Can we do anything about school shootings?

Database of shootings. 

Everytown (Bloomberg org) on school shootings. Other tabs have more info, but need to dig. 

Researchers found commonalities in school shooters. Very important. 

More research on what policies work. Fairly important, but not as incisive. 

Another website with data on school shootings. A website on mass shootings. 

Information about the Uvalde shooting at an elementary school. The shooter had a high power AR rifle, so the rounds went through doors and walls. The article also explains the design of the AR, its ammo, and the damage done. 

AR from shooter in the Uvalde school

Image: texastribute. com

Extras. Pew research into mass shootings. A graph there shows the increase in active shooter incidents, but it's still not a significant contributer to the overal murder rate. 

Long WaPo article on the experience of a mass shooting with AR15 type rifles. Lots of graphic pictures and description. 

Big new vision for what the US should be

I haven't been posting, but I've been very active following the huge news events in the US, where the covid pandemic and Black Lives Matter demonstrations have superseded  even the presidential race in importance (until recently, like October).

I've been well aware of the killings that have sparked the Black Lives Matter movement. Trayvon Martin. Michael Brown. Philando Castille. Eric Garner. And many more. This spring it was Ahmaud Arbery, followed by the egregious slow-motion asphyxiation of George Floyd caught on tape as neighborhood folks pleaded with police to let him up so he wouldn't die. 

But he did die. And it was a latest stick of dynamite, setting off demonstration, looting, and vandalism in dozens of cities. My town had a BLM demonstration that was peaceful. We have a bit of BLM graffiti that isn't overwhelming in the least or destructive. 

Something clicked inside me though. It happened after looking at the 30 minutes of body cam tape of  Rayshard Brooks. There was something about it... And I realized what it was. This was a guy desperately trying to do the right thing and avoid arrest. He was polite to the police, helpful with his paperwork, not belligerent in the least until they tried to put the cuffs on him, and then he fought them like a man desperate to escape. Even as he was fighting them, he didn't yell epithets. Even as he shot a taser (grabbed off one of the cops), he didn't insult them. And then he was shot as he tried to run away. A possibly important detail is that Brooks was on parole, and a new arrest might have landed him immediately in prison. 

While I was mulling over what had happened, I read Brooks described as a convicted felon, an angry drunk, a very violent man. What I witnessed in that video was very different, and I don't think the video lied. 

Suddenly I was able to see someone who could have been a neighbor of mine. He was trying so hard to be a good guy, not cause any harm to anyone, and he ended up arrested for SLEEPING IN HIS CAR. How the fuck did things go so wrong? 

So I started to think about how it could go so wrong. He was desperate to avoid arrest after having done nothing bad, nothing irresponsible. So how did this happen?

Going Wrong #1 - Making too many people criminals

In the US, people lose a lot of their employment potential if they are convicted of a felony. And some fairly smalltime offenses get classified as felonies because of the 'tough on crime' ethos in the US. Do we really want to keep punishing someone years after their conviction? Wouldn't it be better to make it easier to go straight and be a law-abiding person? I think it would be better. 

So I want reform of our laws, particularly reducing the number of crimes labeled as felonies. I want people to no longer be considered guilty of a felony (have to report it on forms) after a certain number of years. Maybe 5 years for lesser felonies and 10-20 for more serious ones. I want three strikes laws used only for violent felonies, not shoplifting or burglary. 

I also think that more county or municipality should have a heavy dependence on fines for funding. Don't use traffic violations to fund your courts. Keep fines high enough to discourage but not so high that it strangles people. Possibly fines should be a portion of percentage of income or your electricity bill, so on a sliding scale. That way it's close to equally painful whether you are rich or poor. Definitely the poor shouldn't be soaked as they have been in many towns and counties, like Ferguson, Missouri. 

Going Wrong #2 - The Underclass

Underclasses are almost always a given in history. The poor, the peasants, the serfs, the slaves, the plebians, the workers. The owners don't want to pay too much because owners are generally greedy and want to have more profit for themselves. However, you do need workers, at least some of the time. You also sometimes need soldiers, and sometimes a lot of soldiers. And you need the next generation to carry on or old age for the last generation is going to be horrific. 

So the owners/nobility want workers who are as cheap as possible. They may pay near-starvation wages or give near-starvation rations. They probably aren't going to be generous.

In the US and probably almost every other country, we inherited this system and outlook. I think it's the worst part of our economic system because it is greedy, cruel, and dehumanizing. I don't think all wages should be equal, but all jobs should provide a decent wage for doing the work well. 

Pay should be good enough to support the person and a small family in a basic, healthful condition. That means decent shelter, decent food, education, medical, and clothing. To me, any job should pay well enough, even at the bottom of the ladder because too often there aren't higher rungs. Some extra generosity to folks at the bottom, including teenage workers wouldn't be a horrible waste when it ensures that everyone has decent wages. 

Wages aren't the sole issue. There's also housing and education. Traditionally, poor housing was what peasants had to put up with. That shouldn't be tolerated anymore. We should upgrade housing for everyone. Similarly with schools. Decent schools, good curricula, and reasonably small class sizes for everyone. 

How to get there

Maybe that seems overly simplistic, but those are the changes I'd like to see in the US. I want a country with respect for all its citizens, and decent wages, housing, and education for all its citizens. That means no group is considered dirty, underclass, undeserving, or disposable. 

Unfortunately, poor folks (blacks, whites. latinos, native americans) have been considered unimportant and disposable. So that has to stop. All people must be valued. This is a big change, but it shouldn't psychologically be that difficult. 

Can we afford these changes? With the average income in the US being $72K for household, this should be possible. However, we may not be able to maintain high levels of immigration and have good wages for all. So I would choose higher wages and lower immigration. It may also be important to emphasize small families so that the next generation isn't swollen with too many for the available jobs and resources. 

I do foresee that we'll need guest workers. I think guest workers should be paid at least the minimum wage so that there isn't a preference for guest workers over American workers. Housing should also be decent. Families as guest workers may be discouraged if the need for labor in the future may be reduced. I would maintain birthright citizenship. 

While I think this vision is doable over time, I don't believe that the US will take this path. It's outside the box and too different from tradition. It also requires more laws and regulation, less greed and more sharing. The wealthy in the US haven't been in favor of that. Just consider Jeff Bezos, the richest person in the US, and how little he pays many of his workers. His great wealth is more than he'll ever need, so it's not immoral to impose a reduction on him to raise others up. 

I think people still need incentive to work, and a good wage that takes care of your family is a powerful incentive. Being respected also makes even unpleasant jobs worth it. I wouldn't support a 'universal basic income' since that might stifle the incentive to work.

While I think crime would decrease, I doubt it would disappear. For repeat criminals who show little interest in reform, prison is proper. For one-time criminals who do reform, society should welcome them back. 

No One Left Behind

I've mentioned Black Live Matters and the problem of having an underclass. However I don't see this as an issue involving only minorities. It's bigger than that. It's a matter of seeing all Americans as 'one of us.' That includes traditionally marginalized groups, like black or Latino folks, but also everyone, including rural folks, rust belt workers, etc. Everyone. 

With this inclusion, we should no longer have out-groups that are disdained. We should cherish all Americans and not let small differences set us deeply against each other. 

So that is my big new vision for the US. I'm inspired by the possibility. I'm inspired to have finally come to understand what I'd like to see in a fair society.

Image: cnn.com

Extras. Link to the Moynihan Report back in 1965 about poverty and lack of opportunity for black families. 

Overview and link dump for US demonstrations and riots

(Catching up on posts started a while ago. This one originally written around 6/9/20.)

George Floyd, a very tall, robust black man, was killed while in police custody on May 25 in Minneapolis. A police officer kept his knee of Floyd's neck for about 9 minutes while two other officers pinned his back and legs. This killed Floyd. The video of much of the incident, including the entreaties of onlookers to let him up and check his pulse, went viral and there were massive demonstrations and some rioting and looting on the next day. Demonstrations, rioting, and looting became widespread in many cities, with demonstrations happening in many cities and towns across the US.

One of the most dramatic scenes was a crowd of rioters trying to get into the CNN world headquarters. They smashed several huge lobby windows, and only a line of police kept them at bay. The crows was dispersed after about 30 minutes by teargas shot from police outside the building. The mayor of Atlanta and other notables pleaded with rioters to stop and go home.

Taking the knee, the protest symbol popularized by the football player Colin Kaepernick, became the symbol of understanding the anger at the death and police brutality in general.

At times like this, I watch a lot of eye-witness video. This one struck me. A looter in New York City is tackled by a demonstrator who yells that the looter isn't a black ally. The demonstrator grabs the looter so tight that not even two people can pull them apart. That is a lot of passion against looting.

Because there was so much vandalism and looting, rumors sprang up indiscriminately. It was people from out-of-town coming with UHauls to haul the loot away. It was antifa being funded by George Soros and placing bricks at locations where they wanted looting. Bus loads were being sent to rural areas to loot the towns there. It was false flag operations of white nationalists or Boogaloo Boys hoping to start a second civil war.

Some of the police crackdowns are harsh, and caught on video too. More people died in the looting and rioting.

Trump was flummoxed on what to do. On June 1, he tried to make a speech and take a stand, but it was a dismal attempt. He took a walk to a nearby church that had been vandalized, and held up a bible for pictures. To allow his walk to happen, thousands of peaceful protesters were hit with rubber bullets and pepper balls, punched, truncheoned (less frequent) and herded out of the way with violence. Attorney General Bill Barr was supposed in charge of the operation though he has tried to distance himself.

Tucker Carlson, who raised the alarm about the covid-19, was raising the alarm about Black Lives Matter protesters and rioters coming to YOU.

And three months later....

The demonstrations are still going on. A few new atrocities have happened or survived. This just shows (as we knew) that Floyd's killing wasn't an isolated incident. 

Image: nydailynews.com

Update. A 2.5 hour documentary of the protests and riots in Minneapolis after Floyd's killing. 

A rapist

Brock Turner, a pretty white boy, former student at Stanford University and former swim champion, raped an unconscious woman he picked up at a boozy college party. He's trying to get one of his convictions overturned, and his lawyer is claiming he never intended to rape.

Let me explain something to you, Brock, and to anyone else who participates in the activities I'm going to describe.

• When you drag or carry or herd an extremely drunk person to an out of the way place, you're probably planning a rape, and thus are a rapist. 
• If you remove her bra, you're a rapist. 
• If you pull down the top of her dress, you're a rapist. 
• If you pull her skirt up high, all the way above the waist, you're a rapist. 
• If you remove her panties, you're a rapist. 
• If you touch her ass or genitals, you're a rapist. 
• If you stick your fingers into her vagina, you're a rapist. 
• If you hump her, you're a rapist. 
• If you don't manage to get your cock out and into her, you're still a rapist. 

There's no way, Brock Turner, you aren't a rapist. You are a rapist. Making excuses just shows that you're an unrepentant rapist.

Men who don't want to be known as rapists, here's something you can do: Don't rape anyone. Don't even get close. There's not a fine line between raping someone and not raping them. It's a very wide line, and don't even start crossing it. That's how you avoid rape, and how you avoid being a rapist.

A worldwide problem

Image: voiceofmuslim.in

Extras. The victim's statement is a tower of strength. No exaggeration in it, but she totally takes the defendant apart in all his slimy nastiness and double-talk.

Update 8/9/18. His appeal was rejected. The court found there was sufficient evidence for conviction, counter to his appeal claim.

Our American gun culture

I've thought about guns all my adult intellectual life, which actually started at age 12-13. I've observed the American cultural traits and myths about guns. First, I have to say that guns are pervasive in American culture. Not as pervasive as food or cars or television, which are practically universal. But about as common as: voting, home ownership, and exercising regularly.

Our latest example of toxic American gun culture was a school shooting with 17 people killed. This is no surprise in the US. We have so many mass shootings, though the death toll isn't usually that high.

Gun rights advocates come up with so many excuses. It's never the goddamn huge availability of guns. It's never the worship of guns to blame. It's always mental illness, or a tenuous connection to the Democratic party, or bad parenting, or liberalism to blame.

I'm not having any of it. The gun rights advocates own these shootings. They are the ones who fight EVERY SINGLE REFORM.  They fight any improvement to background checking (NICS), until there's another mass shooting. They don't try to improve reporting. They don't want the system checked, its flaws revealed. They need the background check as a scapegoat. Many of them don't even support the background check, but feel it was imposed on them. That leads me to wonder if they want totally open sales with no limits on who can buy guns.

Maybe some do. Maybe they think it's a constitutional right, like free speech and freedom of religion. However, my freedom of religion doesn't give me the capability of killing even one person, much less riddling scores of people with bullets. Possibly that's a defect in our Bill of Rights--that gun ownership can't be restricted. Or perhaps I should say that 5 Supreme Court justices decided that's what the 2nd amendment meant.

But the interpretation of the 2nd amendment is only part of the problem. There is a whole cultural issue. In some quarters, you aren't a man if you don't own a gun. You aren't a man if you can't legally own a gun. You aren't an adult if you don't own a gun. Ownership is a right, not a privilege. It's a right, with no attendant responsibility to have training, or good handling. They belief anyone who speaks about good handling is infringing on sacred rights. That anyone who questions the gun culture is unpatriotic and infringing on sacred rights.

My god, more people may worship guns than attend church. That's how pervasive the gun culture is in the US.

Please note, though, that I don't think every gun advocate is part of the toxic gun culture. Many support reasonable reforms. Even more would support reforms if enough Democrats made clearly that they respect the right of sensible, responsible citizens to own guns. However, they aren't loud enough in their support of reasonable reform. Too often, their primary concern is not losing their gun rights, not safety.

Then there are the full-fledged nutcases. They resist all restrictions. They don't even trust restrictions due to mental issues. They would rather mentally ill people have full access than risk being labelled as unable to purchase due to mental impairment.

Frankly, my opinion is that our standards for mental impairment are seriously too tight. Many more people need to be disqualified due to mental impairment. We need to have a procedure for health professionals to report dangerous people, have their gun rights curtailed, and have procedures to follow up. We need the same for family members to report someone who is dangerous, and have their rights curtailed. Most of all, we need to encourage families and all parts of society to support this--to agree that safety is more important. To say "yes, we are committed to preventing dangerous people from having and using guns." I want that to be a whole-society commitment. That is the only rational basis for a healthy gun culture instead of the current toxic culture.

Again...

Image: abc15.com

Extras. An example of a gun advocate who blames anything and anyone but except the proximate cause. A conservative supports the kind of measure I talk about. It even has a name - Gun Violence Restraining Order, or GVRO. However, he writes as though these orders are common, but they aren't.

The FBI is accused of mishandling warnings about the shooter. I wonder how deluged the FBI with warnings, and whether the number far outweighed their ability to check. The right wing and alt-right have so many liars who keep them well-supplied with fake stories.

Update 4/7/18. Here's one of the fake stories. The most visible, talkative survivors are actually actors, according to lying stories floating around on the right. And many who repeat those stories don't give a damn that they're spouting lies.

December links

I collected a bunch of links in November but didn't get to write about them. Here they are. As usual, an interesting bunch.

White nationalist bad behavior. I'm not sure why this struck me as important, but it did. It turns out that a white nationalist who was caught on video repeatedly shoving a woman at a Trump rally has also been involved in organizing white rallies. This includes Charlottesville. Maybe this detail will be important sometime, but I hope not. On a related note, extreme violence at neo-Nazi rallies didn't start at Charlottesville. This report from 6/26/16 shows that it started over a year earlier. Seven were stabbed at a rally in Sacramento.

Roy Moore bad behavior. Roy Moore is the notorious judge in Alabama who has twice substituted his superior knowledge of God's will over the judgments of higher courts. Now he's running for Senate, and has been accused by several women of chasing them when they were teenage girls and he was in this 30s. He's called them liars, which is the traditional patriarchal response. This video shows an interview of a worker who knew of Roy Moore being banned from a mall in the 1980s for that behavior. Doesn't look like this guy is lying. Updating--another woman who dated Moore when she was 17 is sharing her story, and a card that looks very much like Roy Moore's writing.

Senator gets fed up. Humorous story about Sen. Orrin Hatch getting tired of being accused of wanting to cut taxes for the rich. Well, if he doesn't like the accusation, maybe he should stop repeatedly performing the action of which he is accused. If you don't want to be called a wife-beater, stop beating your wife. Ever.

Was Trump's election racist? This is a long article, but I liked the last third. That part starts with "History has a way of altering villians..." It argues that perhaps whites in the US can't see their own racism even as it worsens in a very scary way. I don't know if I agree, but it's definitely worth keeping in mind.

Why care about a crime 25 years ago? I started reading this article about the conviction in a genocide trial, and my initial reaction was that European justice is too slow and too weak. Then my focus changed, and I was surprisingly happy that this murderer was forced to face justice. He didn't get to escape justice as so many others have.

Immigrant gangs. No, this isn't just a conservative talking point. This is real. Maybe the MSM is mostly burying this information because it's not a story that fits their political bias.

Congressmen have sex. Joe Barton was getting divorced, but he was still interested in having sex with women. Sounds normal to me. He actually sent some nude selfies to some women (not out of the blue). Sounds like the 21st century, right? However, it's trouble for a congressman. Unfortunately, TMZ scrubbed their copies of the pic. It's what you'd expect for a guy his age. This ought to be a non-story, shouldn't it be?

Conservative sting bad behavior. Project Veritas, an organization that exposes liberal causes in not so honest ways, tried a sting on the Washington Post, but was caught instead. Their operative concocted a lie about Roy Moore, was discovered, videotaped, and written about at length. James O'Keefe, the swarmy head of Project Veritas, of course isn't going to be honest about this.

Deregulation improves economy. According to The Economist, the major decrease in new regulations during the beginning of the Trump administration has been helping the US economy. No shit, Sherlock.

Interesting factoid about Israel. The Greek Orthodox church is one of the major landowners in Israel. I never thought about it, but it makes sense. What if it has owned land there for nearly 18 centuries? What are the implications when the church sells some of its holdings?

Media bias in one picture and two stories. Picture below. Malia Obama, bad girl or embattled?

Image: news.google.com

November links

I lost a bunch of links, and had a bunch more before the two bombshells of the DNC paying for the Steele dossier and being totally under Clinton's control hit.

Since I'm hoping not to lose the links again, here they are.

The Steele dossier summarized. A great summary of the dossier, with each piece discussed separately. Must read to get a good background on it.

Changes at the Fed. This was a preview of what could happen due to end of the Federal Reserve chair's term. Trump could keep Yellen, could choose a current board member similar to her, or could choose a conservative with non-standard ideas. Luckily, Trump chose Powell, the current board member. By the way, Yellen stays on the Fed board.

Australian chaos. An Australian court threw a huge monkey wrench into government with a ruling about citizenship. They ruled that if you could be a dual citizen, you were, and therefore were ineligible to hold government office. Many officeholders with foreign-born parents were caught in the ruling. Bizarre and disruptive.

Who got indicted? A good backgrounder on Carter Page and George Papadopoulos, two advisers to the Trump campaign who had ties to Russia. Papadopoulos pled guilty to charges brought by Mueller in his Russia investigation. Other charges include the former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, who is accused of laundering $75 million.

Fun with the indictments. This is such a great read in terms of humor. It feels like a classic joke--something that could be from the 'Who's on first' era. But I think it's original.

Socialism is defunct in Russia. All kinds of interesting factoids in the article and the discussion thread.

Peace dividend in Iraq? An article telling about greatly improved Shi'ite and Sunni relations in Iraq. I hope it's not just a puff piece.

Image: farmersalmanac.com

Do we need a Megan's Law for bathrooms?

I read how Texas is considering a law governing how transgender people can use public bathrooms. It occurred to me that Texas isn't debating this law because there was a horrific case of a transgender person horribly raping and/or killing a girl in a bathroom. This didn't happen to little Rachel or Gloria or Brittany, so there's no Rachel's Law. Nope.

Instead, Texas is considering this law because... um, why? Because they want to show that they hate the idea of transgender people, and they want to poke them in the eye. Or maybe they want to show that they are holier than thou, and that transgender nonsense is not tolerated in Texas.

This is so fake. I can assure you that transgender people are using the appropriate bathrooms in Texas without incident. They aren't raping anyone, they aren't exposing their genitals to the shock and disgust of other patrons. They are just going into the stalls, locking the doors, and answering nature's call. Just like the rest of the human species. Sheesh, give the paranoia a rest. Give the excuses to bash liberals a rest.

Do we need a Megan's Law for bathrooms? No, we don't. We don't need any laws. Just let people pick their bathrooms, and keep out of the way.

Image: twitter/@lmcgaughey

Real massacres versus fake news

Fake massacres should be news for just a short time--as long as it takes to refute, debunk, and search for the origins of the false story. Right now in the news is the story of Kellyanne Conway and her statements (plural) about the 'Bowling Green massacre.' There was no such massacre. She mistook some talking points (spoon-fed to her, most likely) about the arrest of two terrorist/refugees from Iraq in the town of Bowling Green, and erroneously conflated it with some other massacre that did occur. Everyone is fallible, but Conway seems to be quite careless about facts. This was a talking point for her on at least three occasions. I wonder whether she or someone on her staff will fact-check her talking points more carefully from now on. It would be a good idea, but I don't expect it to happen.

In the meantime, fake news entrepreneur Alex Jones (and friend of Trump) has peddled a story that the Sandy Hook school massacre of children and teachers didn't really happen, but was an anti-gun hoax perpetrated by unethical gun control proponents. This is one of the fake news stories I often reference when I make points about fake news not being a new phenomenon. (I also mention birtherism, Jade Helm, and Pizzagate.)

This lowlife purposely peddles lies that anyone with a conscience wouldn't touch. It takes no time at all to find strong evidence of the Sandy Hook massacre, but none of that stops that worm Jones. Nor does it stop his legions of gullible, stupid zipperheads. They regularly make life hell for the families of the victims.

A thread that connects these two massacres, one real and one fake, is the eagerness of right-wingers to embrace false information (that is, LIES) in their pursuit of a narrative supporting their opinions. Truth be damned and run over by a freight train. God, how I hate these liars. I wish I could think of an appropriate punishment severe enough for Alex Jones.

Image: pinterest.com

Extras. Florida prof to be fired for being a stupid lowlife zipperhead. Fake news for liberals, since the right wing nut jobs shouldn't have a monopoly. NYT opinion piece that maybe the Bowling Green massacre will mark the beginning of the end for fake news. I doubt it.

Update 6/18/19. A publisher of a conspiracy theory book about Sandy Hook has apologized to a grieving parent. What the fuck is wrong with these people who will believe such garbage and not take a moment to consider that they could be wrong and vilifying innocent people.

And in news of the scummiest person in American, Alex Jones raged against the lawyers for plaintiffs suing him. The cleaner version and the candid version.

Short: Experts discuss a shooting

This is the kind of information we should get about all major shootings. It's a discussion by a group of experts, kind of like the analysis after an airplane accident. In this case, it's a shooting of black man who was sighted with a gun.

Image: nytimes.com

Four stories on the Dallas shootings

I'm deeply saddened by the shooting of police in Dallas during a friendly, non-violent protest against police shootings elsewhere.

We've seen this before--people taking out their hatred by mass killings. This time it was a black man who was angry with whites, particularly police. But daily it's someone angry with this group or other, or just angry at the world. This country isn't a land where everyone has to fear going outdoors because of the high level of violence (countries like Somalia, parts of Mexico, Honduras among others). But this is a glimpse of what it could be like.

The thread of civilization that prevents the general outbreak of such violence has become thinner, and there are more such violent incidents reported even as the overall murder declines. Can you imagine if half a dozen people in every medium-to-large city decided to do what this man did, and murder as many police as possible? What if two days later another person was doing the same thing in the same city?

Actually, now that I write this, I feel confident that our police forces could handle such a situation--that the number of violent people would run out long before our police were swamped. For that I'm very grateful.

After this long prologue, here are the stories:

• The story of the Dallas police, told mostly from the viewpoint of the police chief, who is black.
• The sniper in Dallas originally planned to have bombs too, but the bombs weren't ready and the rally was too tempting. 
• There is a pool of angry people in Dallas to possibly carry on the work of the sniper. This is very worrying.
• Political reactions include both conciliation and demagoguery. 

So will this tragedy spur other angry people to act out, or will it make them rethink? I can't predict. However, I remember the Oklahoma City bombing, and how it was so horrific that it quieted the violence for a while. We can hope for that, but it would be so much better if five police officers didn't need to die for us to learn.

Dallas Police Chief David Brown

Image: fox4newscom

Update 7/11/16. A report of the radical black organizations that the shooter tried to join. None are as radical in tactics as the Black Panthers of 40 years ago, but Lakesia Washington of the Black Riders supports the shooter and the shooting.Update 

The way of a charlatan

This is from the book I'm currently reading on my kindle. It's about growing up in Nazi Germany:

"Smart question, my boy. Our beloved Fuehrer employs the technique of all charlatans who never produce anything. He could not produce a simple salami... So, he does what?"

... Karl ventured a guess, "He promises something?"

"Correct...When you are unable to deliver, you start promising."

For those who haven't gotten the meaning yet, I'm thinking about a presidential candidate who promises to build a border wall, make Mexico pay for it, bring back good jobs to the US, and we will win, WIN, WIN.

Now, in a book about Nazism, I've found the simple words to show what he is and whose footsteps he follows. I think I'll be repeating this on comment pages on the internet. For me, it was electrifying to read this.

Image: crowsnestpolitics.com

Devastating: Victim statement in the Stanford rape

A fair amount has been written about the convicted rapist in this case, and how his sentence was too short. Not enough has been written about the very powerful victim's statement. Yes, this is only from one side, but she is extremely detailed, compelling, and extremely logical.

The statement starts here after five paragraphs. Here's a powerful excerpt:

"The night after it happened he said he never planned to take me back to his dorm. He said he didn’t know why we were behind a dumpster. He got up to leave because he wasn’t feeling well when he was suddenly chased and attacked...

So one year later, as predicted, a new dialogue emerged. Brock had a strange new story, ... with kissing and dancing and hand holding and lovingly tumbling onto the ground, and most importantly in this new story, there was suddenly consent. One year after the incident, he remembered, oh yeah, by the way she actually said yes, to everything, so.

He said he had asked if I wanted to dance. Apparently I said yes. He’d asked if I wanted to go to his dorm, I said yes. Then he asked if he could finger me and I said yes. Most guys don’t ask, Can I finger you?..."

The statement is long, but worth reading to the end. As I said, devastating. 

Image: news2.onlinenigeria.com

Extra. More details on sentencing and the perpetrator's withdrawal from Stanford.

Skewed news on violent protests

What do you imagine when you see headlines like this?

• Protesters chase and attack Trump supporters after San Jose rally

• Violence erupts at Trump's San Jose rally as protesters fight The Donald's supporters in ugly street brawls

I wanted to find out how accurate these reports were, and whether a few incidents were exaggerated to make it sound like a lot of violence had taken place. I focused on news stories with video so I could see for myself what occurred, with the caveat that the video wouldn't show me everything, including what happened beforehand and what the motivations were. 

The first video I saw showed anti-Trump protesters engaging with Trump supporters in fist fights. I can't tell who threw the first punch, but both sides seem to be eager to punch the other. There are also people trying to calm the situation down, and also a large number of people taking video. This doesn't look like an attack on peaceful Trump supporters by an overwhelming number of violent opponents. 

I looked at other video also, such as the woman covered with egg. She's smiling, reaching out, and waving as she's hit with other (light) thrown objects. She is far-outnumbered by anti-Trump supporters, but they don't appear to be trying to punch or beat her. Then, at the end, you get to see why she isn't fearful. There are several burly men that escort her back inside the building. My guess is that they're security guards for the rally. This woman probably went out an exit that was surrounded by anti-Trump protesters with the goal of goading them into violence. But the presence of the security detail and partial restraint by the crowd prevented violence (other than throwing eggs) at that location. Again, some actions were wrong, but not a lot else to condemn there. 

Finally, I found a report that covered a large number of incidents, including individuals or couplse harassed with punches and thrown bottles as they left the rally. Their cars were also damaged by protesters who followed them into a parking garage. 

• A man with a green polo shirt and blood on his right ear. (He's shown pushing a protester, but was it someone who tried to punch him?)
• A man in red shirt chased and tackled before he ran to safety at police. 
• A man with white t-shirt tore and his chest exposed and mouth bloody. (A separate video here shows this man reaching out to punch someone. He was looking to fight and he got it.)
• A woman in a print shirt had her sign grabbed from her.
• The smiling woman wearing a dark blue Trump shirt hit with eggs.
• A man is a blue button-down shirt and woman in a white shirt yelled at and their car damaged as they drove away.
• A man in a blue and white stripped polo shirt with his wife had bottles thrown at them and he was punched (but wasn't bloody).
• From a different video, a man in white button-down shirt walking with protesters when swings and punches him, knocking him to the sidewalk. (This Daily Mail article has many additional pictures and videos.)

My conclusion was that there was unwarranted violence on the part of some of the anti-Trump protesters, However, the violence was more on the level of a bar brawl than a full riot. There were no pictures of anyone incapacitated by a beating and taken away on a stretcher. Property damage, though there was some, as minor, especially compared to the riots in Ferguson and Baltimore.

It's good to know what the real level of violence was, because some conservatives or their media outlets are going to distort this. We can count on that.

Image: thephora.net

One final thought. Obama has been accused of being the most divisive president ever. However, Trump seems to inspire much more division. Will conservatives notice this?

Extras. Videos: Trump supporter with lots of footage, Part 1 and Part 2. Eye witnesses with competing commentary. Long loud argument, no punches, one theft. General footage with play by play, then blaming it all on--well, guess who.

Another 'Cops should be perfect' story

I'm so incredibly tired of people defending assailants who shoot at the police. Here's the latest:

Police: Cops Fired Into Car Not Knowing Infant Was Inside

Look at the entire story, and you find out that this headline would also be applicable:

Man knowingly fires at police with infant in back seat of car

(Note: the original link no longer works. Here's the same news story from a different source.)

In this case, a man with a long criminal history put himself, his girlfriend, and her 4-month-old son in grave danger by shooting at police. He actually knew who was in the car. He knew how many weapons he had. He initiated the exchange of gunfire. Is it really surprising that the police shot back? Should they have waited to see if he would shoot again, maybe blowing someone's head off?

According to the girlfriend's mother, yes, they should have waited. They should have put themselves in that dangerous position rather than fire into the car. According to her, the law enforcement officers should take on all the risk, so that her daughter, who was riding with a criminal who had more than one loaded gun, and who shot at police, could be safe.

To me, this is a patently ridiculous viewpoint. Perhaps it's mitigated because the mother is grief-stricken, but I've seen it too often to think that it's grief every time. Instead, it's become a pattern among many blacks to blame the police, no matter how justified they are.

I think this shooting should be investigated, as all police-involved shootings should be. However, if the current reporting is fairly accurate, then the family of the dead couple have nothing to blame the police for. Any blame they lay on the police is misguided scapegoating, and should clearly be labeled that way. And I have to question the motives of people who don't support the police in cases like this but instead support dangerous criminals. It looks like a case of playing the racial victim card and hoping that the audience doesn't notice that the 'victim' is not innocent at all.

The shooter's other gun

Image: 13newsnow.com

Analysis of the Cincinnati shooting video

Earlier this month, a security officer for the University of Cincinnati shot and killed an unarmed driver during a traffic stop. The officer was indicted for murder, and also indicted on the lesser charge of manslaughter.

He was wearing a body camera throughout the incident, and the video was just released. Now, accordingly to the prosecutor, the video shows "the most asinine act by a police officer I have ever seen."

That's not what I saw when I closely watched the video, though admittedly I wasn't able to watch it frame by frame.

The officer pulled over the driver for a minor infraction--not having a front license plate... or did he pull him over for driving while black? The officer asks for his license. The driver searches around for it, but doesn't produce it. That is an expedient move by the driver because his license had been suspended (as investigation showed after the fact). If he had produced his license, the officer would quickly confirm that he was driving with a suspended license. That would probably mean an arrest, towing the car, and lots of fines for the driver.

Here is a chronology of how the altercation unfolds:

• At 3:12, the officer starts to open the car door. The driver grabs it to keep it closed. He moves his right hand to the ignition. The officer's right hand is on the roof of the car. The driver says "I didn't even do nothing."
• At 3:13, the officer says "Come on and take your seatbelt off." His right hand is still on the roof of the car.
• At 3:14, the driver starts the ignition (can be heard) and the officer reaches with his left hand into the car to grab the ignition.
• At 3:16, the officer yells "stop, stop." At the same time, the sound of the engine revving is audible. The gun is visible in the officer's right hand.
• At 3:17, the officer fires this gun. The driver slumps to his right. The car is also moving forward.
• At 3:18, the officer is falling backward. The camera shows the sky.
• At 3:19, the officer is starting to stand up. His gun is clearly seen in his right hand.
• At 3:24, he is running after the car down the street.

Clearly, the driver was fleeing the traffic stop. Clearly, the officer reached for his weapon and shot within 3 seconds of the driver starting the ignition. Both men were acting and reacting very quickly. As the prosecutor said:

"You won't believe how quickly he pulls his gun and shoots him in the head."

The officer claimed he was dragged, and that doesn't seem to be true. However, the driver must have put the car in gear while the officer was reaching in, so the officer had good reason to worry that he might be dragged or knocked down and run over.

To understand and judge the criminal charges, we will have to consider how officers should act when a driver tries to flee a minor traffic stop. We have to consider whether the officer was in danger, or whether he was trigger happy, or both. This is not an open-and-shut case.

It does seem to me that many officials in Cincinnati have ganged up on the officer. It's not just the prosecutor, who laid on charges of intentional murder and incompetence, The university fired him. The mayor stated that he wanted charges. No one there wants Ferguson-type riots and demonstrations. The officer seems to have been thrown under the bus as Cincinnati tries not to be the next epicenter of race-based demonstrations.

This isn't my final word on this case. I might write a post on how the video refutes the claims that the prosecutor made in his (grandstanding) press conference. Maybe I'll learn more about police training that leads officers to shoot first and shoot fast. Maybe I'll unravel how a simple traffic stop ends up with someone dead, not just once, but too many times already this year.

3:12 -- Look where their hands are.

Image: youtube.com

Extras. USA Today's list of events at the end of this article differs from mine. They're wrong and they seem biased against the officer: "Without a word, Tensing fires a single shot," "the car rolls a short distance." The car didn't roll a few feet, but probably at least 150 feet. You can hear the rev of the engine as though it was accelerating, not 'rolling.'

More of the chronology:

• At 3:27, someone asks "Are you alright." The officer, while running, says "I'm good."
• At 3:41, he is close to where the car has crashed and we can see another security officer enter the frame.
• At 4:15, we can see that a third security officer is also already on the scene.

Were these other two officers already at the other end of the block? What did they see? Did they have body cameras too? Maybe their footage isn't important since we have video of the entire event at close range. Or maybe it is important if it is shows more of what happened.

Update 7/31/15. Video from the body cameras of the two officers who arrived just as the altercation erupted.

Update 8/1/15. A Cincinnati officer killed in June of this year.

Last outpost of crazy: 3000 year old police force

Would you support or join this police force?

"The Masonic Fraternal Organization is the oldest and most respected organization in the 'World.' Grand Masters around the various states are facing serious safety concerns for their Jurisdictions and their family members. The first Police Department was created by the 'Knights Templar's' back in 1100 B.C. 

"The Masonic Fraternal Police Department, (M.F.P.D.) is the Knights Templar's! 

"When asked what is the difference between The Masonic Fraternal Police Department and other Police Departments the answer is simple for us. We were here first! We are born into this Organization our bloodlines go deeper then an application. This is more then a job it is an obligation. 

"The Masonic Fraternal Police Department (M.F.P.D.) is a Masonic Sovereign Jurisdiction (Municipality) located within the incorporated City of Santa Clarita, California. The Chief of Police is Honorable Grand Master David Henry 33º was elected and is Governed by a Grand Supreme Council, and 33 Masonic Jurisdictions. He currently oversees a 1/2 Million members throughout the United States."

Would you believe they were for real? If so, then you too can get arrested for not actually being a police officer in one of the 33 jurisdictions where you thought you were one. Don't pass up this opportunity to make a total fool of yourself ... and embarrass a potential senatorial candidate! It's a once-in-a-lifetime chance.

Image: thefakersthemselves.com

My bias regarding police

I tend to be biased toward believing a police officer's account in a controversy. However that doesn't mean my bias is rigid--I absolutely know that there are rotten, lying, prejudiced cops who shouldn't be believed. So I make sure to be alert to inconsistencies in a cop's story.

I got to observe my bias at work with the Ferguson shooting. My guesses about what had happened went back and forth, showing the interplay of my biases and the weight of evidence. Here's the account of how my thinking evolved.

*****************************************************

At first, the witness's story seemed logical and consistent. A cop got pissed off at the two young men, provoked an argument, grabbed one of them, and then shot him dead. It's certainly possible.

However, this witness (Dorian Johnson) was soon discredited. Video showed that he and Michael Brown were at a store where they allegedly stole some cigars and Brown pushed and intimidated a clerk. From the video, you can't tell either the cigars were stolen or not, but the pushing and lunging are clear enough.

Also, in the meantime, the cop's background was reported as being clean--no prior issues with excessive force. A clean record isn't what I'd expect from a cop who had a bad enough temper to shoot an innocent person on purpose. But a record can be misleading. Perhaps the cop had always managed to avoid disciplinary measures while still being aggressive. This 'fact' is not as convincing as the video.

With these two new 'facts' to mull over, I revised my initial opinion. It now seemed likely that Brown was very much at fault. He had just committed a crime. The witness's story that the cop grabbed Brown was dubious, and instead it seemed likely that Brown grabbed the cop.

At this point, my usual bias toward believing the cop was supported by evidence, or it seemed that way to me. I was still gathering information and evaluating the testimony of the witnesses who went public. I was waiting for photos showing any wounds the cop (Darren Wilson) might have received. I was also waiting to hear what the autopsy showed. This evidence took a long time to arrive and is still subject to dispute. The conclusions of the county medical examiner don't completely match the conclusion of the medical examiner hired by Brown's family.

**************************************************

So did the 'facts' depart from what I expected at all? Yes, and that's where I learned something new. The people of Ferguson had a particular reason to be angry. They were being plagued with punitive fines and enforcement aimed at extracting as much money as possible (more details here).

Of course, the burden of excessive fines doesn't excuse theft or assaulting an officer, but it explains some of the response. Nonetheless, most of the response is due to bigger issues such as the history of police aggression against minorities and cultural clashes between law enforcement and a 'no-snitching' ethos in black communities. I wish there was a giant reset button we could push that would erase the historical animosity and let people start fresh. But there isn't, so we are doomed to reinforce our biases unless we actively work against them.

Image: politic365.com

Update 12/8/14. I recant what I said about the 'giant reset button.' That disrespects the legitimate and deeply-felt grievances minorities have. There is no wiping the slate clean. Instead, there should be amends, trust-building, and reconciliation.

Thoughts on the Ferguson shooting: No indictment

I agree with the grand jury's decision not to indict the policeman who shot Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo. For what it's worth, that's my opinion. It's not worth too much because I haven't been one of the jurors or investigators, so I haven't had access to the evidence. Instead, I've had to rely on news reports.

With those caveats, here is my reasoning. It's clear that Michael Brown strong-armed a store just minutes before. He shoved and intimidated a clerk. It seems pretty certain that Michael Brown attacked Officer Darren Wilson, punching him while he was in his police car. It's likely that he tried to get this gun.

I think this adds up to Michael Brown being a dangerous person at that time. After he attacked Officer Wilson, Wilson wasn't out of line shooting him when he didn't immediately get on the ground. Instead Brown stayed standing, possibly still moving, and therefore still a threat.

Proponents for Brown and for an indictment ignore a lot of evidence, and they make excuses for why Brown should be forgiven for his aggressiveness, while Wilson should be held accountable for his response. That's a double-standard, and I won't be part of it.

Policing is a dangerous job. Police are definitely a target for too many criminals. Lately, the death toll among cops has been quite high. This job is going to be impossible if police have to put up with being attacked, and then made out to be wrong in their responses. So, the decision not to indict Officer Wilson was the correct one. Here is a good summation:

"The grand jury accepted that Brown was the aggressor throughout the confrontation and that Wilson feared he might be overpowered and lose his gun. According to the grand jurors, that justified the officer’s firing of a dozen rounds. Wilson, therefore, will face no criminal charges in connection with the deadly shooting."

So, what evidence (through news reports) did I use in coming to the same conclusion? The video of Michael Brown pushing someone at the store. The friend who was with Michael neglected to mention the incident, so his testimony is questionable at best. The reports (with physical evidence) that shots were fired inside the police car. A picture of Wilson showing bruising on his face. Michael Brown's blood on the gun. Reports that witnesses on the scene contradicted the story that Brown's hands were up (not enough of a surrender anyhow), and that these witnesses were frightened of telling their stories due to the likely reaction in their neighborhood.

There is some contradictory evidence, but it isn't as strong. As for those who say that Michael Brown's robbery a few minutes earlier is immaterial--uh, no. It's quite pertinent. This isn't a case of a cop gunning down a black teen with no provocation or due to a mistake. The boy (18 years old, 300 lbs.) provoked the incident. That is something that should matter to everyone.

Image: abcnews.com

Extras. Abysmal forensic procedures, including washing away blood evidence. The transcript of Officer Wilson's testimony, which I haven't read yet. Very detailed article examining some of Wilson's testimony. Eye-witness testimony that was shown to be wrong and likely fabricated.

What safety training do police get?

With the shooting in Ferguson and other frequent shootings by police, I have to wonder what kind of training police are getting. Are they trained to shoot when in doubt? Are they trained to decide quickly to shoot, or to take a bit longer before making that decision? Are they trained to follow a protocol when they expect a threat?

I have a lot of questions, but few answers. Unfortunately, I don't know any cops whom I can ask. And the internet has failed me. I didn't find much information about police training. In the bit of information I did find, there's lot of emphasis on handling of firearms, such as this training list:

... In addition to classroom instruction of deadly force policy and procedure and other topics, most trainers suggest the range work should include:

1.) Clearing stoppages with either hand

2.) Drills that simulate malfunctions 

3.) Emergency tactical reloading with either hand 

4.) Manipulation of safeties and de-cocking levers with either hand

As well as the usual and customary range topics like:

1.) Low-light and judgmental (decision-making) shooting 

2.) Shooting while moving to cover 

3.) One-handed firing  [etc.]

I wonder whether the heavy emphasis on gun handling leads to more gun use than required. When dealing with situations, you're usually going to use tools and approaches that you know, not try out new ones on the fly. So the training of officers is key, or so I would guess. (It's possible that officers are acting not based on their training, but based on their own preference to use firearms. I really don't know.)

In my research, I found one cop who wanted fewer guns and more non-lethal alternatives. This seems sensible to me, but I don't know how much other officers support this. What are the dangers in being equipped with rubber bullets if you might face an assailant armed with a gun? In our country, there are plenty of armed people that the police are likely to encounter, and I don't want the police to be handicapped in those encounters.

Perhaps police rarely need their guns, and they don't need to carry them on a regular basis, but only when going into situations that warrant it. This is another issue that I just don't have information on. Police departments in this country should be studying these questions--I certainly hope they are. If the mindset is that they need their guns at all times, it's no wonder that they're used too often.

Image: newhavenregister.com

Extras. Blog from a cop in the hood. Some research from New York City. Luckily, not that many police are killed on duty. That leaves room for them to be more careful. A horrible story of a police mistake.

Update 8/28/14. Here's a training video about handling an assailant who secretly has a knife. Note how quickly the officer could be stabbed, and also the emphasis on  "two rounds [in the] center of mass."

Update 9/10/14. There have been a lot of shootings of officers lately: Rochester, NY; Merrillville, IN; Topeka, KS; West Ashley, SC; St. Louis County, MO; and Vancouver, WA. This is what a cop potentially faces at every traffic stop. The training to shoot may be correct if there is a high level of danger on a regular basis.