Bumpkiss, Texas - Last
Thursday night around midnight, a man from Houston, Texas was arrested, jailed, and charged with murder for shooting a woman 6
times in the back as she was running away with his wallet.
The
following Monday morning, the man was called in front of the
Arraignment Judge, sworn-in, and asked to explain his actions.
The man replied, "I was standing at the corner bus stop for about 15
minutes, waiting for the bus to take me home after work. I am a bus-boy
at a local cafe. I was there alone, so I had my right hand on my pistol
and my other hand on my wallet. All of a sudden I was spun
around hard to my left. As I caught my balance, I saw a crack-head bitch running away
with my wallet. I looked down at my right hand and saw that my fingers
were wrapped tightly around my pistol. The next thing I remember is
saying out loud, "No Way Beotch! You're not stealing my pay check and
tips." I raised my right hand, pointed my pistol at the woman running away
from me with my wallet, and started squeezing the trigger of my pistol.
When asked by the arraignment judge, "Why did you shoot the woman 6
times? The man replied under oath, "Because, when I pulled the trigger
the 7th time, it only went click."
The man was released and was back at work the next day! That's Gun Control, Texas Style.
UPDATE:
Rerun Sambo was re-arrested on the murder charge and faced full prosecution before a jury. He was found guilty and sentenced to be executed. He is appealing.
In the wake of recent tragic shootings, millions of people are suddenly familiar with the weapon, but actually have no real understanding of what they are talking about when they speak of it. The rabble rabble of gun-control advocates has become an ignorant roar. I happen to be against most restrictions on gun ownership myself, but this article is meant to inform, no matter what your stance is on the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.
To start, the term "assault rifle" is being sorely misused by the media, as always. To be an assault rifle, the weapon must be a selective-fire full-auto capable machine-gun. Which means that when you pull the trigger and hold it, the bullets will continue to fire automatically until the magazine is empty. Or, that you may "select" your fire to a "burst" mode in which (usually) three rounds will be discharged per trigger-pull, preserving ammunition and increasing accuracy, while at the same time putting some serious lead-on-target. Finally, you may select a standard semi-automatic rate of fire, meaning a bullet will fire once each time you pull the trigger. A semi-automatic rate of fire is the most accurate, and preserves the most ammunition. Contrary to the Hollywood perception, standard semi-automatic is the most effective method of fire, whereas full auto machine gun fire is generally the least efficient selection for killing people. Full-auto fire is often referred to as "spray and pray" because you spray a lot of lead, and pray you hit something. You might also pray that you don't run out of ammo before you actually hit your targets as well.
M-16 Variants
Kalashnikov AK-47
The U.S.-designated M-16 is the standard combat rifle for our military personnel. It is a selective-fire assault rifle specifically designed for combat use. First deployed in the Vietnam War, it was not well-received at all by combat troops at the time. The weapon jammed frequently, was unreliable, and the small caliber round lacked killing power. Despite its initial lackluster performance under combat conditions, the weapon has been continually refined over the years since to become the standard, not only for the United States military, but for military and police forces around the world. "Western" nations in particular favor this rifle over its chief rival, popularly known as the AK-47, which was originally designed by Soviet hero Mikhail Kalashnikov. That weapon is widely circulated among nations with Communist leanings and/or anti-American sentiment. It might be said that the M-16 is to the AK-47 what Kentucky bourbon is to Russian vodka. The pros and cons of each weapon are debatable, but you might see either or both at any real party.
Today, the M-16 is available in a wide variety of configurations with Colt being the leading manufacturer and supplier to the U.S. military. Some other manufacturers have been licensed by Colt to produce the rifle, with many other manufacturers also producing "knock-off" versions of the popular weapon. Colt also produces the M4, which is essentially a shortened tactical combat version of the M16, initially designed for Special Operations use, as well as other military-grade variants. They also produce the now ubiquitous AR-15.
Contrary to popular misconceptions, the "AR" in AR-15 does not stand for "assault rifle." It was the original military designation for the version of the M16 produced by manufacturer ArmaLite, who sold the design rights for the original M16 to Colt back in 1959. You see, ARmalite, the first letters of the manufacturer name, not "assault rifle." Colt now uses the AR-15 designation strictly for civilian-use only models of the popular rifle. Civilian-use models are actually stripped of their "assault" capability, and do not have selective or fully-automatic fire. The AR-15 has the appearance of the popular soldier's rifle, but not the same capability. You might say, the AR-15 is like a 4-cylinder Ford Mustang. Looks fast, but really doesn't have any ponies under the hood. The AR-15 is no more deadly than any other rifle on the market, and is certainly no assault rifle.
The name Bushmaster does not refer to any sort of special capability either. Bushmaster is simply the name of the manufacturer who produces a rifle similar in appearance to that manufactured by Colt. The designation AR-15 is now widely applied generically to any rifle of similar appearance, but in truth, rifles produced by companies like Bushmaster are not authentic AR-15's at all. This is sort of like calling any generic aspirin a Bayer, or even like calling a Coke a Pepsi. Same, but different. So despite the menacing-sounding name "Bushmaster," once again we are left with a watered-down generic version of reality.
There's a thinker
Finally, we have the ".223" portion of the rifle's description. To the uninformed, the number sounds like a big technical number that probably makes this rifle more deadly than other rifles. Again, not actually so. Technically, the number .223 refers to the diameter of the bullet. Twenty-twos's are often used for small-game hunting, like birds and squirrel, and for backyard tin-can plinking on summer afternoons. Some BB/pellet guns even come in a .22-caliber design.
Admittedly though, there is some difference between a .22-caliber pellet fired from an air-rifle, and a .223 round fired from an AR-15. The difference here is not about the width of the round but how fast the round travels. It will still make a very small hole, but it will hit a target with a lot more energy, giving it more penetration power, and allowing the round to travel further distances. This is made possible because more gun-powder is loaded behind the projectile than in a standard .22-caliber round, forcing it out of the gun a lot faster.
The .223 is actually the smallest commonly used rifle ammunition, despite a relative high-power gunpowder load like that used in a combat rifle or a hunting rifle. Even when used for game hunting, the .223 ammo is not a large enough caliber to take down commonly hunted game such as deer. As a matter of fact, this small ammunition is used specifically in combat operations to not kill the enemy, but rather to wound the enemy instead. Why would you not want to kill an enemy in combat you ask? Because a wounded enemy will require aid from their comrades, distracting them from the fight, whereas a dead enemy can be left to be dealt with later when the fight is over. Just to make that perfectly clear, the .223 caliber rifle, when used as an anti-personnel weapon, is meant to wound the target rather than to kill it outright. So technically, this would make this rifle the "safest" rifle that a civilian could possibly own. A person is less likely to be killed by an AR-15 .223 round than by any other rifle shot. You can see from the image provided here, the difference between a .223 round used in the AR-15, a .308 round commonly used in bolt-action hunting rifles, and the 7.62mm round used in AK-47 style rifles.
Ammo Comparison
We could talk all day long about the merits and lethality of different sorts of ammunition, from rifle loads, to jacketing, to hollow-tips, to fragmenting rounds, and so forth. You can search for yourself numerous charts which display comparisons of all different sorts of ammunition. No one type of ammo is necessarily any more deadly than the other. It all comes down to how it is used. And the same goes for any firearm.
From the zip-gun to the shotgun, to your grand-dad's hunting rifle, to your brother's combat rifle, no one firearm is inherently more dangerous than the other. It all comes down to how it is used. While the public suddenly panics over the AR-15, we seem to forget that school shootings are not a new phenomenon and that even old-fashioned weapons were used in the past to commit similar crimes by bizarrely deranged individuals, such as Charles Whitman.
Whitman's Weapons
In August 1966, Whitman opened fire from the tower of the University of Texas in Austin, killing numerous people. His rampage actually began with the murder of his mother and wife with a knife, not a firearm. He then mounted the tower killing several people there with a shotgun, before sniping the campus from his accomplished vantage point, with WWII-era rifles. His self-authored account of his own mental breakdown is chillingly familiar to so many mass murders and particularly school shootings. Sixteen people died in that event nearly a half-century ago.
All in all, at the end of any day, there is no single firearm which is truly "safer" or more dangerous than another. Nor are firearms any more or less dangerous than other methods of killing. Timothy McVeigh used farm fertilizer to kill 168 people, many of them children. The Unites States government used fire to kill the inhabitants of the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas. Among the dead there were twenty-one children under the age of sixteen.Your kitchen cabinet probably contains enough bleach and ammonia that would make enough mustard gas to wipe out hundreds of people.
Firearms are just a tool, like any other, in the hands of man. They can be used for evil, they can be used to defend against evil. They can be used for Olympic-grade sport, they can be used to feed your family. Madmen will always find a way to kill innocents, even if they do it by taking away your guns.
Even under the oft-referenced "assault" weapons ban of the early 90's, this gun still remained legal...
Who can better judge when your life is in danger? Who can be there first to eliminate that danger? Support your right to bear arms. Commit to bust a cap if the time comes.
Merry Christmas everyone! Best wishes for a happy and SAFE holiday season. Please take a moment to watch this video.
As if this video were not dramatic enough on its own, there are several points that are not obvious to the average person, and which made what we are seeing there far more scary as I began to learn about fire science.
As fast as that room goes up, somehow I still imagined that I would
make it out alive if that happened in my own home. In my mind, I figured
a smoke detector would warn me, that I would stay low so as to not
breathe the smoke, that I would know my emergency exits, and so forth.
But seeing it on film is really too one-dimensional to really
appreciate the full gravity of the violence that is occurring there. We
often hear that "smoke inhalation" is the most deadly part of a fire in
the home. And the threat of toxic smoke in an oxygen deprived
environment is certainly not to be overlooked. However, in this example,
it is all too easy to overlook the obvious, or to fully grasp what we
are actually witnessing.
We see the fire, but we really don't
see the heat. I didn't realize, and had very little comprehension of
just how hellishly hot a room can get. As you watch the video, it is all
too easy to be captivated by the tree becoming an inferno, the smoke
rolling across the ceiling. Yet somehow I imagined that so long as I
stayed clear of the flame itself, and didn't pop my head up for a deep
lung-full of smoke, I would be okay and could make it out.
What I didn't understand was that my window of opportunity to make it
out of that room alive was really only a few short seconds. (And that
entering that room to save someone else would be near instant death.)
As you watch the video, perhaps for a second time, take note of the
television stand on the right, where the lamp is set. At 25-26 seconds,
you will see that cabinet of furniture burst into flames. But did you
notice that the primary flame did not actually touch that entertainment
center? There was no direct contact between the raging fire in one side
of the room, with the television and lamp on the other, before it burst
into flame. Magic? Jumping fire? A spark? No. What you just witnessed it
called FLASHOVER.
Which means that means that the ambient
temperature in the room has now become so high, that the contents of the
room will now begin to combust on their own, without direct contact to
flame. You just saw a comfy cozy living room go from maybe 70-degrees or
so (Fahrenheit) to an incinerating 1100 degrees, give or take a little.
Folks, that is about DOUBLE the highest temperature inside your average
household oven. In 25 seconds!!!
Staying low to the floor is
not only important to keep your head out of the smoke, but important to
to keep your head out of the heat. But even with that, you have precious
few seconds to make it out of a burning room alive as that heat crushes
down on you like a ton of bricks. Don't let the fire start in the first
place. And if it does happen, do not hesitate for even a second, maybe
thinking about saving some object or contemplating trying to douse the
inferno. GET OUT! And as sad as it is to say, you should never go back
into a burning building to save pets or even loved ones. Even a fully
equipped firefighter is unlikely to survive a flashover environment.
New York mayor and noted gun-grabber Michael Bloomberg went on Meet the Press today and told Obama he should skirt Congress and the Constitution and take executive action against firearms owners in the United States. “It’s time for the president, I think, to stand up and lead and tell
this country what we should do — not go to Congress and say, ‘What do
you guys want to do?’ This should be his number one agenda. He’s
president of the United States,” Bloomberg said.
Some time ago, this blog was highly critical of the official handling of a high-profile homicide in the small historic town of Hyde Park, NY. The ins-and-outs of the case became outright scandalous.
While we make no apologies for our own coverage of the story, as heart-wrenching and gritty as it was, it is important to give credit where credit is due as a new chapter unfolds.
Sadly, there is a new homicide case in that small town. The brutal slaying of a happy, well-liked older woman in her own home on Thanksgiving seemed entirely senseless. And while many questions remain, we feel it is important to give credit where credit is due.
There is a new Chief in town, and he appropriately kept a low-profile and did his job, rather than dancing to the tune of political pandering. Furthermore, this new leadership was not bent on "cracking the big one" on their own, but instead showed resolve in calling in all resources available without hindrance of departmental arrogance.
This low-profile diligence appears to have paid off and paid off quickly. The case developed rapidly from a sketch of a possible suspect, who was subsequently ruled out, to suddenly the arrest of a new suspect thousands of miles away.
While the New York State Police (Troop K) played a leading role in this case this time, the "small town" Hyde Park Police Department appear to have been instrumental in cracking this case through their own local rapport and keen awareness of the local goings-on.
In short, thank you Hyde Park Police Department, NYSP, local first-responders, and specialized units as well, for your diligent and ongoing efforts to resolve this case.
The world as we once knew it is gone. The rosy cheeked children,
bursting with energy, that once climbed trees and got up to mischief,
are extinct. The people are still here, but they are pale, lethargic and slowly dying.
Every bite of food provided to these people is the product of a
laboratory – the genetically modified spawn of Big Agri and Big
Pharma. The food looks incredible – huge, radiant tomatoes such a vivid
red that one would think the lycopene was virtually emanating from the
skin of the fruit. Inside that appealing package is a food-like
substance, utterly raped of nutrients.
The people are unable to go to a health-food store and purchase
vitamins or an herbal tonic to put the spring back in their step. Herbs, vitamins and nutrients in general have been labeled
“toxins” and are only available via prescription at high prices and low
doses.
If the people are caught hoarding treasured fertile heirloom
seeds, and heaven forbid, planting them to grow their own food,
punishment is swift and sure. The bounty is taken and the people starve
again.
Amidst the abundance of burgeoning supermarket shelves, the majority of the world’s population is slowly starving to death.
The world according to Codex Alimentarius looks grim indeed. Codex Alimentarius (Latin for “food code”) is a global set of standards created by the CA Commission, a body established by a branch or the United Nations back in 1963.
The CA Commission’s purported mission, like all Agenda 21 missions, sounds so wonderful that it might have been created by a committee from heaven above.
The main purposes of this Programme are protecting health of the consumers and ensuring fair trade practices in the food trade
Don’t you wonder what could possibly be wrong with that? The UN wants us to be healthy and wants everyone to be paid fairly.
Codex Alimentarius sounds great! Let’s institute these standards right away!
As with all globally stated agendas, however, CA’s darker purpose is shielded by the feel-good words.
Global committees have been established to regulate the following topics, to name a few.
· fruits and vegetables · fruit and vegetable juices · fats and oils · meat, poultry and fish · cereals, pulses (used for food and animal feed) and legumes · milk and milk products · natural mineral waters · sugars · cocoa products and chocolate · food hygiene · food labeling (as a way not to disclose GMO foods and ingredients) · pesticide residues; · residues of veterinary drugs found in foods · food additives
The unfortunate thing is, the regulations ensure money, not safety. They guarantee profit, not health benefits.
“Codex Alimentarius is a dark marriage between pharmaceutical and
chemical industries and the WTO, conceived to exact complete and
regimented control over all food products and nutrients worldwide.” ~
writes Chantal Boccaccio of The People’s Voice.
Follow the Money
So if all of these regulations don’t benefit the consumers, who do they benefit? Dr. Rima Laibow, of Health Freedom USA estimated
that for every dollar spent on natural health solutions and
supplements, Big Pharma loses $40. Therefore, if people have the option
to chose vitamins over valium, Big Pharma loses billions per year.
The medical establishment benefits. When people are
able to manage chronic conditions and avoid surgery through carefully
choosing what they eat or what supplements they take, the medical
establishment loses out on those costly visits that people must
undertake in order to “manage” their conditions.
Pesticide manufacturers benefit. GMO foods require
greater pesticide use, thus manufacturers of pesticides like Round-up
(Monsanto) reap the financial rewards while being allowed to poison the
environment.
Food processors benefit. CA requires food to be
irradiated, a low cost (and nutrient-destroying) practice to require
lower standards of hygiene and sanitation.
Big Pharma benefits. CA mandates that nutrients be
classified as drugs; therefore the purchase of vitamins will eventually
require a prescription. Prescription drugs, of course, are monitored by
the FDA, which means only the Big Pharma companies will be able to
manufacture and supply them.
Maybe, then, the United States should just refuse to take part in CA.
That’s not going to happen, because all members of the World Trade
Organization are legally bound under global guidelines, including CA
standards. CA standards override all national laws.
Lack of compliance to these standards may result in fines and/or
crippling trade sanctions. If a country wants to play the global
trading game, that country has no option whatsoever but to comply with
CA.
Those who do not comply automatically forfeit the judgment in any global trade dispute regarding food or nutrients.
It’s Already Here
In 2010, during the distraction of the BP Oil Spill, Barack Obama signed an Executive Order (#13544) to implement CA in the US over the course of the next few years.
More akin to a royal decree than
a constitutionally acceptable legislation, Obama proved his arrogance
once again: he does NOT require the approval of Congress to make
sweeping legislation’s.
In the United States, the FDA is
in charge of implementing the standards. Over the next two years, with
the Food Safety Modernization Act, they will be doing just that.
According to a Natural News article by
Dr. Gregory D’Amato, these irrevocable standards are on their way of
being implemented to allow the US to “harmonize” with Codex.
* All nutrients (vitamins and minerals) are to be
considered toxins/poisons and are to be removed from all food because
Codex prohibits the use of nutrients to “prevent, treat or cure any
condition or disease”
* All food (including organic) is to be irradiated, removing all toxic nutrients from food (unless eaten locally and raw).
* Nutrients allowed will be limited to a Positive List
developed by Codex which will include such beneficial nutrients like
Fluoride (3.8 mg daily) developed from environmental waste. All other
nutrients will be prohibited nationally and internationally to all
Codex-compliant countries [2].
* All nutrients (e.g., CoQ10, Vitamins A, B, C, D, Zinc
and Magnesium) that have any positive health impact on the body will be
deemed illegal under Codex and are to be reduced to amounts negligible
to humans’ health [3].
* All advice on nutrition (including written online or
journal articles or oral advice to a friend, family member or anyone)
will be illegal.
* All dairy cows are to be treated with Monsanto’s recombinant bovine growth hormone. * All animals used for food are to be treated with potent antibiotics and exogenous growth hormones.
* The reintroduction of deadly and carcinogenic organic
pesticides that in 1991, 176 countries (including the U.S.) have banned
worldwide including 7 of the 12 worst at the Stockholm Convention on
Persistent Organic Pesticides (e.g., Hexachlorobenzene, Toxaphene, and
Aldrin) will be allowed back into food at elevated levels [4].
* Dangerous and toxic levels (0.5 ppb) of aflotoxin in
milk produced from moldy storage conditions of animal feed will be
allowed. Aflotoxin is the second most potent (non-radiation)
carcinogenic compound known to man.
* Mandatory use of growth hormones and antibiotics on all food herds, fish and flocks
* Worldwide implementation of unlabeled GMOs into crops, animals, fish and trees.
We’ve already seen incidences of health food stores being raided as though they were selling crystal meth instead of Vitamin C and organic vegetables. Family farms are being driven out of business because they can’t afford to keep up with the ever-increasing regulations. Natural healers have been criminalized throughout Europe, and that criminalization is on its way to North American shores.
Death by Codex
If it was only about the almighty dollar and the building of
monopolies, one could almost comprehend the corporate greed behind Codex
Alimentarius. The plot is more sinister than even greed could create.
Codex Alimentarius, quite simply, is an instrument of depopulation and control.
Many prominent eugenicists, such as Bill Gates and David Rockefeller have openly promoted depopulation as a positive goal for the future.
Sickly people die off at a faster rate, dropping health care
costs. Dwindling populations consume fewer resources and leaving more
for the Elite.
Morally, this soft kill approach is more palatable than outright
attacks, like the release of viruses. There is the risk that biological
attacks could also affect the Elite.
Military attacks, like nuclear war, could have a devastating effect
on the environment, which would also negatively affect the elite. Subtly
starving the masses, without them even realizing it, is the simplest
method, and also the least likely to harm the NWO puppet masters that
are in control of the United Nations.
As the attack on the world’s people becomes more obvious, the
decision makers also risk being the victims of violent
revolution. Codex also helps to cover that aspect.
If people are malnourished, they are unable to resist tyranny with
the same enthusiasm as a healthy population. They are also far more
susceptible to disease, should biological warfare be one day in the best
interests of the Elite.
It’s win-win, if you happen to be a member of the Elite. The outcome doesn’t look so great for the rest of us.
This article has been copied in full from another source, for archival, educational and conversational purposes, and in order to maintain the integrity of inline links and redirects embedded within the article itself. It is also being included as part of a compilation presentation of related material as follows. Readers are encouraged to visit the original source of this material.
I don't think folks really realize how this sort of information can be exploited, not only by corporations or the government, but even by your own friends (or enemies). Even with certain privacy settings (which are not at all reliable on Facebook) many people are not careful at all about the information and pictures they share. Nor do most folks understand how seemingly trivial information can be used against them by potential employers, law-enforcement, jaded spouses, etc.
One example that always comes to mind for me, was the app which updates your location. Two friends of mine, a brother and a sister share an apartment together. They had just purchased a large flat screen TV and a high-end computer system. A few weeks later, they were at the mall together, shopping for more components for their ultimate entertainment system. The location app automatically updated their location on each of their Facebook accounts, showing that they were both at the local galleria mall. When they came home, they found all of their new hardware gone! More than likely, they were burglarized by someone on their very own Facebook friends list, who saw that there was no one home at the apartment.
Photographic information can be even more damaging, with high levels of technical as well as visual data that can be exploited in ways you never imagined.
Facebook accused of massive 'data grab' with new service that automatically uploads your phone pictures
Photo Sync being aggressively promoted to Facebook's mobile app users
It will upload every single picture taken to the social network's servers
Facebook will benefit from huge windfall of data it can commercialise
It could use that data to build detailed database of users' lives
Facebook has been accused of a massive 'data grab' after encouraging users to allow it to automatically synchronise photos from their mobile devices to the social networks servers. The social network from Friday began asking users of its mobile apps to activate its new Photo Sync, which will automatically upload each picture to a private album.
Whether or not users decide share the photos on their public newsfeed, Facebook itself will still have access.
That means it will be able to mine those files for their metadata, including the location where the photo was taken, as well as use its facial recognition technology to spot those pictured. As a result, over time, Facebook will be able to build up a comprehensive database of where users have been, and with whom, from information they automatically give to the company.
Emma Carr, deputy director of civil liberties campaign group Big Brother Watch, said: 'This provides a stark warning about the loss of control experienced once you have installed an application to your mobile phone.
'Privacy is clearly at the very back of the Facebook's mind when creating an application that enables this kind of uploading of photographs to be easier when it, in fact, it should be made more difficult.'
It is no secret here that I tend to be pretty hard on law-enforcement, from a lot of different angles. From a high political level, through the perspectives of sociology, and finally on down to zero tolerance for officer criminality. I am often accused of being a "cop-hater." But the truth is, I am not a cop-hater, even though the moniker does not really upset me much. What I hate is injustice. More to the point, I simply cannot abide hypocrisy, which our modern law-enforcement apparatus seems to be overflowing with.
From TSA agents being our friendly local social terrorist molesting people at airports and railway platforms, to cops who maim and murder the very people they are sworn to protect. One need look no further than our own police-state column to see the reality of the tyranny we now live under.
But this article is not about bad cops or bad laws.
Today I want to talk about the other side of the coin. I want to have a look at the genuine cop-haters. The folks who will, no matter what, always say that the cop is wrong. My friends, this is another hypocrisy I cannot abide. The cop is not always wrong. It does a disservice to those of us who are striving for genuine and positive changes, to pick at justifiable police activity as being some travesty of justice and abuse of authority. The reality is that the job of a police officer is a very difficult one. One that does include justified instances of all sorts of unsavory acts, up to and including the use of deadly force. Just because a cop shoots someone dead, does not mean that a murder has been committed.
I have seen instances in the past of people ripping on the police for simply doing their job. That is no more fair-play than a cop planting a joint in your glovebox.
What got me going on this subject today was the following pic and video which has been splashed across anti-law-enforcement blogs and Facebook pages.
I got completely suckered in by the caption. What is frightening of course, is that the performance of our police forces made this entirely plausible, and I started salivating about the prospect of posting yet another instance of a cop going berserk.
What I got instead though, was a dose of cop-haters going out of their way to be offended by a cop doing his job.
Let's have a look at the video now, before I comment further.
The video starts as the officer engages the suspect vehicle and initiates a traffic stop. The vehicle matches the description given by other motorists who reported a reckless and/or speeding driver. This is confirmed by the suspect himself in his own video description.
"...Pulled over for no reason except someone said I was swerving on the
interstate a lil bit because i had broke the stick shift knob and was
screwing it back on. Is this a legal traffic stop. I thought officers
had to witness me committing a violation but not this case. Someone was
pulling some road rage making up that I almost hit them when in fact
they cut me off and I had to slam on my breaks because she limited my
distance to stop..."
So right here he has admitted that he was indeed swerving. I don't care if he was screwing on a broken shift knob, texting, or getting his knob polished. If you are swerving in traffic, especially at high speed on an interstate, you are putting lives in danger. That is reckless.
Then, another motorist also complains that the subject was driving recklessly, but he claims to be the "victim" of road rage here, and that the second complainant (presumably the female in the video) had actually caused a hazard. I find that claim on his part to be dubious, especially considering other admissions on the part of the suspect.
Regardless, the officer had several complaints of an erratic vehicle. This certainly is enough probable cause to initiate a traffic stop. No, an officer does not have to see an offense in order to investigate a potential crime. (Note that the suspect was never charged with other highway infractions which were not committed in the presence of the officer.) You will also notice in the video, that the suspect vehicle has malfunctioning tail/brake lights, which is also probable cause for a traffic stop.
In short, the officer engages a suspect vehicle that was reportedly, and by later admission of the operator, driving erratically. The reasons were, of course, unknown to the officer and not justified by the suspect anyway.
The officer sees the suspect vehicle lurch forward, against a red light, but with another vehicle in front of the suspect vehicle blocking the path. The suspect tries to explain this by saying that "the light was about to turn green" but this may in fact be another traffic violation, as it is in many jurisdictions, to proceed against a stop light once stopped. That would be yet another point of probable cause, and a ticketable offense committed in the presence of the officer. At the very least, the officer would be right to see this as a sign of anxious or aggressive driving. And for what reason, the officer had yet to determine. Was the suspect attempting to flee, was the vehicle in distress and unsafe for the roadway, or was the operator simply dangerously incompetant?
At that point the suspect vehicle chooses to proceed, rather than remain stopped. Again, by his own admission, the suspect had indeed seen the lights of the police car, was stopped, and chose to proceed anyway. That is a violation of the law. To generally paraphrase most traffic codes, you must stop and pull to the side if possible, when it is safe to do so. The suspect was stopped, there was no danger, and chose to proceed anyway.
"Yes I was stopped but he didn't say to stay there. Its always taught you
pull over for emergency vehicles. How is this resisting I need to know?
I had never been in trouble and any other time I had been pulled over I
get yelled at to pull over to a safer spot. Well not this time."
His muddled self-justification is actually hard to interpret there. But right off the bat he makes a critical error in judgement. The officer most certainly did say to "stay there" through use of his warning beacons and siren. Not only did the suspect fail to yield, but also, willingly chose to proceed after acknowledging the police presence and lawful order to yield. Just because officers in the past had "always" yelled at him to pull over to a safer spot, that was not the case in this instance. The officer issued no such command.
Furthermore, it is hardly reasonable to move an almost completely disabled vehicle from a side street onto a main thoroughfare, as we saw was done in this video. I don't see that as reasonable even without the police presence, which is also something that the officer likely considered.
So at this point the officer sees a suspect vehicle that is stalling out repeatedly, has a broken taillight, is leaking fluid all over the ground, with a driver who has been driving erratically, aggressively proceeding against a red light, and then for some unknown reason chooses to proceed into heavy traffic rather than remain stopped on a side street. The motorist was actually creating a more dangerous situation, not moving to safer ground.
The officer, at this point, is reasonably jacked-up with all sorts of suspicion. Is the person drunk or high? Was the truck damaged from hitting another car or even a pedestrian perhaps? Is the driver simply woefully incompetent? Maybe in emotional distress, or having a medical problem such as a seizure or some sort of dementia? Even a diabetic episode? Is the truck blowing fluid all over the place because the suspect just beat the hell out of the motor fleeing from the scene of an axe murder at a daycare center? Who the hell knows? With all those questions and more, would you walk up to a vehicle like that with a fine "Howdy doo? What seems to be the trouble today?"
Hell no. I would pull my Glock and and give him a straight "what da fuck man?!"
And to break it down even further, ask yourself this. How often would you actually love to pull a Glock on some asshat driver and ask him that very question before you proceed to break his cellphone and knock out his high beams with a lug wrench? I have been tempted to do just that many times. Now imagine it is your job to actually stop that person, but you can't even give him so much as a Three-Stooges eye-poke? That you have to swallow your emotions, protect yourself from a possibly fatal encounter, and act professionally. That takes balls of steel and an almost inhuman sense of humility at the same time.
So to wrap this up here, like I said to start, I have a lot of beef with cops in general. From the laws that they enforce, to how they enforce them. But at the end of the day, fuck that job. Not for me man. I would crack someone in the head.
To my cop-hating buds out there, don't get it twisted my friends. A lot of assholery comes from the thin-blue-line. But don't believe the hype either. Propaganda works both ways. And to my police officer friends, this is for you you blue bastads! Lol. Gotta give you some props once in a while.
And be safe on the roads all my friends. Don't be an asshat. Stay off the fuckin phone. No, you are not special, you cannot use the phone and drive, you are not superhuman. (And this goes for you cops out there too, exempt or not.)
Here is the full video description by the self-desribed suspect in this matter:
Here is the in dash camera from a police officer in Lebanon, Indiana.
While he was behind me at the stop light the truck kept dying because it
was old and over heating from being on the interstate the radiator
fluid was leaking out. I had borrowed this truck in Lafayette, Indiana
and its been sometime since I had driven a clutch. The guy that let me
borrow the truck told me it sometimes overheats. It needed a thermostat
or something. I got charged Felony Resisting Law Enforcement with a
motor vehicle. Is this justified. I pulled over in a safer spot outta of
the middle of the road. I had no idea I was being stopped but I noticed
during the stop light and waved my hand to signal okay I'll pull over.
Yes I was stopped but he didn't say to stay there. Its always taught you
pull over for emergency vehicles. How is this resisting I need to know?
I had never been in trouble and any other time I had been pulled over I
get yelled at to pull over to a safer spot. Well not this time. I need
help because I was scared into taking the plea or I would lose the case
my attorney Buchanan Law Office Inc: Buchanan Pamela said. She was
appointed as my legal counsel since I couldn't afford an attorney. I
waiting 1 year going to probation and I even filled to fire her but at
court I in the last minute had been convinced by her that I was not
going to do any different thru anyone else. Her husband is a Prosecutor
for the Town Of Lebanon and I feel that this is all crap. This took
place in Lebanon, Indiana. Pulled over for no reason except someone said
I was swerving on the interstate a lil bit because i had broke the
stick shift knob and was screwing it back on. Is this a legal traffic
stop. I thought officers had to witness me committing a violation but
not this case. Someone was pulling some road rage making up that I
almost hit them when in fact they cut me off and I had to slam on my
breaks because she limited my distance to stop. Is there any other
options I can pursue to sue the law office or something I just wanted to
get the process over with because 2 years was a long time for probation
and I figured maybe she was right what do I know I have no other way of
fighting it. NEED HELP. THIS IS KEEPING ME FROM HAVING A NORMAL LIFE I
CANT GET A CAREER TO TAKE CARE OF MY WIFE AND KID. I AM SO FRUSTRATED
WITH THIS.
This essay has been featured by CopBlock.org on their new "Welcome LEO's" page!
As in Libya, Syrian "opposition" is led by long-time servants of Western corporate-financiers.
November 26, 2012 (LD) - A year ago, it was reported
that Libya's new NATO-installed prime minister, Abdurrahim el-Keib, was
in fact a long-time US resident, having taught at the University of
Alabama and was formally employed by the Petroleum Institute, based in
Abu Dhabi, UAE and sponsored by
British Petroleum (BP), Shell, France's Total, the Japan Oil
Development Company, and the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company. El-Keib is
listed as a "Professor and Chairman"
in his Petroleum Institute profile which also describes extensive
research conducted by him sponsored by various US government agencies
and departments over the years. His long history of serving and working in coordination with Western
governments and corporations made him and his collaborators the ideal
candidates to prepare Libya for its place within the Wall Street-London international order. Now it is revealed that the US-handpicked opposition, announced in Doha,
Qatar earlier this month, is led by a similarly compromised figure,
Moaz al-Khatib. The corporate-financier-funded Carnegie Endowment for International Peace reported of al-Khatib that: Please visit source for full story and video: CLICK HERE FOR MORE
Internal emails among U.S. military officers indicate that no American sailors watched Osama bin Laden's burial at sea from the USS Carl Vinson...
...According to another message from the Vinson's public affairs officer, only a small group of the ship's leadership was informed of the burial...
...In a response to separate requests from the AP for information about the mission, the Defense Department said in March that it could not locate any photographs or video taken during the raid or showing bin Laden's body. It also said it could not find any images of bin Laden's body on the Vinson.
The Pentagon also said it could not find any death certificate, autopsy report or results of DNA identification tests for bin Laden, or any pre-raid materials discussing how the government planned to dispose of bin Laden's body if he were killed...
The following supporting piece comes from Washington's Blog. (Please visit that link to see the article in its original format.)
Wesley Clark, Supreme Allied Commander NATO, testifies in this 2-minute video that the US planned to overthrow seven countries after 9/11: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran.
The Pentagon admitted a strategy to do so (here, here, here):
the US conducts acts of terrorism in nations they want to control,
the US continues terrorism to provoke an act of reprisal,
the US labels the reprisal “terrorism” to justify covert and overt military operations to overthrow targeted governments.
Therefore, the US caused the “war on terror” as a policy choice; 9/11 was pretense and not the cause.
Indeed, war law and two UN Security Council Resolutions
provided international cooperation for factual discovery of the 9/11
terrorists, arrests, and trial for lawful justice all nations supported.
The US rejects the rule of law, violates treaty obligations, killed
over a million human beings from armed attacks since 9/11, and so far
has long-term costs of $4 to $6 trillion to US taxpayers ($40 – $60,000 per household).
This rogue state of the US ends
when enough Americans in military, law enforcement, government, media,
education, and the general public have sufficient intellectual integrity
and moral courage to accept the “emperor has no clothes” obvious facts.
This unlawful policy choice of the US for Wars of Aggression has killed 20-30 million people
in covert and overt wars since 1945. It follows a long history of
lie-began and treaty-violated wars of choice to steal land and
resources, as I’ve reminded the public before:
2. US President Polk lied to Congress to initiate a War of Aggression in Mexico.
The result was the US taking 40% of Mexico in 1848. This occurred
despite Abraham Lincoln’s crystal-clear explanation as a member of
Congress that the Adams-Onis Treaty placed the “border dispute” 400
miles within land forever promised to Mexico and forever promised as
outside any US claim.
10. The two “reasons” for war with Iran are as false as the “reasons”
for war with Iraq. Beware a false flag attack by the US or Israel to
blame on Iran as pretext for another “defensive” war:
Like Agenda 21, weather modification is no conspiracy theory. Often times when subjects like this are brought up, the average person will simply roll their eyes and tune out their attention, ignoring whatever one might have to say about the subject. It's almost as if certain trigger words will shut down the brain process of the average schmuck on the street. While they are calling the so-called conspiracy theorist a wacko, the sheeple are actually practicing willful ignorance. Many things like this are no hare-brained conspiracy theory, these are the facts of the world we live in. Weather modification is real, and it has been around since at least the 1960's.
Although there is plenty of material on the subject, most people still believe this is the stuff of science-fiction rather than science. In reality, the United States Air Force pioneered some of the first efforts at weather modification, and likely continues to do so today under a greater cloak of secrecy. On the other hand, less secretive corporate interests have also pursued this technology.
Weather
Modification, Inc., is a global atmospheric sciences company committed
to continued advances in the field of weather modification. Whether it’s
identifying the potential benefits of cloud seeding or monitoring air
quality, we are dedicated to providing sound, scientific atmospheric
solutions.
Nearly 50 Years of Expertise in Atmospheric Sciences Weather Modification Inc., was founded in 1961, in the small town of Bowman, ND. Bowman is located in an area of the state where the average rainfall is near desert amounts and hail is common. In order to preserve the livelihood of the agricultural community, two pilots/farmers decided to enter the forefront of weather modification. Our tradition of leadership and innovation continues to direct our future. What started as two aircraft and two pilots has grown to nearly 40 aircraft and more than 80 team members. We continue to expand our services and products to meet emerging client needs. Over the last fifteen years, WMI has broadened its service offerings to include environmental monitoring and expanded atmospheric assessment and evaluation. Core values of quality, reliability, and innovation provide the framework for Weather Modification, Inc., These values, and our ever-changing planet, will continue to direct our team of scientists, meteorologists, electronics technicians, pilots, and maintenance engineers.
Perhaps the most public display of modern-day weather modification came from China during the Beijing Olympics.
BEIJING — As they prepare to host the Olympics —
an event whose very purpose is to push the limits of human beings — the
Chinese are trying to do what man never has: Control the weather.
With five months to go before the Summer Games
come to Beijing, Chinese scientists say they are confident they can keep
rain away from the opening ceremony, or summon a storm on cue to clear
the city's choking pollution.
It's a bold — and, according to international
scientists, dubious — bit of stage managing, even for a nation that has
already shown an outsize ambition to use the Olympics to showcase its
development from rural poverty to economic powerhouse.
China is spending $40 billion to remake the
infrastructure of the ancient capital, and it already spends an
estimated $100 million a year and employs 50,000 for rainmaking.
Now from these facts, we can go ahead and contemplate more theoretical implications of what is going on. Everything from HAARP (video link), to atmospheric conditioning through chem-trails seem to have some merit, but simmer in the more murky waters of conspiracy-theory. Yet it does stand to reason that the frontier of this technology exists beyond what is public knowledge today. Many of these theories, even if not proven, are indeed plausible.
Now, this is not to say that I buy into all these conspiracy theories entirely either. I just think we have to consider some possibilities here.
In my own experience, for example, I can remember that when I was a kid overcast days were pretty rare. And even on days that were overcast, that ceiling seemed lower, less upper-atmospheric, more likely to wind up with some rain or snow at some point. Today, it seems like more days than not, no matter what season, we have a film of overcast that can last for days. Not quite sunny, not quite cloudy. It takes on a slight rusty pollution hue too, and then maybe squeezes out a few sprinkles of rain, rather than an actual shower. Almost as if the atmosphere itself is sweating, rather than passing along a refreshing shower. And then everything on the ground is coated in a strange "grease."
I first noticed it on my car windshield. No matter what I cleaned it with, there was this greasy film on the glass that would just not go away, and was worst after one of these sprinkling rain events when the atmosphere was heavy and stifling.
Meh, anyway, just a few personal observations. It just feels like something is not quite right in the air, in the water. how I breathe, what the sky looks like. Things people might not regularly pay attention to in the modern day with their busy lives.
Like I said, I don't buy into every theory that comes down the pike, and I am not exactly sure what might be happening, but something is different, and it doesn't feel right. Natural climate change? Human pollution without any real agenda? Perhaps. But we should consider all of the evidence just the same.
China slams ‘war-addicted’ US
-
[image: Preview] The Chinese defense ministry has accused the Pentagon of
fabricating false narratives in its latest report on Beijing’s military
threat
R...
Is OpenAI’s o3 Model AGI?
-
I doubt it’s actually AGI, but it looks impressive. If it’s any
consolation, they let it use a very nontrivial amount of compute to pull
this off. If/when ...
This feed has moved and will be deleted soon. Please update your
subscription now.
-
The publisher is using a new address for their RSS feed. Please update your
feed reader to use this new URL:
*http://www.alternet.org/home/feed*
The Hemp Industry / Staying Positive
-
Air Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2020
Doug Fine discussed the many amazing properties of hemp. Followed by Eldon
Taylor on staying positive in the COVID-19 era.
The Alzheimer’s Drug that Might Unlock Your Dreams
-
As excited as I get about the potentiality of psychedelic drugs, I get far
more amped about pushing the boundaries of dreams as I’m not sure there are
an...
DOJ Stumbles at Hearing on Detaining Immigrants
-
Criticizing an attorney for the government for arguing issues he never
raised in briefing, the First Circuit seemed likely at a hearing Wednesday
to u...
Mom Has Stacked Dinner Party Roster
-
GOLDEN, CO—Their eyes widening in amazement as the 43-year-old rattled off
the names of heavy hitter after heavy hitter, impressed members of the
Dreesh...
BEIJING — As they prepare to host the Olympics — an event whose very purpose is to push the limits of human beings — the Chinese are trying to do what man never has: Control the weather.
With five months to go before the Summer Games come to Beijing, Chinese scientists say they are confident they can keep rain away from the opening ceremony, or summon a storm on cue to clear the city's choking pollution.It's a bold — and, according to international scientists, dubious — bit of stage managing, even for a nation that has already shown an outsize ambition to use the Olympics to showcase its development from rural poverty to economic powerhouse.China is spending $40 billion to remake the infrastructure of the ancient capital, and it already spends an estimated $100 million a year and employs 50,000 for rainmaking.
