Instead of Getting Raped, Shoot the Rapist

There have been some highly publicized incidents where certain police spokesmen advised women not to "dress like sluts" in order to avoid sexual assaults, in effect blaming the victims for enticing criminals. But after an attempted rape in South Carolina park, a local sheriff had some much better advice.

[He] is urging women to get concealed weapons permits and carry guns to protect themselves. ... He suggested that women carry a .45-caliber weapon, and showed reporters at a news conference a fanny pack women could use to carry a handgun while jogging.

The sheriff also noted that a gun is far more effective than mace, and had this to say.

"There won't be any doubt if you need to use your firearm to defend your life," he said. "I don't want this to happen, but I am telling you, I am tired of looking at victims and saying, 'I'm sorry, we've done the best we can to get them in jail.'"

I applaud the sheriff for speaking out on this issue and actually giving advice that could save women from rape or death. I've been saying for years that the best way to prevent rape is to give yourself the ability to respond with lethal force, an action that not only can prevent rape, but might remove rapists from the population permanently.

More on Shooting the Rioters

In the previous post I called for the police to shoot rioters who use firebombs against the police, or who set fire to occupied buildings. John Hawkins at Right Wing News agrees, although he goes much further.

Many people think of defense of a nation as the very first job of government, but there’s actually an even more basic task that the government has to fulfill: Maintaining order.

In extraordinary situations, when you have widespread breakdowns of public order and shops are being looted, cars are being burned, rocks and bottles are being thrown at police, and civilians are being murdered in the street, if the government can’t quickly re-establish order using normal means, it’s completely justified in using lethal violence to do it

I think lethal police response should be more selective, but I agree with his view of the responsibility of government. And he makes a key point.

you may say this is unfair to thugs in the street, but we should be much more worried about the lives of innocent people who are being assaulted and property owners whose livelihoods are being unfairly destroyed.

Exactly. This attitude tends to separate the right and the left, and is one of the many reasons I will always be on the right. When I look at a riot, my sympathy is with the people being assaulted, the owners of the cars being destroyed, the families left homeless when their buildings burn, the shopkeepers who are robbed, and all the other victims. The last thing I worry about are the feelings and rights of the scum doing the rioting.

Rioting Scum Continue to Rampage Thru London

In an extremely belated and underwhelming response, police in London are warning that they are going to use plastic bullets against rioters. They should have been using real bullets on the first night to kill the firebomb throwers. People who attempt to set others on fire, or who set fire to occupied buildings are attempted murderers. Those observed in the act of such attempted murders should be shot on sight by police, or anyone else. Since the UK has largely disarmed its people, and stripped away the effective right of self-defense, it falls to the police to maintain order and protect the public from these rampaging gangs of human scum. From what I've seen in British news reports, so far they've done a miserable job.

While driving to work yesterday I heard an NPR report on the riots. Their reporter interviewed a woman whose apartment complex was set on fire. She told how while she and her family were fleeing for their lives, their home destroyed, looters were laughing and stealing rugs from a shop on the ground floor of the building. As I've written before about mob violence, these sorts of situations are one of the few times that excessive police force, which would normally be police brutality, is actually called for to restore order. People who act as part of a violent mob or gang, who commit acts of arson, and who think the chaos they've caused is an excuse to appropriate other peoples' property are predatory vermin that needed to be suppressed as quickly as possible with overwhelming force. When a government fails to do so in these situations, its lack of action encourages more vermin to crawl out of their holes and take part in the feeding frenzy.

How About We Stop Paroling Violent Career Criminals?

You'd might think basic common sense would prevent the release of a dangerous serial offender. Consider Dominic Cinelli.

Cinelli’s parole records show a checkered past: a rehabilitated junkie who started shooting heroin at 14, he was a career criminal who at one point was serving three concurrent life sentences for several armed robberies, armed assault with intent to commit murder, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, and unlawful possession of a firearm.

A lifetime of crime, three life sentences, yet he was paroled in 2009. On this past Sunday night Cinelli and some accomplices robbed a jewelry store. A police officer intervened as they were attempting to leave, leading to a shoot-out which left both Cinelli and the officer dead.

It was the first and last time in 34 years of public service that Woburn police officer John “Jack” Maguire, 60, a married father, had fired his gun on the job. He planned to retire in October.

Maguire should be alive today. A major reason he's dead is because fools decided to release someone who committed crimes serious enough to receive three life sentences. Our jails are full of non-violent drug offenders, and other criminals without a history of violence. If we need to let people out to alleviate overcrowding, how about we focus on them and leave the violent felons safely behind bars?

A Good Time For Some Police Brutality

I've written a number of posts criticizing excessive use of force by police, particularly regarding the major overuse of tasers. But there are certain times when the police need to use more force. One of those situations occurred the other night after the Lakers won the NBA championship.

Violence erupted within 30 minutes of the game's end as rowdy fans poured out of area bars...As police in riot gear approached, the crowd hurled unopened cans of energy drinks at them. Several men stomped on an SUV parked on the street, breaking its windows...a scrum of several hundred people...surrounded a city bus filled with passengers and attempted to yank the driver out through a window. A cabbie fled when his taxi was set upon by another mob that kicked in the windshield and set it ablaze. ...other storefronts had windows smashed. At least eight people, one of them beaten unconscious, were taken to area hospitals.

A violent mob is a danger to anyone and anything near it. There is simply no excuse for any of that behavior, and in my opinion it should be met with massive, overwhelming police force. Positively-identified violent rioters should be beaten into submission, preferably with blows designed to break bones and do permanent damage. Rather than worry about making arrests, police should be permitted to break up riots as quickly as possible by crippling the ringleaders. They can be arrested later while recovering in the hospital. Anyone throwing a firebomb, or aggressively wielding any other sort of lethal weapon should be shot dead on the spot.

In my opinion, rioters who think a sports victory is a good excuse to attack people & destroy private property are worthless pieces of human garbage, and should be treated as such. Please note that I am not criticizing the police response in LA. It appears they did a decent job. But if there's ever a time when actions normally labelled as police brutality are justified, a riot is such an event. 

Why No Taser?

I've been highly critical of overuse and inappropriate taser use by police. But here's a situation where a taser might have been used instead of lethal force, but was not.

A man entered his Sikh temple in suburban Cleveland early Thursday, raised a meat cleaver near two members preparing for morning prayers, and was shot and killed by police, authorities said. ... The two men readying to pray fled and returned with officers, who were confronted within a minute by the man, again with the cleaver raised, the chief said. He kept moving toward officers and was shot.

The story doesn't say the man made a sudden charge at police, just that he kept moving toward them. Why not drop him with a taser instead of killing him? This is exactly the sort of situation where a taser should be used as an alternative to lethal force. With multiple officers present, it would still have been possible to kill him should the taser have proven ineffective. I know I'm second-guessing a crisis situation, and there might have been other factors involved. But it seems that a taser should have been a viable alternative. As Obama would say-- let me be clear. The shooting was definitely justified. Police have every right to defend themselves against the potentially lethal threat of a bladed weapon. But was the shooting necessary, when a non-lethal tool widely employed by police might have gotten the job done?

What Did This Cop Do to Deserve That?

From the LA Times

Believe it or not, that picture involves a police "enforcement sting aimed at educating motorists about yielding to pedestrians walking along unmarked crosswalks." What a great idea. Let's have a cop dress up like a giant rabbit, walk into traffic, and see if cars stop. What could go wrong? What do you have to do to get that job at the police department? Fortunately this stunt did not result in a dead giant rabbit in the middle of the roadway.  

Canadian Police Apologize for Arresting Radical Islamists

There's been much talk lately about political correctness with regard to offending Muslims, in the wake of the Fort Hood shootings. As bad as things are here in the U.S., they are worse elsewhere. Canadian police arrested two men in Windsor, Ontario because of connections with a "radical Islamist group" across the border in Detroit. During the arrest of the alleged Islamists, one of their wives was patted down by an officer. Therefore the police felt the need to issue a news release saying,

"It was never the intention for Windsor police officers to offend or embarrass the families of our Islamic community," wrote Windsor police Chief Gary Smith in a news release Thursday. "The actions taken did cause embarrassment and did offend their religious beliefs. I sincerely apologize to the families and the Islamic community."

That's just pitiful. I wonder if any other "communities" get written public apologies when police offend their delicate cultural and religious sensibilities? What about all the Canadian citizens who are probably offended and embarrassed that the police would go so far as to issue such and apology? Fortunately the police union at least is speaking out.

"Usually, when you make an apology, that means something was wrong. In my opinion, nothing went wrong here.

"I believe the officers were doing everything they're entitled to do under the law. I believe they did it professionally. I don't see an issue here."

Imagine that. He thinks that the police are within their rights to search the immediate associates of suspected terrorist when making an arrest. Maybe the police chief should issue another apology for the insensitivity of the police union.

Top Taser Incidents

ABC News has an article up called "Top 7 'Shocking' Taser Incidents." I missed a couple of these incidents. Probably the worst one ABC covers is when cops tased a disturbed, suicidal man in Brooklyn while he was out on a ledge, causing him to fall to his death. Hey, let's prevent him from committing suicide by shocking him so that he topples off a ledge -- brilliant. The other particularly idiotic incident was when a hospital security guard -- an off duty cop -- tasered a man holding his newborn baby, causing the baby to fall. Does basic common sense disappear when people get hold of tasers? What did he think would happen to the baby after the man collapsed from the shock? Naturally the hospital defended the guard, saying that "proper procedure" was followed. They might want to rethink that procedure.

Unfortunately for anyone that pays attention to taser incidents, the seven highlighted by ABC are just the tip of the iceberg. There are actually plenty that are much worse than some of the ones mentioned in the article.

Obama & the Gates Arrest Incident

My first impression:  Obama would have been best served to keep his mouth shut about an incident he didn't have all the details on, although it's understandable that he reacted as he did. I'm not black, but I've worked with and talked to enough African-Americans to know that black men get harrassed by police in certain areas -- particularly in upscale predominately white neighborhoods. But Obama's not just some guy -- obviously.  As the president he needs to think before sounding off on a local incident. 

Since I'm not the president, there's no contraint on my opinion. I just read one of the latest accounts. It's difficult to know for sure what to believe, and I'm always skeptical of police claims, but this officer appears fairly credible. From his statements it seems that Professor Gates was an obnoxious jerk who greatly overreacted to the situation. He should have been glad the police were looking out for his house and calmly explained that he was the owner. That would have been the end of it. Instead, he verbally attacked the cop and kept on when told to stop. But I'm not sure why it was necessary to arrest him. From what I understand, Gates had already been identified as the homeowner before his arrest. Unless he actually got violent, why not just ignore his insults and walk away? The whole thing seems to have been completely unnecessary on both sides.

Justifiable Taser Use

I've written a number of posts about incidents where in my opinion police use of tasers was unjustified and unnecessary. But here's one where the police officer appears to have been justified, and the negative consequences were the fault of the suspect.  In Australia a man ran toward a policeman carrying a lighter and a bottle of gasoline. When he refused to stop, he was tasered. Apparently since he had been sniffing gas and was covered with fumes,  the taser caused him to burst into flames. The cop helped put the flames out despite being attacked by a bystander.

This incident is an example of where a taser is a reasonable option, despite the unfortunate consequences. It's unreasonable to expect a cop to disarm someone with a bottle of gasoline and a lighter, a potentially lethal combination. But at the same time there is no major threat until the person gets close enough. Rather than simply shooting him, a taser gives the cop an intermediate option between lethal force and putting himself at extreme risk. Unfortunately the rules for taser use tend to be very loose in most jurisdictions.

Muslims Facing in the Wrong Direction

The latest from the UK sounds like something from the Onion News Network. The Norfolk police department will give arrested Muslims compasses, so they can locate the right direction to Mecca when they pray.

The force had already painted the ceilings of some of its cells to point worshippers in the right direction.

Apparently that wasn't good enough. According to a police spokesperson,

'Wherever possible custody staff facilitate any reasonable request in respect of religious considerations.'

Yeah, because asking for a compass to pray is really reasonable. I guess their all-powerful God won't hear Muslims if they happen to face in the wrong direction when they pray. He can't be expected to overlook a minor mistake in facing when a worshipper is in jail. I don't know if a mere compass is good enough. Maybe they need a state of the art GPS system that precisely locates the angle of Mecca. After all, with a compass they might be off a degree or two in their facing, and we can't have that.

We Can Torture Criminal Suspects But Not Terrorists

A New York Supreme Court justice has just ruled that it's legal to torture a suspect into giving up a DNA sample. No, I'm not joking. Murder and robbery suspect Ryan Smith previously provided DNA samples to police, but the lab mishandled them. When police showed up to get another sample, Smith refused. Here's what happened next.

A video shows Smith handcuffed, seated on the floor with his shirt pulled up over his bare shoulders. Police can be heard telling him that the Taser would be "painful and unpleasant," but he persisted in his refusal, according to the judge.
  The officer applied the Taser to Smith's shoulder area, which caused him to cry out and pull away. The data record for the device showed it was activated for 4 seconds.
  "The video recording indicates that the defendant did yell out as if in pain and then agreed to comply with the order," Sperrazza wrote. 
  Smith allegedly was unconscious when the swab was taken

There you have it. Police can torture a U.S. citizen with electricity -- a mere suspect at that -- to the point that he passes out, in order to force him to give a DNA sample. But torturing a known terrorist like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to extract information to protect the country is somehow immoral, un-American, criminal, or whatever other hysterical characterization terrorist rights supporters like to use.

Bulletproof Turbans

No, that's not a joke. The Guardian reports:

Sikh police officers want special bulletproof turbans to be developed so they can serve in firearms units, according to the new British Police Sikh Association. The Sikh religion requires its male followers to wear the turban, but existing police safety helmets do not fit on top of them.

What's next, bulletproof burkhas for conservative Islamic women police officers?

"Taser Torture"?

A group of black bloggers is sponsoring a petition and calling for Congressional hearings on police use of tasers against African-Americans in the U.S.

Group member Eddie Griffin, of the blog, Eddie Griffin-BASG, said, “While there continues to be considerable media and congressional attention to torture in Guantanamo, there is comparatively little attention to the mounting evidence of human rights violations in the streets of America by a number of police departments across America, including torture and killings of black children, women and men through-out the United States through the use and abuse of Tasers.”

I'm not sure why misuse or overuse of tasers is only a problem for black Americans. There have been plenty of news stories detailing questionable taser use by police on people of various races, including a number cases where children have been tasered.  In the latest incident, a school police officer in Phoenix, Arizona tasered a 14 year-old boy in order to break-up a fistfight. Was blasting a kid with 50,000 volts really the best option?

But regardless of the racial issue, the black bloggers' initiative points out yet again why it is so hard to take seriously the hysteria about torturing terrorists. There are all sorts of questionable activities, many of which could be considered torture -- especially using the broad definition favored by torture opponents -- that take place regularly within our criminal justice system. We tolerate and sometimes even advocate those activities. Yet people actually get all worked up about the torture of foreign terrorists. 

DNA Database Expansion

The New York Times reports that starting this month, the FBI will massively expand its DNA databases to include the genetic information of people who haven't been convicted of anything.

the Federal Bureau of Investigation will join 15 states that collect DNA samples from those awaiting trial and will collect DNA from detained immigrants — the vanguard of a growing class of genetic registrants.

Essentially this means that if you are arrested and charged with a crime, your  DNA could be recorded by the FBI and stored in a database.  As an expert quoted by the Times said,

“Over time more and more crimes of decreasing severity have been added to the database. Cops and prosecutors like it because it gives everybody more information and creates a new suspect pool.”

It expands the "suspect pool" to include many more innocent people. If you were charged with a crime but completely innocent, it won't matter. You will be a possible suspect in future crimes, because your DNA will be sitting in a database along with actual convicts. Hopefully the ACLU will find the time to act against this disturbing expansion of police power, in between defending terrorists and trying to cripple the CIA.    

Problems with 911 Emergencies

I read a number of stories the last couple of days about 911 and the Pittsburgh police shooting. When the 911 call was made, the dispatcher was informed that the soon-to-be killer was armed. But the dispatcher wrote "no weapons" in her report. Police thought they were responding to a domestic disturbance call and walked into the ambush. 911 is a useful service to have, but there are all too many horror stories involving dispatchers who are either careless, or just don't take the job seriously enough. I've had one experience of my own with the service.

Back when I was in graduate school, one night after dark, my wife and I heard a woman screaming for help out in the parking lot of our apartment complex. Nothing like that had ever happened before, and it sounded like real screams, not someone just messing around. I quickly called 911 and explained the situation to the operator. She said she would notify the police right way. I picked up a gun and headed outside in case I could do anything, expecting police to arrive any minute. The nearest station was about five minutes away. The screaming had stopped and I couldn't find anything. I stood out in the parking lot waiting for the police. And I kept waiting. It took them about twenty minutes to arrive.

I never did find out if anything actually happened. Maybe the screaming was nothing serious, but it definitely sounded bad. Whatever happened would have been long over by the time the police got there. I don't know why the response time was so long, and whether it was the fault of the 911 operator or the police. But if I'm ever screaming for help and someone calls 911, I hope it doesn't take twenty minutes to get the police to drive down the street and check it out.

According to one jobs information site, the average salary for 911 operators throughout the U.S. is $39,000. Considering how much is riding on them, and the importance of their judgment when evaluating & reacting to calls, that seems low to me. Standards for operators should be high, and quality 911 operators should be well-compensated.

Giant Roadside Crosses

In Utah the American Atheists organization objects to having roadside crosses honoring state troopers killed in the line of duty. They sued the state claiming establishment of religion. When I first saw the story, I was prepared to write about how these idiot atheists were making the rest of us look bad. But then I looked into it a bit further.

It turns out that the crosses are twelve feet high and have the symbol of the Utah highway patrol. That's what you see when you drive down the highway: giant crosses with the state police logo. Here's a picture of one of them. If they had any memorials with different symbols, say a twelve-foot high star of David for a slain Jewish officer, I don't think there would be a problem. But putting up nothing but a bunch of giant crosses with the police logo does seem to be a bit much. It's understandable how someone could reasonably argue that the crosses imply that the Utah highway patrol is a Christian organization. But since they have been constructed by a private organization rather than by the police force itself, I don't think American Atheists have a case. Rather than asking for the crosses to be taken down, they should modify their position and simply ask that the highway patrol logo be removed.

The GOP, Minorities, & the Police

Shelby Steele has an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal titled, "Why the GOP Can't Win With Minorities." It's short on specifics, and is basically a philosophical argument about why liberalism appeals to minorities. I found it unconvincing and question some of his premises. But the best critique I've seen is from Darren Lenard Hutchinson at Dissenting Justice. Hutchinson's response to Steele is called, "If Conservatives Listen to Shelby Steele, They Will Never Win Support From People of Color." The whole post is worth reading, but here's a key section:

While conservatives often espouse the virtues of limited government, they often embrace governmental intervention into some of the most personal areas of our lives, including pregnancy, abortion, sexual orientation, marriage, and consumption of "obscene" materials like pornography and even "sex toys." They also support very strict restraints on liberty by expanding the criminalization of conduct, promoting heavy sentencing, and condoning highly permissive policing methods that invade personal privacy and autonomy. The "free hand" is only selectively free, and quite often, the results of conservative-sponsored governmental intervention has a disparate impact on persons of color. These policies, not a grievance culture, explain the inability of the GOP to appeal to many persons of color.

I agree with Hutchinson, and I want to expand on one of those points that is a personal pet peeve of mine with regard to some fellow right-wingers.

As Hutchinson says, conservatives tend to support invasive policing methods. I have found that there is a reflexive deference, almost a reverence, toward the police among a significant number of conservatives. (That's true of attitudes toward the military also, but that's off-topic). Despite the general conservative dislike and distrust of government, particularly government bureaucracy, that distrust does not extend to the police -- quite the opposite. Many conservatives respond reflexively & defensively to any criticism of the police. There is a strong attitude that the police should be obeyed, and that anyone failing to show the correct degree of deference deserves whatever might happen to them. If you doubt this, visit any major conservative site and look for a post on a police brutality topic. A significant number of commentors, sometimes 50% or more, will defend the police, or at least minimize and try to explain away their offenses. Here's one example. Many conservatives also support the militarization of the police, the drug war, and inflexible sentencing. And minority complaints about police behavior tend to find little sympathy on the right.

It would be nice to see more conservatives take the attitude that the police are a necessary evil, an arm of state and local government, rather than heroic defenders of the public good. Police actions should be subject to a high degree of public scrutiny, and their abuses of authority should be severely punished.  I believe that such a shift in perspective by the GOP, particularly a resolve to hold police accountable to a higher standard of conduct, and to support severe punishment for abuses, would be a good step in reaching out to minorities.

Terrorist Swarms

There's an interesting article in the New York Times called "The Coming Swarm," that warns of terrorist swarm tactics being used to target the U.S., and offers possible countermeasures. The author, John Arquilla, who teaches at the Naval Postgraduate School, describes the tactic

The basic concept is that hitting several targets at once, even with just a few fighters at each site, can cause fits for elite counterterrorist forces that are often manpower-heavy, far away and organized to deal with only one crisis at a time.

How would the U.S. counter separate, coordinated attacks by small terrorist groups at different sites throughout the U.S.? Arquilla says that current response plans are inadequate. What does he suggest?

Arquilla advocates a counterterrorist strategy that involves scattering small regular military quick response units throughout the country, training Reserve and National Guard units for counterterror missions, and creating police counterterrorism posts throughout major cities. I see a number of problems with these suggestions.

First let's look at the regular military component. Where are these special counterterrorist units going to come from? Do we have enough troops not committed to other missions and responsibilities to even create these units, or would this be part of a military expansion? Arquilla writes that

Cities, states and Washington should work out clear rules in advance for using military forces in a counterterrorist role, to avoid any bickering or delay during a crisis

That's a pretty big "should." Jurisdictional disputes are inevitable. How do we even identify a terrorist attack as such and not just another incident? If there's shooting at a mall, how long will it take local authorities to figure out that it's a terror attack and decide to call in the military? What's the trigger for using the military? And there are all sorts of other mundane issues as well, such as where they will be based. Will they be permanently committed to this mission? What if we need such a unit overseas? Will the area of the U.S. they are supposed to be protecting be left uncovered? Where does the FBI fit in with all of this? I thought they were a key counterterrorism agency.

Training Reservists and National Guardsmen to assist in counterterrorism response seems to be a reasonable idea, but how long will it take to deploy these units in a crisis? If a terrorist team is shooting up an office building in a small city here in NJ, how long is it going to take to decide to use the National Guard, and then have a counterterror unit respond? Who decides to commit the guard?

The police are clearly the first line of defense against terrorist swarm tactics. They are going to respond first, and have the best chance of snuffing out an attack. But is increasing police readiness for terrorist attacks worth the price? We have already seen numerous problems caused by the militarization of the police throughout the U.S., which has led to many abuses. Arquilla is calling for even greater militarization. What are these elite counterterrorism squads going to be doing for 99.9999% of the time when there is no terrorist attack? Are they going to be launching assaults on houses looking for drugs? There's no way they are just going to sit idle as wasted resources on the off-chance that terrorists hit their area.

Is the terrorist swarm threat even worthy of a major military commitment? Do small teams of terrorists pose a danger that can't be handled by our already militarized police forces? A military response is probably going to arrive too late to prevent the carnage in any event. I believe the threat of this type of terrorist attack is real and we should be planning for it. But freedom has a price. I don't think there is any way to truly protect against this sort of terrorism without turning the country into a police state -- and even then you can't guard everything.

One of the main counters to small scale terrorist attacks isn't even mentioned in the article -- a heavily armed citizenry. The sad fact is, that by the time the police arrive, let alone the military, a terrorist swarm attack will almost certainly have inflicted numerous casualties. Unless police officers happen to be in the right place at the right time, there is nothing to stop the terrorists -- except their potential victims. Terrorists plans account for police/military response. If they have any brains at all, they aren't going to strike targets in a location near a rapid response police or military counterterrorism unit. They are going to target weak spots, where the coverage and response time will be slower. The one thing they can't account for are their supposedly helpless intended victims returning fire and killing them before they can inflict more damage.