly:
- You need to treat us fairly, as equals! When frustrated we will lash out, have tantrums like children, even when the targets of our violence are not guilty or even are those who support us.
- We are not criminals! How about we loot that store over there!
There is a clear disconnect here with regard to the social covenant we all agree to so as to live in a peaceful society and be treated with respect and dignity. I realize that, in modern times, a ideology has emerged that asserts that we are all allowed to do as we please simply because we are alive. But a society functions as a unit when its members all hew to common standards and goals. That being the case, to demand that one be treated with respect when one is incapable of treating others that way, is pointless. When one considers the most viable means to attaining a respected position in society to be acting in a lawless manner, they defeat their own purpose.
We hear a lot about stereotypes of young black males. Where to you think they come from? They emerge from the same process that leads to stereotypes of white Americans. Please tell me how acting in violent and lawless ways helps to overcome the stereotype, how the apparent lack of emotional control helps to change such views? When you seem to be trying so hard to fulfill every negative stereotype you can, when you decide to lash out at those who are blameless, then you are creating enemies, not supporters.
I wonder what all those liberals will do if the "protesters" decide to come and burn shit down in their neighborhoods. I suppose they probably have gates and private security. For me in my world, with no gates or security except what I bring with me, the answer is, quite blunt; don't bring that shit to my neighborhood, to my front yard. You won't like how it goes down. If defending myself against your indiscriminate violence makes me a racist, then I guess I'll have to be one.
Tuesday, November 25, 2014
Ferguson...so here's the thing. (UPDATED AND EXPANDED)
Huffington Post, among other media outlets, has for months now, demonized Officer Darren Wilson. They consistently talk of him having killed Michael Brown - an "unarmed teen" - which, of course, he was. But the use of the term in this this case is not meant to inform, but to inflame. He was an "unarmed" and potentially assaultive teen who was the size of some of the largest NFL defensive linemen. So, he was not called "a hostile and belligerent giant teen intent on assaulting a police officer", even though indications are that he had a history of physical assault (not unusual in such large adolescents) and a disposition to match, given video of his confrontation with a store manager just prior to the events that lead to his death. So let's start right away by debunking the "gentle giant" notions and agree that he likely chose to be combative with Wilson; a poor and irrational decision that contributed to his death.
None of this is meant to suggest that his death was not a tragedy. In fact, none of this even needs to refer to his race or the race of the LEO (of course, to the media and those intent of being disgruntled, this is essentially the sole defining feature of this unfortunate affair.
What this does is set the stage for disaster, no matter who gets killed (and clearly someone was destined to die in this situation).
But let's start by asking "What should Wilson have done?" What options did he have? Well, upon initial contact, perhaps he should have waited for backup prior to approaching Brown. Of course, we have to acknowledge that this may not have solved the problem or prevented the tragedy. It certainly may also have inflamed tensions when a cadre of officers ends up approaching a belligerent and "unarmed teen", a gentle giant (does this sound like the prelude to a Rodney King event). It may have ended up with wrestling, clubbing and tasing (all caught on video), which would have been roundly criticized. But it may have avoided a fatality. But Wilson didn't wait; that is not evidence of maliciousness; naivete or even poor situational awareness, but not malice. There is no evidence that he did not follow procedure.
Perhaps, once he realized that Brown was large, high, belligerent and combative, he should have decided that survival (both his and Browne's) trumped the law and simply left, backed off. Of course, that is not what we expect of our LEOs, that they allow potential law-breakers to go free because it might be difficult or risky to stop them. I also expect, given Brown's demeanor, that he had a history of intimidating people physically and thus, perhaps, this was what Brown expected - he would intimidate the officer into leaving him alone. But that is not what happened, either. Sadly, this seems to be what the "community" thinks should happen; that a young black male should simply be left to do as he will.
What would you have done if you were in Brown's place? Let's start at step 1: Would you have robbed a small convenience store, taking cigars and shoving the manager out of your way as you left? Would you then, when approached by an LEO after such an act, have decided it was better to initiate combat than de-escalate, fight rather than comply? If you place total blame on Wilson for this event, then you are saying this is what you would have done as well, that there was nothing wrong with how Brown reacted. sadly, this is what many in the "community" seem to be saying; that Brown's behavior was excusable.
So, what was Wilson to do? Even Joe Scarborough was able to realize that "...cops are jerks to everybody, when you don't do what cops tell you to do. I'm 6-foot-4. I weigh way too much. I'm a big guy. If I'm coming at a cop on Staten Island, and I go into the car, if we believe the grand jury report, do we believe the cop would act differently towards me than Michael Brown?"
So, what was Wilson supposed to do? I know for most people it is not possible to imagine themselves in that place, most would not ever choose to work in a profession where they might have to potentially encounter such an individual. Most who are complaining about it would probably not walk down the street where Brown lived - they have great empathy for African-Americans, but would be too fearful to walk that street. And, if they did, Brown would likely rob or assault them.
But think on it - what would you do? Small decisions made without awareness or anticipation of their potential outcome lead to a large confrontation. Consider yourself in Wilson's place - it is your job to stop this person who is walking in the middle of the street. Upon contacting him, it becomes apparent that he took part in a recently reported robbery. Can you figure into your decision as to whether to do your duty his race, color or size? Do you decide not to do your job because he is black and you are white? Does your responsibility change due to these elements? Do we have to sets of laws?
The answer has to be no, that it does not; so you move forward doing your job. So, when the shit hits the fan, what do you do? You contact and attempt to stop a suspected criminal who decides that he will not comply, not be taken. Someone 80 - 100 lbs larger than you decides to resist arrest or detention via attack and is beating on you. You are overwhelmed, you are not match in a physical fight, you are trapped in your vehicle and there is a clear disparity of force and dangerous intent, You are trying to detain him, protect yourself, he is trying to kill you. You fear for your life, you have been struck a couple of times and you feel it is likely you will be rendered unconscious. Suppose, as an LEO, you are carrying a gun, and in this scuffle this individual has already grabbed for your gun and you are certain that, should you be incapacitated, the gun will be taken and used on you.
That is your dilemma. Of course, there are more than enough armchair quarterbacks, looking at the scene from plush couches in cozy offices, academicians who have never set foot in a dangerous neighborhood, looking back at it without knowing what it is like to be in that moment. They know what you should have done. Sing Kumbaya with Brown and all will be well. But let's leave them to their fantasies and be real. For all the twists and turns that could have kept these players from ever crossing paths, here you are. What do you do? There are people who will not be reasoned with - especially with an LEO when they have just committed a crime - this was one of them. So if that is your choice, you are dead - story over, and likely very little media attention to your death. Or, you can defend yourself as best you can.
So the two choices are pretty clear at this point; when it has come this far, the situation dictates that you either die or defend yourself. By the time this event got to this point, the end was inevitable; someone was going to be killed. Should Wilson simply allowed himself to be killed? Would you (be honest)? There are those who would think that was the better solution; that for all the social ills of our times, it is better for a white cop to die than a black teen. That would be "social justice".
Polls find that Americans are deeply divided on the issue of culpability in this case. That is because, as noted above and contrary to what you will hear elsewhere, this is not a simple equation and there are things that both might have done to de-escalate the situation. Once it reached its peak, it was too late for that.
I know - this all relies on logical thinking, which is short supply these days. White cop, black teen, no brainer.
None of this is meant to suggest that his death was not a tragedy. In fact, none of this even needs to refer to his race or the race of the LEO (of course, to the media and those intent of being disgruntled, this is essentially the sole defining feature of this unfortunate affair.
What this does is set the stage for disaster, no matter who gets killed (and clearly someone was destined to die in this situation).
But let's start by asking "What should Wilson have done?" What options did he have? Well, upon initial contact, perhaps he should have waited for backup prior to approaching Brown. Of course, we have to acknowledge that this may not have solved the problem or prevented the tragedy. It certainly may also have inflamed tensions when a cadre of officers ends up approaching a belligerent and "unarmed teen", a gentle giant (does this sound like the prelude to a Rodney King event). It may have ended up with wrestling, clubbing and tasing (all caught on video), which would have been roundly criticized. But it may have avoided a fatality. But Wilson didn't wait; that is not evidence of maliciousness; naivete or even poor situational awareness, but not malice. There is no evidence that he did not follow procedure.
Perhaps, once he realized that Brown was large, high, belligerent and combative, he should have decided that survival (both his and Browne's) trumped the law and simply left, backed off. Of course, that is not what we expect of our LEOs, that they allow potential law-breakers to go free because it might be difficult or risky to stop them. I also expect, given Brown's demeanor, that he had a history of intimidating people physically and thus, perhaps, this was what Brown expected - he would intimidate the officer into leaving him alone. But that is not what happened, either. Sadly, this seems to be what the "community" thinks should happen; that a young black male should simply be left to do as he will.
What would you have done if you were in Brown's place? Let's start at step 1: Would you have robbed a small convenience store, taking cigars and shoving the manager out of your way as you left? Would you then, when approached by an LEO after such an act, have decided it was better to initiate combat than de-escalate, fight rather than comply? If you place total blame on Wilson for this event, then you are saying this is what you would have done as well, that there was nothing wrong with how Brown reacted. sadly, this is what many in the "community" seem to be saying; that Brown's behavior was excusable.
So, what was Wilson to do? Even Joe Scarborough was able to realize that "...cops are jerks to everybody, when you don't do what cops tell you to do. I'm 6-foot-4. I weigh way too much. I'm a big guy. If I'm coming at a cop on Staten Island, and I go into the car, if we believe the grand jury report, do we believe the cop would act differently towards me than Michael Brown?"
So, what was Wilson supposed to do? I know for most people it is not possible to imagine themselves in that place, most would not ever choose to work in a profession where they might have to potentially encounter such an individual. Most who are complaining about it would probably not walk down the street where Brown lived - they have great empathy for African-Americans, but would be too fearful to walk that street. And, if they did, Brown would likely rob or assault them.
But think on it - what would you do? Small decisions made without awareness or anticipation of their potential outcome lead to a large confrontation. Consider yourself in Wilson's place - it is your job to stop this person who is walking in the middle of the street. Upon contacting him, it becomes apparent that he took part in a recently reported robbery. Can you figure into your decision as to whether to do your duty his race, color or size? Do you decide not to do your job because he is black and you are white? Does your responsibility change due to these elements? Do we have to sets of laws?
The answer has to be no, that it does not; so you move forward doing your job. So, when the shit hits the fan, what do you do? You contact and attempt to stop a suspected criminal who decides that he will not comply, not be taken. Someone 80 - 100 lbs larger than you decides to resist arrest or detention via attack and is beating on you. You are overwhelmed, you are not match in a physical fight, you are trapped in your vehicle and there is a clear disparity of force and dangerous intent, You are trying to detain him, protect yourself, he is trying to kill you. You fear for your life, you have been struck a couple of times and you feel it is likely you will be rendered unconscious. Suppose, as an LEO, you are carrying a gun, and in this scuffle this individual has already grabbed for your gun and you are certain that, should you be incapacitated, the gun will be taken and used on you.
That is your dilemma. Of course, there are more than enough armchair quarterbacks, looking at the scene from plush couches in cozy offices, academicians who have never set foot in a dangerous neighborhood, looking back at it without knowing what it is like to be in that moment. They know what you should have done. Sing Kumbaya with Brown and all will be well. But let's leave them to their fantasies and be real. For all the twists and turns that could have kept these players from ever crossing paths, here you are. What do you do? There are people who will not be reasoned with - especially with an LEO when they have just committed a crime - this was one of them. So if that is your choice, you are dead - story over, and likely very little media attention to your death. Or, you can defend yourself as best you can.
So the two choices are pretty clear at this point; when it has come this far, the situation dictates that you either die or defend yourself. By the time this event got to this point, the end was inevitable; someone was going to be killed. Should Wilson simply allowed himself to be killed? Would you (be honest)? There are those who would think that was the better solution; that for all the social ills of our times, it is better for a white cop to die than a black teen. That would be "social justice".
Polls find that Americans are deeply divided on the issue of culpability in this case. That is because, as noted above and contrary to what you will hear elsewhere, this is not a simple equation and there are things that both might have done to de-escalate the situation. Once it reached its peak, it was too late for that.
I know - this all relies on logical thinking, which is short supply these days. White cop, black teen, no brainer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)