14 November 2007

Happy Hump Day!
To paraphrase a local commercial: "If you're not at the PA-IN Erudition...you're at the WRONG place".
Welcome to the middle of the week.
Submitted for your approval are two stories that go a bit outside the boundaries of human reasoning. They make a mockery of our intelligence. But never fear, because as your guide into this soiree of unmitigated lunacy, it will be my job to make sure that no harm comes to you. Read on.

Item - Voter ID law receives challenge.
Seems that a counsel for the Brennan Center for the Justice at the NYU School of Law has filed a brief argument over voters having proper ID when going to the polls. He cites that the elderly, poor, and black are less likely than others to have the photo identification required to vote.
I can sum this up in ONE word: BULL$HIT.
And here's how I got there...
Let's take MY neighborhood (puh-lease) for example. We have about 42,000 "eligible" voters in the area (barring children of course). We had ONLY an ELEVEN PERCENT voter turnout for the entire 6th councilmanic district this past election...truly pathetic, as well as apathetic (per my post of last Friday). So that tells us that EIGHTY-NINE PERCENT didn't give the proverbial rat's ass about voting. We can "allege" that this 89% didn't have the proper photo ID.
Another load of B.S.
Without exception, nearly EVERY DAMN ONE of these "poor" and "black" people around here have EITHER a DRIVER'S LICENSE...OR...a PHOTO ID to get "dat welfare check". And you can't tell me they do not. I see these IDs at the grocery when using their food stamps (that YOU have paid for). So they DO in fact HAVE some form of photo ID, which by law is good enough to get their asses into the voting booth to cast their ballots. Trouble is...they just DON'T. Call it LAZY (an apt description), or call it whatever else you will, there is NO excuse for this 89% of the people in MY area to NOT have proper ID to vote, because it's a non sequitor. They DO have ID. They'd rather pursue their hedonistic desires than make any difference to anyone or anything. And this holds true everywhere else in this nation.
As for the elderly, are they not requiring photo IDs for meds these days too? Can they not vote in absentia? Can't anyone DRIVE them to the polls? Even they don't have an extremely VALID reason any longer. It's real simple: Poor people don't want to vote. Poor BLACK people don't want to vote. And the elderly often forget, or are encumbered physically enough to not be able to vote. Drop the challenge, NYU...it's a moot point.

Item - NY police shoot, kill teen.
There are TWO sides to this tragic tale...one the MSM will tell and the truth. The MSM states that an "unarmed, mentally-ill teenager that could be heard yelling, 'I have a gun' by his mother before police arrived and killed him in a 20-bullet barrage".
This will no doubt have "The Sharpton and Jackson Show" back on the road, wanting blood for blood from the NYPD. And we'll have the obligatory "ma baby was a good boy" from the mama, and the MSM will be all over this like flies on manure.
The teen had brandished a hairbrush like a gun when he exited his mother's home. It was then he was killed by police. They did not know it was a hairbrush until after he had been shot dead. Yes, that IS a sad story. It's sad that this boy was killed. It's sad that he didn't get the medical help with his condition prior to this outburst. And it's sad that non-lethal measures were not first employed. It's tragic on many levels.
But the truth of the matter is this: You PAY the police to PROTECT you. You pay to have them strap on a gun, pin on a shield, and serve the greater good of whatever community they are charged with patrolling. And every one of them is NOT clairvoyant. They can only act on what they are trained to OBSERVE, as well as their gut instinct. They cannot foresee any given situation and how it will pan out. They do NOT have tarot cards, a crystal ball or a Ouija board as standard issue in their cruiser. And don't expect them to any time soon.
What they DO have is a radio, a computer, and a brain between their ears.
If YOU were to walk into this situation with only the information provided by dispatch (and your training), how would YOU react?
Would you "roll the dice" and HOPE this boy did NOT have a weapon which could send YOU to the morgue? It's damn hard to protect the innocent when pushing up daisies, isn't it? In many other (less publicized instances) officers who took that split second to "evaluate" the situation were gunned down. How do you explain that to his widow? Or mother?
It's bad enough we have too many guns on the streets in the WRONG hands, but given this, are we seeing guns where none exist? Or are we erring on the side of caution to promote the general welfare and protect the common good?
Is there a definitive solution?
Non lethal weapons would have been my first choice in this case, but they were not used (for whatever reason). It could have been the immediacy of the scenario. It could have been lack of funding to equip every officer with a TASER. One solution is NOT to defame the police for doing their job (with what they have at hand), but yet there will be those people who will point fingers for weeks over this. If the officers conducted themselves in a reckless manner, it will come out. If they acted properly, that will also come out. Whether it was 20 bullets or one well-placed shot...the boy is gone. That's a fact. And he's not coming back any time soon.
In our modern society where violence abounds, the police are supposed to be our first defense, and we entrust them with this overwhelming task to stem the tide of violence. That hairbrush can become damn threatening at night when you don't KNOW it's a hairbrush, and when you also know there are those out there wanting to kill you JUST because of the color of your shirt, and the badge on your chest.

Things to make you think...that's for sure.
And maybe the world could use more cognitive reasoning.
'Ya think?

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Bob,
The use-of-force continuum taught to most police officers not only allows, but highly recommends the use of deadly force when attacked with a firearm. While Tasers and other less-lethal devices are all the rage these days, that are not a panacea for all violent confrontations. (They have significant range restrictions) You are correct in your assessment that officers were placed into what they believed was a life or death situation, and their training kicked in, just the way it's supposed to.
The number of rounds fired is not unusual when multiple officers are involved. It could be attributed to what is known as "contagious fire," or the fact that several officers recognized the threat and fired simultaneously until the assailant was down and his threatening actions had ceased.
Either way, I agree with your assertion that the outcome was tragic, and could likely have been prevented beforehand, with proper medical intervention.

Bob G. said...

Jim:
You make some VERY good observations.
The "contagious fire" syndrome or (as I like to call it) the "double-double-tap" happens all too fast in the heat of the moment.

Officers can unload an entire 15 round mag, and yet when IAD asks them how many rounds they expended, they can't honestly answer.

When you hear the sound of a gunshot, you're FIRST instinct is to "return" fire, even if it's not warranted.
I recall one situation where officers surrounded a vehicle and wound up in EACH OTHER'S crossfire...not a good way to end a shift. Fortunately, no friendlies were hit.

Thanks for the comment...much appreciated.

B.G.

Anonymous said...

Bob, you're absolutely right...today's modern semi-autos can pump out a full magazine in a blur, and most officers involved in deadly force encounters have a hard time remembering how many rounds they fired. Tunnel-vision, diminished hearing, and time distortion are all common, so it's tough for officers to explain the events sometimes.