Today, I received the following e-mail:
It is a slow day in a small Midwestern town. It is raining, and the little town looks totally deserted. Times are tough, everybody is in debt and everybody lives on credit.
On this particular day a rich tourist from the East is driving through town. He enters the only hotel in the sleepy town and lays a hundred dollar bill on the desk stating he wants to inspect the rooms upstairs in order to pick one to spend the night.
As soon as the man walks up the stairs, the hotel proprietor takes the hundred dollar bill and runs next door to pay his debt to the butcher.
The butcher takes the $100 and runs down the street to pay his debt to the pig farmer.
The pig farmer then takes the $100 and heads off to pay his debt to the Farmer's Cp-op, his supplier of feed and fuel.
The guy at the Farmer's Co-op takes the $100 and runs to pay his debt to the local prostitute who has also been facing hard times and has lately had to offer her "services" on credit.
The hooker runs to the hotel and pays off her debt with the $100 to the hotel proprietor paying for the rooms that she had rented when she brought clients to that establishment.
The hotel proprietor then lays the $100 bill back on the counter for the unsuspecting rich traveler.
Right thereafter, the traveler from the East walks back down the stairs after inspecting the rooms. He picks up the $100 bill and states that the rooms are not satisfactory. He pockets the money, walks out the door and leaves town.
No one earned anything. However the whole town is now out of debt, and looks to the future with a lot of optimism.
That ladies and gentlemen is how our United States Government is conducting business today.
Saturday, June 13, 2009
6 SECONDS, 2 SHOTS, 2 SAVES
Wow! What a fantastic series! What a comeback! What a game 7! I’m talking about the Stanley Cup finals. I’ve been an ardent ice hockey fan for more than 50 years. That's why I blogged "The Toughest Playoffs In All Of Sports" (5-2-09). This exciting seven-game series turned out to be a shining example of how tough it gets to win the National Hockey League championship.
The Detroit Red Wings won the first two games at home. The Pittsburgh Penguins followed that up by tying the series on their home ice. The Penguins lost game 5 in Detroit by a lopsided score of 5-0. Marc-Andre Fleury, Pittsburgh’s young goalie, had to be pulled and the chances for the Penguins to win the Stanley Cup looked very bleak indeed. But the Pens battled back to win game 6 at home by a 2-1 margin, forcing a game 7 in Detroit.
Last season, the Red Wings won the Stanley Cup by defeating the Penguins on Pittsburgh’s home ice in game 6. This time, before last night’s championship game, Detroit was 11-1 at home in the playoffs, 3-0 in this series. Detroit, a team of veterans had four players going for their fifth title in 12 seasons. Chris Osgood, their goalie, was poised to win his third title as the starting goalie.
Pittsburgh, a team of mostly young players, had only one player, Bill Guerin, who had previously won the cup. Guerin only joined the Pens at the trading deadline, having won the cup as a New Jersey Devil in 1995.
The hitting in last night’s game, as in all the other games in this series, was awesome. 5-1/2 minutes into the second period, the Pens young "phenom" and captain, Sidney "Sid the Kid" Crosby, was smashed into the boards and had to be helped to the dressing room with a leg injury. He returned for the third period but could only play for one short shift.
Pittsburgh was leading 2-0 on two second period goals scored by third-liner Maxim Talbot when Detroit scored a goal with 6:07 remaining in the third period. Detroit almost tied it with 2:14 left when a shot "clanged" off the goalie’s best friend - the crossbar of the net.
With more than a minute to go, Detroit pulled Osgood to get an extra skater on the ice. A relentless Red Wings onslaught followed with Penguin players blocking shots and Fleury turning them back. With only 6 seconds to go in the game, Detroit won a do-or-die face-off. Fleury blocked a sizzling shot on goal, then dived across to the right side of the goal crease and knocked aside a shot of the rebound that might have tied the game with just 1 second left to play. What a thrilling end to a thrilling game.
Instead of heading for the exits, most of the 20,000 disappointed Detroit fans stayed around to watch the Penguins celebrate and for the awarding of the Conn Smythe trophy and the Stanley Cup, North America’s oldest and most prized sports trophy. The Red Wings fans even applauded the traditional skate around with and kissing of the cup by all the Pittsburgh players, coaches, trainers, equipment managers and others, and principal owner Mario "Super Mario" Lemieux, who received an extra loud round of applause.
Evgeni Malkin, the Pens’ young Russian winger, deservedly won the Conn Smythe trophy as the most valuable player of the playoffs. For this game though, there can be no doubt that Marc-Andre Fleury was the most outstanding player. When the Wings threw everything at him but the kitchen sink, Fleury rose up to the task. That is not to take anything away from Crosby and the other Penguins because all of them contributed to a great teeam effort when it counted the most.
Pittsburgh won back-to-back Stanley cups in 1991 and 1992 with Lemieux, arguably the best hockey player of all time, leading the Penguins in both seasons. In 1999, Lemieux purchased the team out of bankruptcy and kept the franchise from leaving the City of Pittsburgh. Super Mario became the first person in hockey to win the Stanley Cup both as a player and as an owner. How sweet it is!
What an ending. Those last 6 seconds of game 7 could not have been any more thrilling. Two great teams battled hard to the very end and proved beyond any doubt that hockey has the toughest playoffs in all of sports.
The Detroit Red Wings won the first two games at home. The Pittsburgh Penguins followed that up by tying the series on their home ice. The Penguins lost game 5 in Detroit by a lopsided score of 5-0. Marc-Andre Fleury, Pittsburgh’s young goalie, had to be pulled and the chances for the Penguins to win the Stanley Cup looked very bleak indeed. But the Pens battled back to win game 6 at home by a 2-1 margin, forcing a game 7 in Detroit.
Last season, the Red Wings won the Stanley Cup by defeating the Penguins on Pittsburgh’s home ice in game 6. This time, before last night’s championship game, Detroit was 11-1 at home in the playoffs, 3-0 in this series. Detroit, a team of veterans had four players going for their fifth title in 12 seasons. Chris Osgood, their goalie, was poised to win his third title as the starting goalie.
Pittsburgh, a team of mostly young players, had only one player, Bill Guerin, who had previously won the cup. Guerin only joined the Pens at the trading deadline, having won the cup as a New Jersey Devil in 1995.
The hitting in last night’s game, as in all the other games in this series, was awesome. 5-1/2 minutes into the second period, the Pens young "phenom" and captain, Sidney "Sid the Kid" Crosby, was smashed into the boards and had to be helped to the dressing room with a leg injury. He returned for the third period but could only play for one short shift.
Pittsburgh was leading 2-0 on two second period goals scored by third-liner Maxim Talbot when Detroit scored a goal with 6:07 remaining in the third period. Detroit almost tied it with 2:14 left when a shot "clanged" off the goalie’s best friend - the crossbar of the net.
With more than a minute to go, Detroit pulled Osgood to get an extra skater on the ice. A relentless Red Wings onslaught followed with Penguin players blocking shots and Fleury turning them back. With only 6 seconds to go in the game, Detroit won a do-or-die face-off. Fleury blocked a sizzling shot on goal, then dived across to the right side of the goal crease and knocked aside a shot of the rebound that might have tied the game with just 1 second left to play. What a thrilling end to a thrilling game.
Instead of heading for the exits, most of the 20,000 disappointed Detroit fans stayed around to watch the Penguins celebrate and for the awarding of the Conn Smythe trophy and the Stanley Cup, North America’s oldest and most prized sports trophy. The Red Wings fans even applauded the traditional skate around with and kissing of the cup by all the Pittsburgh players, coaches, trainers, equipment managers and others, and principal owner Mario "Super Mario" Lemieux, who received an extra loud round of applause.
Evgeni Malkin, the Pens’ young Russian winger, deservedly won the Conn Smythe trophy as the most valuable player of the playoffs. For this game though, there can be no doubt that Marc-Andre Fleury was the most outstanding player. When the Wings threw everything at him but the kitchen sink, Fleury rose up to the task. That is not to take anything away from Crosby and the other Penguins because all of them contributed to a great teeam effort when it counted the most.
Pittsburgh won back-to-back Stanley cups in 1991 and 1992 with Lemieux, arguably the best hockey player of all time, leading the Penguins in both seasons. In 1999, Lemieux purchased the team out of bankruptcy and kept the franchise from leaving the City of Pittsburgh. Super Mario became the first person in hockey to win the Stanley Cup both as a player and as an owner. How sweet it is!
What an ending. Those last 6 seconds of game 7 could not have been any more thrilling. Two great teams battled hard to the very end and proved beyond any doubt that hockey has the toughest playoffs in all of sports.
Friday, June 12, 2009
IRATE TV VIEWER EXPLAINS WHAT TO DO
My friend J.T., a retired engineer, sent the following e-mail to everyone in his address book. Since it contains some helpful information, I thought it deserved wider distribution. Read it and weep.
HOW'S YOUR TV???
God Bless America. We have now come into the digital TV age. This morning at 6:45 your analog TV ceased to exist. Are you happy? Seems like just in every other part of American life your government is there to help you!! Screwed again!!!
If you don't have cable or satellite, did you notice your OLD TV didn't work? If you are astute enough to figure it out, did you know that IF you have a digital TV OR a converter box you had to rescan it to even try and get a signal? Did you know that if you have your TV connected to an outside antenna or rabbit ears, you may not get a signal?? Does it work?
If you have a VCR, DO YOU KNOW IT WILL NOT WORK??? IT WILL NOT WORK, IT IS ANALOG AND WILL NOT RECEIVE DIGITAL SIGNALS!!!! Did you know that if you want to watch one program on TV and record another on your VCR, IT WILL NOT WORK? LIKE IT HAS DONE IN THE PAST??? I didn't think so!
Your government has just helped you once again! and never told you that. I had a very elegant DSS/TV/VCR watching/recording system, but MY government just screwed ME over. Again. Don't work now. I have spent most of this morning trying to recover from that screwing. Most of my TV's are now digital and I'm smart enough to reprogram them , but it has cost me money AND time! Screw the government. I have 5 DIGITAL TV'S and one analog with a converter box. Still trying to program them all. But I will.
What to do?
Rescan your DTV for new channels - see the instructions for your DTV. If you have a new digital TV - rescan auto channels on your TV menu. It will give you a bunch of bullshit channels you DON'T want. "Comprende?" Follow instructions on the menu to delete to those you don't want. - I know this is hard.
If you have an OLD TV with a converter box - rescan the converter box.
If you have an old analog TV without a converter box - your government has already screwed you. Without the proper antenna it won't work anyway, so just relax. But they never told you that.
Don't forget your old VCR will not work. They never told you that either.
When all doesn't work, try again and just get a new antenna - it'll support our economy - and start over. Or just not try and watch TV and read a book.
But if all efforts fail, you won't miss anything on late night TV. David Letterman will still make an ass of himself when trying to insult Sarah Palin and you won't have to see it if your TV don't work. Maybe a good thing, as Martha (J.T.’s wife) might say.
HOW'S YOUR TV???
God Bless America. We have now come into the digital TV age. This morning at 6:45 your analog TV ceased to exist. Are you happy? Seems like just in every other part of American life your government is there to help you!! Screwed again!!!
If you don't have cable or satellite, did you notice your OLD TV didn't work? If you are astute enough to figure it out, did you know that IF you have a digital TV OR a converter box you had to rescan it to even try and get a signal? Did you know that if you have your TV connected to an outside antenna or rabbit ears, you may not get a signal?? Does it work?
If you have a VCR, DO YOU KNOW IT WILL NOT WORK??? IT WILL NOT WORK, IT IS ANALOG AND WILL NOT RECEIVE DIGITAL SIGNALS!!!! Did you know that if you want to watch one program on TV and record another on your VCR, IT WILL NOT WORK? LIKE IT HAS DONE IN THE PAST??? I didn't think so!
Your government has just helped you once again! and never told you that. I had a very elegant DSS/TV/VCR watching/recording system, but MY government just screwed ME over. Again. Don't work now. I have spent most of this morning trying to recover from that screwing. Most of my TV's are now digital and I'm smart enough to reprogram them , but it has cost me money AND time! Screw the government. I have 5 DIGITAL TV'S and one analog with a converter box. Still trying to program them all. But I will.
What to do?
Rescan your DTV for new channels - see the instructions for your DTV. If you have a new digital TV - rescan auto channels on your TV menu. It will give you a bunch of bullshit channels you DON'T want. "Comprende?" Follow instructions on the menu to delete to those you don't want. - I know this is hard.
If you have an OLD TV with a converter box - rescan the converter box.
If you have an old analog TV without a converter box - your government has already screwed you. Without the proper antenna it won't work anyway, so just relax. But they never told you that.
Don't forget your old VCR will not work. They never told you that either.
When all doesn't work, try again and just get a new antenna - it'll support our economy - and start over. Or just not try and watch TV and read a book.
But if all efforts fail, you won't miss anything on late night TV. David Letterman will still make an ass of himself when trying to insult Sarah Palin and you won't have to see it if your TV don't work. Maybe a good thing, as Martha (J.T.’s wife) might say.
GREAT GRANNY ZAPPED
Surely, most of you have seen the video of a cop shoving and tasering that 72-year-old great grandmother. And I’m sure you have formed an opinion about the officer’s conduct. Earlier this week, on NBC’s Today Show, Matt Lauer and Erin Burnett, his co-anchor, offered their opinions on the officer’s action. Lauer thought the officer did nothing improper while Burnett thought he went a little too far.
The police car’s dashboard camera showed what happened. A Travis County (Austin, Texas) deputy constable stopped the 4-foot-11 woman for speeding. When she refused to sign the ticket the officer had the profanity spouting great granny get out of her pickup truck. When she refused to move, he shoved her aside off the roadway to keep both of them from getting hit by ongoing traffic.
Then the angry woman, standing only inches from the officer, shouted "You’re gonna shove a 72-year-old woman." The officer then warned her, "If you don’t step back, you’re going to get tased." Great granny replied, "Go ahead, tase me! I dare you!" The officer warned her again before zapping her once, and then again while she lay screaming on the ground. She was then jailed for resisting arrest.
The deputy constable’s supervisors defended him while Travis County Sheriff Greg Hamilton condemned him. Hamilton said: "I do not personally agree with the actions of the deputy constable as they are shown on the video. When I look at the video, I am in awe of what happened."
Come on there Sheriff, get real! It’s easy to blast an officer from another agency while you’re sitting in your office on your big fat ass. Would you rather have watched a video of a burly cop wrestling a 4-foot-11 little old lady to the ground? Or, should the officer have ignored the uncooperative cursing woman altogether? Instead of shoving her out of harms way, should he have left her in the roadway to get run over by a passing car?
In my opinion, the officer did nothing improper. True, he could have let great granny go and with the information obtained from the truck license plate, have her served later with an arrest warrant. And maybe he shouldn’t have zapped her a second time, but then we don’t really know the degree of her combativeness by just watching the video.
In shoving and tasering the old woman, the officer made some split second judgement calls. Could he have handled things differently? Sure. But not using one’s best judgement does not constitute improper conduct.
Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg announced that her office is investigating this case to see if criminal charges should be brought against the officer. She said her office reviews all use-of-force cases by officers in the county. WHAT A CROCK! Her office couldn’t possibly do that! Every day arrests are made that require the use of force. If her office investigated everyone of these cases, there would be no time left to do anything else.
Overlooked in all the hullabaloo is the fact that it was the misconduct of an angry old woman that precipitated the officer's reaction in this case. That notwithstanding, you can bet the great granny will end up filing a big fat juicy lawsuit against the deputy constable, the Constable and Travis county for the "pain and suffering" she experienced from getting zapped.
The police car’s dashboard camera showed what happened. A Travis County (Austin, Texas) deputy constable stopped the 4-foot-11 woman for speeding. When she refused to sign the ticket the officer had the profanity spouting great granny get out of her pickup truck. When she refused to move, he shoved her aside off the roadway to keep both of them from getting hit by ongoing traffic.
Then the angry woman, standing only inches from the officer, shouted "You’re gonna shove a 72-year-old woman." The officer then warned her, "If you don’t step back, you’re going to get tased." Great granny replied, "Go ahead, tase me! I dare you!" The officer warned her again before zapping her once, and then again while she lay screaming on the ground. She was then jailed for resisting arrest.
The deputy constable’s supervisors defended him while Travis County Sheriff Greg Hamilton condemned him. Hamilton said: "I do not personally agree with the actions of the deputy constable as they are shown on the video. When I look at the video, I am in awe of what happened."
Come on there Sheriff, get real! It’s easy to blast an officer from another agency while you’re sitting in your office on your big fat ass. Would you rather have watched a video of a burly cop wrestling a 4-foot-11 little old lady to the ground? Or, should the officer have ignored the uncooperative cursing woman altogether? Instead of shoving her out of harms way, should he have left her in the roadway to get run over by a passing car?
In my opinion, the officer did nothing improper. True, he could have let great granny go and with the information obtained from the truck license plate, have her served later with an arrest warrant. And maybe he shouldn’t have zapped her a second time, but then we don’t really know the degree of her combativeness by just watching the video.
In shoving and tasering the old woman, the officer made some split second judgement calls. Could he have handled things differently? Sure. But not using one’s best judgement does not constitute improper conduct.
Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg announced that her office is investigating this case to see if criminal charges should be brought against the officer. She said her office reviews all use-of-force cases by officers in the county. WHAT A CROCK! Her office couldn’t possibly do that! Every day arrests are made that require the use of force. If her office investigated everyone of these cases, there would be no time left to do anything else.
Overlooked in all the hullabaloo is the fact that it was the misconduct of an angry old woman that precipitated the officer's reaction in this case. That notwithstanding, you can bet the great granny will end up filing a big fat juicy lawsuit against the deputy constable, the Constable and Travis county for the "pain and suffering" she experienced from getting zapped.
A STRONG REBUTTAL TO OBAMA'S CAIRO SPEECH
Rabbi Dr. Morton H. Pomerantz, a former Navy and Marine Corps officer and chaplain, offers a strong rebuttal to President Obama’s Cairo speech which he said was full of lies, distortions and deliberately omitted the long violent history of Muslims and their mistreatment of women, Christians and Jews.
To read Rabbi Pomerantz’s article in Newsmax.com just click on the following link:
http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/obama_holocaust_museum/2009/06/10/223863.html
To read Rabbi Pomerantz’s article in Newsmax.com just click on the following link:
http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/obama_holocaust_museum/2009/06/10/223863.html
I'M A U.S. MARINE !
In March of 2003, Corporal Aaron M. Gilbert of the US Marine Corps, who was stationed aboard the USS Saipan in the Persian Gulf at the time, composed a poem that he asked his father to post on the internet so it could be passed on to as many people as possible. Part of the letter to his father reads:
"You know what Dad? I wondered what it would be like to truly understand what JFK said in his inaugural speech. 'When the time comes to lay down my life for my country, I do not cower from this responsibility. I welcome it.' Well, now I know. And I do. Dad, I welcome the opportunity to do what I do. Even though I have left behind a beautiful wife, and I will miss the birth of our first born child, I would do it 70 times over to fight for the place that God has made for my home."
I’ve just received Cpl. Aaron M. Gilbert’s poem together with the letter to his father. Here is his great poem:
THE MARINE
We all came together,
Both young and old
To fight for our freedom,
To stand and be bold.
In the midst of all evil,
We stand our ground,
And we protect our country
From all terror around.
Peace and not war,
Is what some people say.
But I'll give my life,
So you can live the American way.
I give you the right
To talk of your peace.
To stand in your groups,
and protest in our streets.
But still I fight on,
I don't bitch, I don't whine.
I'm just one of the people
Who is doing your time.
I'm harder than nails,
Stronger than any machine.
I'm the immortal soldier,
I'm a U.S. MARINE!
So stand in my shoes,
And leave from your home.
Fight for the people who hate you,
With the protests they've shown.
Fight for the stranger,
Fight for the young.
So they all may have,
The greatest freedom you've won.
Fight for the sick,
Fight for the poor.
Fight for the cripple,
Who lives next door.
But when your time comes,
Do what I've done.
For if you stand up for freedom,
You'll stand when the fight's done
"You know what Dad? I wondered what it would be like to truly understand what JFK said in his inaugural speech. 'When the time comes to lay down my life for my country, I do not cower from this responsibility. I welcome it.' Well, now I know. And I do. Dad, I welcome the opportunity to do what I do. Even though I have left behind a beautiful wife, and I will miss the birth of our first born child, I would do it 70 times over to fight for the place that God has made for my home."
I’ve just received Cpl. Aaron M. Gilbert’s poem together with the letter to his father. Here is his great poem:
THE MARINE
We all came together,
Both young and old
To fight for our freedom,
To stand and be bold.
In the midst of all evil,
We stand our ground,
And we protect our country
From all terror around.
Peace and not war,
Is what some people say.
But I'll give my life,
So you can live the American way.
I give you the right
To talk of your peace.
To stand in your groups,
and protest in our streets.
But still I fight on,
I don't bitch, I don't whine.
I'm just one of the people
Who is doing your time.
I'm harder than nails,
Stronger than any machine.
I'm the immortal soldier,
I'm a U.S. MARINE!
So stand in my shoes,
And leave from your home.
Fight for the people who hate you,
With the protests they've shown.
Fight for the stranger,
Fight for the young.
So they all may have,
The greatest freedom you've won.
Fight for the sick,
Fight for the poor.
Fight for the cripple,
Who lives next door.
But when your time comes,
Do what I've done.
For if you stand up for freedom,
You'll stand when the fight's done
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
HAVE YOU CHECKED YOUR AMMO LATELY?
Must viewing for all cops and those of us who are gun aficionados. Click on the following link, but please be patient as it takes a while for the video to load:
http://www.break.com/tv-shows/onion-news-network/manufacturer-recalls-hollow-point-bullets-that-fail-to-explode-inside-targets-687467.html
http://www.break.com/tv-shows/onion-news-network/manufacturer-recalls-hollow-point-bullets-that-fail-to-explode-inside-targets-687467.html
"PROFESSIONAL COURTESY" WITHIN THE POLICE SERVICE AT WORK
The stores at Houston’s Baybrook Mall have agreed on a policy that calls for all shoplifters who steal $50 or more of merchandize to be arrested and charged with theft, without exception. And that’s the way it’s been until one of the thieves turned out to be a police captain’s 17-year-old daughter, an adult under Texas law.
Normally, when shoplifters are caught by store security personnel, they are taken to a holding room where the necessary paper work is completed while waiting for the arrival of Houston police officers who will transport the thief to jail or to a juvenile detention facility. Usually two HPD officers handle that chore.
On May 14, 2009, security personnel from the Sears store at Baybrook mall detained a 17-year-old woman after they caught her stealing $69.94 worth of clothing. When the Houston police officers arrived she must have informed them that she was the daughter of HPD Capt. Victor Rodriguez because more officers showed up at the holding room. And sometime after that Capt. Rodriguez arrived in uniform at the room now packed with his thieving daughter, police officers, Sears security personnel and a team of managers from all over the mall that are present during every shoplifting detention.
Capt. Rodriguez tried to talk the Sears mangers into letting him take his daughter home. The managers did just that because, as they told investigative reporter Stephen Dean from Houston’s Ch. 2 TV station, they felt intimidated by the presence of the uniformed Rodriguez and all the HPD officers.
This case is an enlightening example of "professional courtesy" within the police service at work. When those HPD officers found out that they were faced with arresting the daughter of a brother officer, a captain no less in this case, they must have notified a supervisor because why would more officers arrive at the scene if they hadn’t done that? And then someone had to call her father. Rodriguez was not assigned to the Clear Lake police station which handles Baybrook mall arrests. The good captain is in charge of HPD’s property room which is located in downtown Houston, about 25 miles from the mall.
What can be said about this act of "professional courtesy?" For starters, it unnecessarily tied up several cops for quite a while on a simple shoplifting case, even though HPD has a shortage of officers. Then a captain left his assigned duty and sped some 25 miles in a police car so he could keep his daughter from being arrested. Finally, one thief ended up being treated differently than all the other thieves who have been caught up under similar circumstances. As a matter of fact, only 20 minutes after Rodriguez was allowed to take his daughter home, Sears security personnel detained a 14-year-old girl for shoplifting and HPD officers then transported her to a juvenile detention facility.
Not surprisingly, HPD and the city tried to cover up the way this whole case was handled. Stephen Dean has revealed that an official HPD spokesman contacted him on behalf of the department and asked that the entire incident not be reported on any newscast, describing it as a "personal and private family matter." According to Dean, the city of Houston Legal Department also took the unusual step of filing paperwork with the Texas Attorney General in Austin, asking that the basic police report of the shoplifting incident be withheld from release. Unfortunately for HPD's image, someone at the department slipped Dean a copy of the report.
A day after being contacted by Dean, Sears filed a theft charge against the captain’s daughter. HPD has started an internal affairs investigation, but only after the matter became public. And you can bet that Internal Affairs will be trying to find out who slipped Dean that report.
Capt. Rodriguez maintains he did nothing wrong in persuading HPD officers and mall personnel to let him take his daughter home. "I did what any parent would do." That may be so, but unlike any other parent, Rodriguez was acting under the color of authority while in uniform, and that simply made it wrong.
And that’s why the police concept of "professional courtesy" is a gross perversion of the professional courtesy practiced within the medical and legal professions. There was absolutely nothing professional about the police procedures in this case.
Normally, when shoplifters are caught by store security personnel, they are taken to a holding room where the necessary paper work is completed while waiting for the arrival of Houston police officers who will transport the thief to jail or to a juvenile detention facility. Usually two HPD officers handle that chore.
On May 14, 2009, security personnel from the Sears store at Baybrook mall detained a 17-year-old woman after they caught her stealing $69.94 worth of clothing. When the Houston police officers arrived she must have informed them that she was the daughter of HPD Capt. Victor Rodriguez because more officers showed up at the holding room. And sometime after that Capt. Rodriguez arrived in uniform at the room now packed with his thieving daughter, police officers, Sears security personnel and a team of managers from all over the mall that are present during every shoplifting detention.
Capt. Rodriguez tried to talk the Sears mangers into letting him take his daughter home. The managers did just that because, as they told investigative reporter Stephen Dean from Houston’s Ch. 2 TV station, they felt intimidated by the presence of the uniformed Rodriguez and all the HPD officers.
This case is an enlightening example of "professional courtesy" within the police service at work. When those HPD officers found out that they were faced with arresting the daughter of a brother officer, a captain no less in this case, they must have notified a supervisor because why would more officers arrive at the scene if they hadn’t done that? And then someone had to call her father. Rodriguez was not assigned to the Clear Lake police station which handles Baybrook mall arrests. The good captain is in charge of HPD’s property room which is located in downtown Houston, about 25 miles from the mall.
What can be said about this act of "professional courtesy?" For starters, it unnecessarily tied up several cops for quite a while on a simple shoplifting case, even though HPD has a shortage of officers. Then a captain left his assigned duty and sped some 25 miles in a police car so he could keep his daughter from being arrested. Finally, one thief ended up being treated differently than all the other thieves who have been caught up under similar circumstances. As a matter of fact, only 20 minutes after Rodriguez was allowed to take his daughter home, Sears security personnel detained a 14-year-old girl for shoplifting and HPD officers then transported her to a juvenile detention facility.
Not surprisingly, HPD and the city tried to cover up the way this whole case was handled. Stephen Dean has revealed that an official HPD spokesman contacted him on behalf of the department and asked that the entire incident not be reported on any newscast, describing it as a "personal and private family matter." According to Dean, the city of Houston Legal Department also took the unusual step of filing paperwork with the Texas Attorney General in Austin, asking that the basic police report of the shoplifting incident be withheld from release. Unfortunately for HPD's image, someone at the department slipped Dean a copy of the report.
A day after being contacted by Dean, Sears filed a theft charge against the captain’s daughter. HPD has started an internal affairs investigation, but only after the matter became public. And you can bet that Internal Affairs will be trying to find out who slipped Dean that report.
Capt. Rodriguez maintains he did nothing wrong in persuading HPD officers and mall personnel to let him take his daughter home. "I did what any parent would do." That may be so, but unlike any other parent, Rodriguez was acting under the color of authority while in uniform, and that simply made it wrong.
And that’s why the police concept of "professional courtesy" is a gross perversion of the professional courtesy practiced within the medical and legal professions. There was absolutely nothing professional about the police procedures in this case.
Tuesday, June 09, 2009
SAVE NOW, PAY LATER WITH BLOOD
At a time when most states are finding themselves in the midst of a financial crisis, legislatures are cutting state budgets by reducing their prison populations. An article in USA Today warns about the consequences of such foolish cost cutting. Of particular significance is the alarming number of "non-violent" criminals who turned to committing violent crimes after their release from prison. Here is that article:
STATES RELEASING PRISONERS EARLY MAY PAY FOR IT LATER
USA Today
June 9, 2009
In any context, cost cutting in times of economic stress tends to produce shortsighted solutions. But several states struggling to cope with the recession have settled on one approach that is a certain recipe for long-term trouble. They are releasing large numbers of "non-violent" offenders from prison.
Exhibit A is what has been going on in Kentucky. Last year, in a bid to save $30 million over two years, the Legislature started granting early releases to inmates. Only after 2,500 prisoners were on the way out the door did the legislators realize that in their rush, they had unleashed violent felons and sex offenders along with less dangerous prisoners.
At least 154 violent felons have been released, as well as 25 sex offenders. Four were inadvertently released even though they had already been indicted for other crimes. Only a few months into the effort, five had returned to prison sporting new felony convictions. The state Supreme Court is poised to decide whether budget cutting zeal went too far.
Elsewhere, Mississippi, New York, Ohio, Florida and North Carolina are also looking to prison budgets to plug gaping deficits. And after California's budget plan was rejected by voters last month, the Legislature is considering parole for more prisoners than all the other states combined.
Not only are states releasing prisoners in a rush, they're watching released prisoners less closely once they're out. For instance, Washington state is abandoning enhanced supervision of its worst juvenile offenders, while Wisconsin plans to dump the electronic monitoring of sex offenders. Utah is trying to find money to reverse cuts in the number of probation and parole officers.
Recidivism rates suggest the budget cuts are more like a shell game. The majority of non-violent inmates released from state prison are rearrested within three years, the bulk of them within 12 months, according to the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). More than a quarter of non-violent offenders will end up back behind bars and back on the state budget.
A 2004 BJS study of released non-violent offenders shows they can be dangerous, too. It found that hundreds of thousands of released non-violent offenders -- one in five -- were rearrested for violent crimes, including murder.
Michigan is one state that has been doing it right. It invests heavily in helping former prisoners rejoin society before it starts returning them to the streets. Yet this year's new state budget is far heavier on cuts to prison spending than it is on investments in keeping newly released inmates out of trouble.
Granted, Michigan and other states face difficult choices. The recession is reducing their revenue, and unlike the federal government, they can't print money or borrow without limit. Further, concentrating criminal justice resources on violent offenders is a sensible idea. But distinguishing the violent offenders from the non-violent ones isn't so easy, or cheap. It's something best handled case by case, not with a legislative cookie cutter.
So far, the early-release programs don't even look like honest budgeting. They only stop the flow of red ink temporarily, potentially replacing it with something else the same color: blood.
STATES RELEASING PRISONERS EARLY MAY PAY FOR IT LATER
USA Today
June 9, 2009
In any context, cost cutting in times of economic stress tends to produce shortsighted solutions. But several states struggling to cope with the recession have settled on one approach that is a certain recipe for long-term trouble. They are releasing large numbers of "non-violent" offenders from prison.
Exhibit A is what has been going on in Kentucky. Last year, in a bid to save $30 million over two years, the Legislature started granting early releases to inmates. Only after 2,500 prisoners were on the way out the door did the legislators realize that in their rush, they had unleashed violent felons and sex offenders along with less dangerous prisoners.
At least 154 violent felons have been released, as well as 25 sex offenders. Four were inadvertently released even though they had already been indicted for other crimes. Only a few months into the effort, five had returned to prison sporting new felony convictions. The state Supreme Court is poised to decide whether budget cutting zeal went too far.
Elsewhere, Mississippi, New York, Ohio, Florida and North Carolina are also looking to prison budgets to plug gaping deficits. And after California's budget plan was rejected by voters last month, the Legislature is considering parole for more prisoners than all the other states combined.
Not only are states releasing prisoners in a rush, they're watching released prisoners less closely once they're out. For instance, Washington state is abandoning enhanced supervision of its worst juvenile offenders, while Wisconsin plans to dump the electronic monitoring of sex offenders. Utah is trying to find money to reverse cuts in the number of probation and parole officers.
Recidivism rates suggest the budget cuts are more like a shell game. The majority of non-violent inmates released from state prison are rearrested within three years, the bulk of them within 12 months, according to the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). More than a quarter of non-violent offenders will end up back behind bars and back on the state budget.
A 2004 BJS study of released non-violent offenders shows they can be dangerous, too. It found that hundreds of thousands of released non-violent offenders -- one in five -- were rearrested for violent crimes, including murder.
Michigan is one state that has been doing it right. It invests heavily in helping former prisoners rejoin society before it starts returning them to the streets. Yet this year's new state budget is far heavier on cuts to prison spending than it is on investments in keeping newly released inmates out of trouble.
Granted, Michigan and other states face difficult choices. The recession is reducing their revenue, and unlike the federal government, they can't print money or borrow without limit. Further, concentrating criminal justice resources on violent offenders is a sensible idea. But distinguishing the violent offenders from the non-violent ones isn't so easy, or cheap. It's something best handled case by case, not with a legislative cookie cutter.
So far, the early-release programs don't even look like honest budgeting. They only stop the flow of red ink temporarily, potentially replacing it with something else the same color: blood.
Monday, June 08, 2009
OUR NEW GET TOUGH DIPLOMACY
One of my friends sent me the following dispatch about our new get tough diplomacy. He wrote: With any luck we may not have to go to such extremes...because, judging from the picture of their Glorious Leader (which accompanied the dispatch), it looks like international sanctions are already negatively impacting their textile, optical, and hairstyling industries.
U.S. TO RESPOND TO NORTH KOREA WITH 'STRONGEST POSSIBLE ADJECTIVES'
Obama prepared to consult Thesaurus; leaves Adverbs Option on the table
May 26, 2009
One day after North Korea launched a successful test of a nuclear weapon, President Obama said that the United States was prepared to respond to the threat with "the strongest possible adjectives."
In remarks to reporters at the White House, Mr. Obama said that North Korea should fear the "full force and might of the United States' arsenal of adjectives" and called the missile test "reckless, reprehensible, objectionable, senseless, egregious and condemnable."
Standing at the President's side, Vice President Joseph Biden weighed in with some tough adjectives of his own, branding North Korean President Kim Jong-Il "totally wack and illin'."
Later in the day, Defense Secretary Robert Gates called the North Korean nuclear test "supercilious and jejune," leading some in diplomatic circles to worry that the U.S. might be running out of appropriate adjectives with which to craft its response.
But President Obama attempted to calm those fears, saying that the United States was prepared to "scour the thesaurus" to come up with additional adjectives and was "prepared to use adverbs" if necessary.
"Let's be clear: we are not taking adverbs off the table," Mr. Obama said. "If the need arises, we will use them forcefully, aggressively, swiftly, overwhelmingly and commandingly."
U.S. TO RESPOND TO NORTH KOREA WITH 'STRONGEST POSSIBLE ADJECTIVES'
Obama prepared to consult Thesaurus; leaves Adverbs Option on the table
May 26, 2009
One day after North Korea launched a successful test of a nuclear weapon, President Obama said that the United States was prepared to respond to the threat with "the strongest possible adjectives."
In remarks to reporters at the White House, Mr. Obama said that North Korea should fear the "full force and might of the United States' arsenal of adjectives" and called the missile test "reckless, reprehensible, objectionable, senseless, egregious and condemnable."
Standing at the President's side, Vice President Joseph Biden weighed in with some tough adjectives of his own, branding North Korean President Kim Jong-Il "totally wack and illin'."
Later in the day, Defense Secretary Robert Gates called the North Korean nuclear test "supercilious and jejune," leading some in diplomatic circles to worry that the U.S. might be running out of appropriate adjectives with which to craft its response.
But President Obama attempted to calm those fears, saying that the United States was prepared to "scour the thesaurus" to come up with additional adjectives and was "prepared to use adverbs" if necessary.
"Let's be clear: we are not taking adverbs off the table," Mr. Obama said. "If the need arises, we will use them forcefully, aggressively, swiftly, overwhelmingly and commandingly."
A LITTLE SOMETHING TO BRING A BIG GRIN TO YOUR FACE
SURROGATE FATHER
The Smiths were unable to conceive children and decided to use a surrogate father to start their family. On the day the proxy father was to arrive, Mr. Smith kissed his wife goodbye and said, 'Well, I'm off now. The man should be here soon.'
Half an hour later, just by chance, a door-to-door baby photographer happened to ring the doorbell, hoping to make a sale. 'Good morning, Ma'am', he said, 'I've come to.....'
'Oh, no need to explain,' Mrs. Smith cut in, embarrassed, 'I've been expecting you.'
'Have you really?' said the photographer. 'Well, that's good. Did you know babies are my specialty?'
'Well that's what my husband and I had hoped. Please come in and have a seat !'
After a moment she asked, blushing, 'Well, where do we start?'
'Leave everything to me. I usually try two in the bathtub, one on the couch, and perhaps a couple on the bed. And sometimes the living room floor is fun. You can really spread out there.'
'Bathtub, living room floor? No wonder it didn't work out for Harry and me!'
'Well, Ma'am, none of us can guarantee a good one every time. But if we try several different positions and I shoot from six or seven angles, I'm sure you'll be pleased with the results.'
'My, that's a lot!', gasped Mrs. Smith.
'Ma'am, in my line of work a man has to take his time. I'd love to be in and out in five minutes, but I'm sure you'd be disappointed with that.'
'Don't I know it,' said Mrs. Smith quietly.
The photographer opened his briefcase and pulled out a portfolio of his baby pictures. 'This was done on the top of a bus,' he said.
'Oh, my God!' Mrs. Smith exclaimed, grasping at her throat.
'And these twins turned out exceptionally well - when you consider their mother was so difficult to work with.'
'She was difficult?' asked Mrs. Smith.
'Yes, I'm afraid so. I finally had to take her to the park to get the job done right. People were crowding around four and five deep to get a good look.'
'Four and five deep?' said Mrs. Smith, her eyes wide with amazement.
'Yes', the photographer replied. 'And for more than three hours, too. The mother was constantly squealing and yelling - I could hardly concentrate, and when darkness approached I had to rush my shots. Finally, when the squirrels began nibbling on my equipment, I just had to pack it all in.'
Mrs. Smith leaned forward. 'Do you mean they actually chewed on your, uh...equipment?'
'It's true, Ma'am, yes.. Well, if you're ready, I'll set-up my tripod and we can get to work right away.'
'Tripod?'
'Oh yes, Ma'am. I need to use a tripod to rest my Canon on. It's much too big to be held in the hand very long.'
Mrs. Smith fainted.
The Smiths were unable to conceive children and decided to use a surrogate father to start their family. On the day the proxy father was to arrive, Mr. Smith kissed his wife goodbye and said, 'Well, I'm off now. The man should be here soon.'
Half an hour later, just by chance, a door-to-door baby photographer happened to ring the doorbell, hoping to make a sale. 'Good morning, Ma'am', he said, 'I've come to.....'
'Oh, no need to explain,' Mrs. Smith cut in, embarrassed, 'I've been expecting you.'
'Have you really?' said the photographer. 'Well, that's good. Did you know babies are my specialty?'
'Well that's what my husband and I had hoped. Please come in and have a seat !'
After a moment she asked, blushing, 'Well, where do we start?'
'Leave everything to me. I usually try two in the bathtub, one on the couch, and perhaps a couple on the bed. And sometimes the living room floor is fun. You can really spread out there.'
'Bathtub, living room floor? No wonder it didn't work out for Harry and me!'
'Well, Ma'am, none of us can guarantee a good one every time. But if we try several different positions and I shoot from six or seven angles, I'm sure you'll be pleased with the results.'
'My, that's a lot!', gasped Mrs. Smith.
'Ma'am, in my line of work a man has to take his time. I'd love to be in and out in five minutes, but I'm sure you'd be disappointed with that.'
'Don't I know it,' said Mrs. Smith quietly.
The photographer opened his briefcase and pulled out a portfolio of his baby pictures. 'This was done on the top of a bus,' he said.
'Oh, my God!' Mrs. Smith exclaimed, grasping at her throat.
'And these twins turned out exceptionally well - when you consider their mother was so difficult to work with.'
'She was difficult?' asked Mrs. Smith.
'Yes, I'm afraid so. I finally had to take her to the park to get the job done right. People were crowding around four and five deep to get a good look.'
'Four and five deep?' said Mrs. Smith, her eyes wide with amazement.
'Yes', the photographer replied. 'And for more than three hours, too. The mother was constantly squealing and yelling - I could hardly concentrate, and when darkness approached I had to rush my shots. Finally, when the squirrels began nibbling on my equipment, I just had to pack it all in.'
Mrs. Smith leaned forward. 'Do you mean they actually chewed on your, uh...equipment?'
'It's true, Ma'am, yes.. Well, if you're ready, I'll set-up my tripod and we can get to work right away.'
'Tripod?'
'Oh yes, Ma'am. I need to use a tripod to rest my Canon on. It's much too big to be held in the hand very long.'
Mrs. Smith fainted.
Sunday, June 07, 2009
"PROFESSIONAL COURTESY" WITHIN THE POLICE SERVICE ?
When I first became a cop, veteran officers told me to always give a brother officer a break. That’s what I started out doing because I wanted to be accepted by my fellow officers. I didn’t give tickets to speeding off-duty cops. I took DWI officers home without filing any reports. Ditto for officers involved in bar brawls. And I would talk another officer’s wife out of filing charges against her old man for kicking the shit out of her. Eventually, I stopped giving breaks to other officers unless I would have given the same break to an ordinary citizen.
I remember on one occasion catching an LAPD officer driving drunk near Palm Springs. When he told me in no uncertain terms that I could not arrest him because he was a Los Angeles police officer, his ass went to jail forthwith. Another time I found a drunken Johnny Weissmuller bleeding from a gash on his cheek caused by fighting with his drunken wife at a closed gas station in the middle of the night. I could have busted them both, but I took them to their hotel. Just think of the worldwide news headlines their arrest would have garnered: "Tarzan and his Jane locked up. Cheeta nowhere in sight."
Cops justify giving an officer a break by comparing that practice to the "professional courtesy" shown doctors and lawyers by their colleagues. However, there is a huge difference between the way in which one doctor provides free medical services to a fellow doctor and his family or one lawyer provides free legal services to another lawyer and the way in which one officer lets another officer go when that officer has just been caught violating a law.
A law enforcement officer is given quite a bit of discretion in whether or not to make an arrest for a misdemeanor offense, and that is the way it should be. A cop shouldn't have to arrest everything that isn't nailed down. And there is nothing wrong in giving a fellow officer a break provided that an ordinary citizen would receive the same break. For instance, I’ve also taken drunk drivers home who were not police officers. It is not professional courtesy to give an officer a break if he deserves one - it’s just simply good police work. Ditto for giving an ordinary citizen a break.
While checking out PoliceOne.com, I came across a refreshing article on this subject. Here it is:
DEFINING "PROFESIONAL COURTESY"
By Duane Wolfe
PoliceOne.com
June 5, 2009
In a one-squad-car-town, shift change means you get picked up at your house by the officer who worked the previous shift. In my case, that other officer was often my chief. Usually the conversation would run the gamut from what had been going on at work to whether or not the fish were biting.
One day as we drove, the chief started talking about how cops needed to help other cops when they were in trouble. I could tell: that day’s conversation was going to be different. He used the example of an off duty cop who had crashed his car while driving drunk. He said if there were no witnesses around he wouldn’t have a problem with the responding officer, "looking the other way" and giving the officer a ride home and cleaning the accident up. He explained to me how cops had to watch out for one another, to take care of each other.
I was a rookie. He was the boss. So I listened. He called it "professional courtesy."
That conversation took place a long time ago but I still remember it. Since then I have been "badged" by other cops during traffic stops. Attitudes toward "using" the badge seem to differ between cops and what region of the country you are in.
I was at a conference in another part of the country with cops from across the United States, and in one of the classes two officers from the same jurisdiction were loudly complaining about the health club across the street. It seems they had gone over to see what a workout pass would be for the days we would be there. The employee told them the price. They decided that was too much so they showed their badges and asked for the "cop price." The employee said the price would be the same. They were particularly offended because this was their home state. If their account was accurate, they made quite a scene in the health club. They continued with that same attitude, obviously angered by this affront, loudly and profanely when they returned to the conference.
I was shocked that an officer would even think of showing his badge in an attempt to get a discount, let alone complain about it after. But as I said, different officers in different parts of the country do things differently. Where I come from that wouldn’t fly.
As a patrol officer, I’ve had off duty cops show me their badges when I pulled them over for traffic violations. Some had the badge in plain view inside the wallet. Others took the effort to present their ID to me.
I learned long ago that keeping your badge in plain view inside your wallet is poor off duty officer safety. Every time you open your wallet you advertise your profession to anyone in the area. That could invite assault or robbery or worse if the wrong person sees it in the wrong circumstances.
I have heard and read the advice that if you are stopped off duty you should produce your credentials along with your driver’s license and other pertinent papers. That might be good advice. However, every time I have stopped a cop who "produced" their ID I always wondered if they did it for no other reason than to get out of a ticket. In case you’re wondering I have never ticketed one of those officers.
Why? Because the situation didn’t require it.
I know of other cops who expect — even demand — to be let off during a traffic stop. My personal belief is that when stopped, and I have been stopped for speeding, I act like anyone else and produce the required requested documents and leave it up to the officer’s discretion. I would only produce my badge if the officer requested me to step out of the vehicle where, I might be subject to a pat down or if the fact that I was armed was likely to become known during the stop. I’ve already been embarrassed enough — I’d actually prefer that the officer not know I’m a cop.
I recall a scene in a movie — the name of which I can’t recall — that depicted two officers patrolling down the street they are passed at a high rate of speed by guy driving recklessly. As he passes he gives a hand signal indicating that he is a police officer and continues down the road driving wildly. The officers recognize the sign but pull him over anyway. It turns out the driver is a cadet at the academy who has been drinking. The driver demands to be let go because he is on the job. The officers respond by placing him in the trunk of their squad car and driving him back to the academy where they dump him off with an explanation of the incident. It was a very entertaining solution to the problem, although completely unrealistic. (What cop car has that kind of room left over in the trunk with all the equipment we carry?!)
How you handle the situation is up to you. What is the offense or crime? What is the attitude of the offender/suspect? Will a verbal warning solve the problem or not? Just remember that badges can be bought anywhere by anyone. Do you know what the ID of an agency 2,000 miles, let along 20 miles away looks like?
A friend and chief of police ordered a badge from a police supply company. When the package arrived he got two badges. He sent the extra one back. Several months later the sheriffs department got a call from another agency 200+ miles away asking about the chief. It seems someone had been committing low level crimes (disorderly conduct, simple assault, DUI) "badging" the responding officers with a chief’s badge and being let go by the responding officers. It wasn’t until this became a reoccurring problem in multiple agencies that the officers bothered to check on it. The suspect was later charged with Impersonating a Police Officer. A check the first time would have would have avoided those problems. Needless to say, I don’t condone using the badge as a "Get out of jail, free" card.
Some would say an officer letting another officer go is "professional courtesy." My definition differs. To me "professional courtesy" means that when you are in my jurisdiction you conduct yourself so that your behavior doesn’t require that I come into contact with you. You act like a professional and show me courtesy by not placing me in the position of having to deal with you. In return I do the same for you.
In situations that warrant it, a call to a supervisor to verify the ID can solve several problems. First, you know your dealing with a real cop; secondly, the supervisor knows about the incident. It’s not quite a ride in the trunk but it may be what is needed to get somebody straightened out.
I know that this idea might not be popular with some officers and that’s OK. Attitudes differ. It’s been my personal experiences that the more strongly someone feels about cops "looking the other way" for other cops are also the more likely to need that kind of treatment.
That conversation with my chief took place several days before I was interviewed by agents of the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension regarding an investigation into crimes "allegedly" committed by the chief.
My new chief told me if I ever caught him breaking the law to arrest him. He was a great chief.
--------------------
Duane Wolfe has been a Minnesota Peace Officer since 1988 and is currently with the Parkers Prairie Police Department. He is also a full time instructor in the Law Enforcement Program at Alexandria Technical College, Alexandria, Minnesota. Wolfe has a Bachelor of Science Degree in Criminal Justice from Bemidji State University, and a Masters Degree in Education from Southwest State University.
I remember on one occasion catching an LAPD officer driving drunk near Palm Springs. When he told me in no uncertain terms that I could not arrest him because he was a Los Angeles police officer, his ass went to jail forthwith. Another time I found a drunken Johnny Weissmuller bleeding from a gash on his cheek caused by fighting with his drunken wife at a closed gas station in the middle of the night. I could have busted them both, but I took them to their hotel. Just think of the worldwide news headlines their arrest would have garnered: "Tarzan and his Jane locked up. Cheeta nowhere in sight."
Cops justify giving an officer a break by comparing that practice to the "professional courtesy" shown doctors and lawyers by their colleagues. However, there is a huge difference between the way in which one doctor provides free medical services to a fellow doctor and his family or one lawyer provides free legal services to another lawyer and the way in which one officer lets another officer go when that officer has just been caught violating a law.
A law enforcement officer is given quite a bit of discretion in whether or not to make an arrest for a misdemeanor offense, and that is the way it should be. A cop shouldn't have to arrest everything that isn't nailed down. And there is nothing wrong in giving a fellow officer a break provided that an ordinary citizen would receive the same break. For instance, I’ve also taken drunk drivers home who were not police officers. It is not professional courtesy to give an officer a break if he deserves one - it’s just simply good police work. Ditto for giving an ordinary citizen a break.
While checking out PoliceOne.com, I came across a refreshing article on this subject. Here it is:
DEFINING "PROFESIONAL COURTESY"
By Duane Wolfe
PoliceOne.com
June 5, 2009
In a one-squad-car-town, shift change means you get picked up at your house by the officer who worked the previous shift. In my case, that other officer was often my chief. Usually the conversation would run the gamut from what had been going on at work to whether or not the fish were biting.
One day as we drove, the chief started talking about how cops needed to help other cops when they were in trouble. I could tell: that day’s conversation was going to be different. He used the example of an off duty cop who had crashed his car while driving drunk. He said if there were no witnesses around he wouldn’t have a problem with the responding officer, "looking the other way" and giving the officer a ride home and cleaning the accident up. He explained to me how cops had to watch out for one another, to take care of each other.
I was a rookie. He was the boss. So I listened. He called it "professional courtesy."
That conversation took place a long time ago but I still remember it. Since then I have been "badged" by other cops during traffic stops. Attitudes toward "using" the badge seem to differ between cops and what region of the country you are in.
I was at a conference in another part of the country with cops from across the United States, and in one of the classes two officers from the same jurisdiction were loudly complaining about the health club across the street. It seems they had gone over to see what a workout pass would be for the days we would be there. The employee told them the price. They decided that was too much so they showed their badges and asked for the "cop price." The employee said the price would be the same. They were particularly offended because this was their home state. If their account was accurate, they made quite a scene in the health club. They continued with that same attitude, obviously angered by this affront, loudly and profanely when they returned to the conference.
I was shocked that an officer would even think of showing his badge in an attempt to get a discount, let alone complain about it after. But as I said, different officers in different parts of the country do things differently. Where I come from that wouldn’t fly.
As a patrol officer, I’ve had off duty cops show me their badges when I pulled them over for traffic violations. Some had the badge in plain view inside the wallet. Others took the effort to present their ID to me.
I learned long ago that keeping your badge in plain view inside your wallet is poor off duty officer safety. Every time you open your wallet you advertise your profession to anyone in the area. That could invite assault or robbery or worse if the wrong person sees it in the wrong circumstances.
I have heard and read the advice that if you are stopped off duty you should produce your credentials along with your driver’s license and other pertinent papers. That might be good advice. However, every time I have stopped a cop who "produced" their ID I always wondered if they did it for no other reason than to get out of a ticket. In case you’re wondering I have never ticketed one of those officers.
Why? Because the situation didn’t require it.
I know of other cops who expect — even demand — to be let off during a traffic stop. My personal belief is that when stopped, and I have been stopped for speeding, I act like anyone else and produce the required requested documents and leave it up to the officer’s discretion. I would only produce my badge if the officer requested me to step out of the vehicle where, I might be subject to a pat down or if the fact that I was armed was likely to become known during the stop. I’ve already been embarrassed enough — I’d actually prefer that the officer not know I’m a cop.
I recall a scene in a movie — the name of which I can’t recall — that depicted two officers patrolling down the street they are passed at a high rate of speed by guy driving recklessly. As he passes he gives a hand signal indicating that he is a police officer and continues down the road driving wildly. The officers recognize the sign but pull him over anyway. It turns out the driver is a cadet at the academy who has been drinking. The driver demands to be let go because he is on the job. The officers respond by placing him in the trunk of their squad car and driving him back to the academy where they dump him off with an explanation of the incident. It was a very entertaining solution to the problem, although completely unrealistic. (What cop car has that kind of room left over in the trunk with all the equipment we carry?!)
How you handle the situation is up to you. What is the offense or crime? What is the attitude of the offender/suspect? Will a verbal warning solve the problem or not? Just remember that badges can be bought anywhere by anyone. Do you know what the ID of an agency 2,000 miles, let along 20 miles away looks like?
A friend and chief of police ordered a badge from a police supply company. When the package arrived he got two badges. He sent the extra one back. Several months later the sheriffs department got a call from another agency 200+ miles away asking about the chief. It seems someone had been committing low level crimes (disorderly conduct, simple assault, DUI) "badging" the responding officers with a chief’s badge and being let go by the responding officers. It wasn’t until this became a reoccurring problem in multiple agencies that the officers bothered to check on it. The suspect was later charged with Impersonating a Police Officer. A check the first time would have would have avoided those problems. Needless to say, I don’t condone using the badge as a "Get out of jail, free" card.
Some would say an officer letting another officer go is "professional courtesy." My definition differs. To me "professional courtesy" means that when you are in my jurisdiction you conduct yourself so that your behavior doesn’t require that I come into contact with you. You act like a professional and show me courtesy by not placing me in the position of having to deal with you. In return I do the same for you.
In situations that warrant it, a call to a supervisor to verify the ID can solve several problems. First, you know your dealing with a real cop; secondly, the supervisor knows about the incident. It’s not quite a ride in the trunk but it may be what is needed to get somebody straightened out.
I know that this idea might not be popular with some officers and that’s OK. Attitudes differ. It’s been my personal experiences that the more strongly someone feels about cops "looking the other way" for other cops are also the more likely to need that kind of treatment.
That conversation with my chief took place several days before I was interviewed by agents of the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension regarding an investigation into crimes "allegedly" committed by the chief.
My new chief told me if I ever caught him breaking the law to arrest him. He was a great chief.
--------------------
Duane Wolfe has been a Minnesota Peace Officer since 1988 and is currently with the Parkers Prairie Police Department. He is also a full time instructor in the Law Enforcement Program at Alexandria Technical College, Alexandria, Minnesota. Wolfe has a Bachelor of Science Degree in Criminal Justice from Bemidji State University, and a Masters Degree in Education from Southwest State University.
Saturday, June 06, 2009
THE KIND OF NATION WE ARE
The Muslim World that President Obama is trying so hard to woo has referred to the United States as the "Great Satan." Many countries in Europe and non-Muslim countries in Asia and Africa see the U.S. in much the same light. On this 65th anniversary of D-Day, it is a befitting time to remind an ungrateful world of what we are really like. Rich Galen did exactly that in today’s Townhall.com by noting that:
At an event in Switzerland in 2002, Colin Powell was asked how he felt about the U.S. being referred to as the "Great Satan." Here was his response:
[F]ar from being the Great Satan, I would say that we are the Great Protector. We have sent men and women from the armed forces of the United States to other parts of the world throughout the past century to put down oppression.
We defeated Fascism. We defeated Communism. We saved Europe in World War I and World War II. We were willing to do it, glad to do it. We went to Korea. We went to Vietnam. All in the interest of preserving the rights of people.
And when all those conflicts were over, what did we do? Did we stay and conquer? Did we say, "Okay, we defeated Germany. Now Germany belongs to us? We defeated Japan, so Japan belongs to us"? No.
What did we do? We built them up. We gave them democratic systems which they have embraced totally to their soul. And did we ask for any land? No, the only land we ever asked for was enough land to bury our dead.
And that is the kind of nation we are.
At an event in Switzerland in 2002, Colin Powell was asked how he felt about the U.S. being referred to as the "Great Satan." Here was his response:
[F]ar from being the Great Satan, I would say that we are the Great Protector. We have sent men and women from the armed forces of the United States to other parts of the world throughout the past century to put down oppression.
We defeated Fascism. We defeated Communism. We saved Europe in World War I and World War II. We were willing to do it, glad to do it. We went to Korea. We went to Vietnam. All in the interest of preserving the rights of people.
And when all those conflicts were over, what did we do? Did we stay and conquer? Did we say, "Okay, we defeated Germany. Now Germany belongs to us? We defeated Japan, so Japan belongs to us"? No.
What did we do? We built them up. We gave them democratic systems which they have embraced totally to their soul. And did we ask for any land? No, the only land we ever asked for was enough land to bury our dead.
And that is the kind of nation we are.
NO MORE DICTATING TO OTHER COUNTRIES: That Is Except For Israel
President Obama’s speech in Cairo was an attempt to woo the Muslim world. He was met with dead silence when he admonished the Palestinian Authority to stop its hateful depiction of Jews and to prevent acts of terrorism against Israel. But he asked nothing more of the Palestinians. (The audience also remained absolutley silent when he told them that the killing of 6,000,000 Jews was a "fact" and that denial of the Holocaust was "baseless," "ignorant" and "hateful.")
During an earlier interview, Obama was quick to refute Tom Brokaw’s outrageous comparison of the Holocaust to Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians. But when he was sucking up to the Muslim world in Cairo, Obama made remarks that sounded a lot like he was comparing the treatment of the Palestinians to the treatment of Jews by the Nazis.
When Obama stated that the Palestinian people have been subjected to "intolerable" suffering by the "occupation" and that Israel must freeze ALL settlement construction, the audience reacted with sustained applause. While the audience approved Obama’s shafting of the Israelis, it was clear that those in attendance gave tacit approval to terrorism against Israel and hatred of Jews.
In yesterday’s Townhall.com, columnist Charles Krauthammer noted that at the recent G-20 summit, Obama "declares that there will be no more ‘dictating’ to other countries. We should ‘forge partnerships as opposed to simply dictating solutions.’" Unfortunately for Israel, Obama's lofty declaration does not apply to the Jewish state.
In the same issue of Townhall.com, Oliver North wrote: To demonstrate empathy with "our Arab allies" -- and show improvement from his predecessors – he (Obama) did not visit Israel and pointedly condemned Israeli settlements, which, he said, "undermine efforts to achieve peace." And Pat Buchanan, who notes that the Obama administration no longer considers the interests of the U.S. to be the same as Israel’s, wrote that Obama has confronted Bibi Netanyahu and handed Israel an ultimatum: Halt all settlement growth, now, and come back to me with your plan for a Palestinian state.
It is obvious that Obama’s love affair with the Muslim world comes at the expense of the Jewish state. Krauthammer wrote that the settlement issue is a phony one. The settlements do not "undermine efforts to achieve peace" because the Palestinians have turned down many generous Israeli offers of land for peace, including the dismantling of some established settlements. Here is Krauthammers column:
THE SETTLEMENTS CANARD
by Charles Krauthammer
Townhall.com
June 05, 2009
WASHINGTON -- Obama the Humble declares there will be no more "dictating" to other countries. We should "forge partnerships as opposed to simply dictating solutions," he told the G-20 summit. In Middle East negotiations, he told al-Arabiya, America will henceforth "start by listening, because all too often the United States starts by dictating."
An admirable sentiment. It applies to everyone -- Iran, Russia, Cuba, Syria, even Venezuela. Except Israel. Israel is ordered to freeze all settlement activity. As Secretary of State Clinton imperiously explained the diktat: "a stop to settlements -- not some settlements, not outposts, not natural-growth exceptions."
What's the issue? No "natural growth" means strangling to death the thriving towns close to the 1949 armistice line, many of them suburbs of Jerusalem, that every negotiation over the past decade has envisioned Israel retaining. It means no increase in population. Which means no babies. Or if you have babies, no housing for them -- not even within the existing town boundaries. Which means for every child born, someone has to move out. No community can survive like that. The obvious objective is to undermine and destroy these towns -- even before negotiations.
To what end? Over the last decade, the U.S. government has understood that any final peace treaty would involve Israel retaining some of the close-in settlements -- and compensating the Palestinians accordingly with land from within Israel itself.
That was envisioned in the Clinton plan in the Camp David negotiations in 2000, and again at Taba in 2001. After all, why turn towns to rubble when, instead, Arabs and Jews can stay in their homes if the 1949 armistice line is shifted slightly into the Palestinian side to capture the major close-in Jewish settlements, and then shifted into Israeli territory to capture Israeli land to give to the Palestinians?
This idea is not only logical, not only accepted by both Democratic and Republican administrations for the last decade, but was agreed to in writing in the letters of understanding exchanged between Israel and the United States in 2004 -- and subsequently overwhelmingly endorsed by a concurrent resolution of Congress.
Yet the Obama State Department has repeatedly refused to endorse these agreements or even say it will honor them. This from a president who piously insists that all parties to the conflict honor previous obligations.
The entire "natural growth" issue is a concoction. It's farcical to suggest that the peace process is moribund because a teacher in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem is making an addition to her house to accommodate new grandchildren -- when Gaza is run by Hamas terrorists dedicated to permanent war with Israel and when Mahmoud Abbas, having turned down every one of Ehud Olmert's peace offers, brazenly declares that he is in a waiting mode -- waiting for Hamas to become moderate and for Israel to cave -- before he'll do anything to advance peace.
In his much-heralded "Muslim world" address in Cairo Thursday, Obama declared that the Palestinian people's "situation" is "intolerable." Indeed it is, the result of 60 years of Palestinian leadership that gave its people corruption, tyranny, religious intolerance and forced militarization; leadership that for three generations -- Haj Amin al-Husseini in 1947, Yasser Arafat in 2000, Abbas in December 2008 -- rejected every offer of independence and dignity, choosing destitution and despair rather than accept any settlement not accompanied by the extinction of Israel.
In the 16 years since the Oslo accords turned the West Bank and Gaza over to the Palestinians, their leaders -- Fatah and Hamas alike -- built no schools, no roads, no courthouses, no hospitals, no institutions that would relieve their people's suffering. Instead they poured everything into an infrastructure of war and terror, all the while depositing billions (from gullible Western donors) into their Swiss bank accounts.
Obama says he came to Cairo to tell the truth. But he uttered not a word of that. Instead, among all the bromides and lofty sentiments, he issued but one concrete declaration of new American policy: "The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements," thus reinforcing the myth that Palestinian misery and statelessness are the fault of Israel and the settlements.
Blaming Israel and picking a fight over "natural growth" may curry favor with the Muslim "street." But it will only induce the Arab states to do like Abbas: sit and wait for America to deliver Israel on a platter. Which makes the Obama strategy not just dishonorable but self-defeating.
During an earlier interview, Obama was quick to refute Tom Brokaw’s outrageous comparison of the Holocaust to Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians. But when he was sucking up to the Muslim world in Cairo, Obama made remarks that sounded a lot like he was comparing the treatment of the Palestinians to the treatment of Jews by the Nazis.
When Obama stated that the Palestinian people have been subjected to "intolerable" suffering by the "occupation" and that Israel must freeze ALL settlement construction, the audience reacted with sustained applause. While the audience approved Obama’s shafting of the Israelis, it was clear that those in attendance gave tacit approval to terrorism against Israel and hatred of Jews.
In yesterday’s Townhall.com, columnist Charles Krauthammer noted that at the recent G-20 summit, Obama "declares that there will be no more ‘dictating’ to other countries. We should ‘forge partnerships as opposed to simply dictating solutions.’" Unfortunately for Israel, Obama's lofty declaration does not apply to the Jewish state.
In the same issue of Townhall.com, Oliver North wrote: To demonstrate empathy with "our Arab allies" -- and show improvement from his predecessors – he (Obama) did not visit Israel and pointedly condemned Israeli settlements, which, he said, "undermine efforts to achieve peace." And Pat Buchanan, who notes that the Obama administration no longer considers the interests of the U.S. to be the same as Israel’s, wrote that Obama has confronted Bibi Netanyahu and handed Israel an ultimatum: Halt all settlement growth, now, and come back to me with your plan for a Palestinian state.
It is obvious that Obama’s love affair with the Muslim world comes at the expense of the Jewish state. Krauthammer wrote that the settlement issue is a phony one. The settlements do not "undermine efforts to achieve peace" because the Palestinians have turned down many generous Israeli offers of land for peace, including the dismantling of some established settlements. Here is Krauthammers column:
THE SETTLEMENTS CANARD
by Charles Krauthammer
Townhall.com
June 05, 2009
WASHINGTON -- Obama the Humble declares there will be no more "dictating" to other countries. We should "forge partnerships as opposed to simply dictating solutions," he told the G-20 summit. In Middle East negotiations, he told al-Arabiya, America will henceforth "start by listening, because all too often the United States starts by dictating."
An admirable sentiment. It applies to everyone -- Iran, Russia, Cuba, Syria, even Venezuela. Except Israel. Israel is ordered to freeze all settlement activity. As Secretary of State Clinton imperiously explained the diktat: "a stop to settlements -- not some settlements, not outposts, not natural-growth exceptions."
What's the issue? No "natural growth" means strangling to death the thriving towns close to the 1949 armistice line, many of them suburbs of Jerusalem, that every negotiation over the past decade has envisioned Israel retaining. It means no increase in population. Which means no babies. Or if you have babies, no housing for them -- not even within the existing town boundaries. Which means for every child born, someone has to move out. No community can survive like that. The obvious objective is to undermine and destroy these towns -- even before negotiations.
To what end? Over the last decade, the U.S. government has understood that any final peace treaty would involve Israel retaining some of the close-in settlements -- and compensating the Palestinians accordingly with land from within Israel itself.
That was envisioned in the Clinton plan in the Camp David negotiations in 2000, and again at Taba in 2001. After all, why turn towns to rubble when, instead, Arabs and Jews can stay in their homes if the 1949 armistice line is shifted slightly into the Palestinian side to capture the major close-in Jewish settlements, and then shifted into Israeli territory to capture Israeli land to give to the Palestinians?
This idea is not only logical, not only accepted by both Democratic and Republican administrations for the last decade, but was agreed to in writing in the letters of understanding exchanged between Israel and the United States in 2004 -- and subsequently overwhelmingly endorsed by a concurrent resolution of Congress.
Yet the Obama State Department has repeatedly refused to endorse these agreements or even say it will honor them. This from a president who piously insists that all parties to the conflict honor previous obligations.
The entire "natural growth" issue is a concoction. It's farcical to suggest that the peace process is moribund because a teacher in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem is making an addition to her house to accommodate new grandchildren -- when Gaza is run by Hamas terrorists dedicated to permanent war with Israel and when Mahmoud Abbas, having turned down every one of Ehud Olmert's peace offers, brazenly declares that he is in a waiting mode -- waiting for Hamas to become moderate and for Israel to cave -- before he'll do anything to advance peace.
In his much-heralded "Muslim world" address in Cairo Thursday, Obama declared that the Palestinian people's "situation" is "intolerable." Indeed it is, the result of 60 years of Palestinian leadership that gave its people corruption, tyranny, religious intolerance and forced militarization; leadership that for three generations -- Haj Amin al-Husseini in 1947, Yasser Arafat in 2000, Abbas in December 2008 -- rejected every offer of independence and dignity, choosing destitution and despair rather than accept any settlement not accompanied by the extinction of Israel.
In the 16 years since the Oslo accords turned the West Bank and Gaza over to the Palestinians, their leaders -- Fatah and Hamas alike -- built no schools, no roads, no courthouses, no hospitals, no institutions that would relieve their people's suffering. Instead they poured everything into an infrastructure of war and terror, all the while depositing billions (from gullible Western donors) into their Swiss bank accounts.
Obama says he came to Cairo to tell the truth. But he uttered not a word of that. Instead, among all the bromides and lofty sentiments, he issued but one concrete declaration of new American policy: "The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements," thus reinforcing the myth that Palestinian misery and statelessness are the fault of Israel and the settlements.
Blaming Israel and picking a fight over "natural growth" may curry favor with the Muslim "street." But it will only induce the Arab states to do like Abbas: sit and wait for America to deliver Israel on a platter. Which makes the Obama strategy not just dishonorable but self-defeating.
Friday, June 05, 2009
BROKAW HAS LOST HIS MIND Either That Or He's An Anti-Semite Of The Worst Kind
I couldn’t believe what I heard on this morning’s NBC Today Show. Tom Brokaw was interviewing President Obama about his scheduled visit to Buchenwald, the infamous Nazi concentration camp.
Brokaw asked the president, "What can the Israelis learn from your visit to Buchenwald? AND WHAT SHOULD THEY BE THINKING ABOUT THEIR TREATMENT OF PALESTINIANS?"
How dare Brokaw imply that there is even a speck of similarity between the slaughter of 6,000,000 Jews by the Nazis and the treatment of Palestinians by the Israelis.
To his credit, Obama immediately cut that analogy off at the heels. The president told Brokaw, "Well, look, there’s no equivalency here." And there sure as hell isn’t!
What can the Israelis learn from the president’s visit to Buchenwald? What was Broakaw thinking? It’s not what the Israelis can learn, it’s what the world can learn from Buchenwald. There probably would not be an Israel in the first place if it were not for the Holocaust. President Ahmadinejad of Iran, a Holocaust denier, must be applauding Brokaw right now.
I rarely ever agree with anything Rush Limbaugh has to say. But I agree with what he had to say this morning about Brokaw’s interview with the president. Rush was quick to give Obama credit for saying there was no equivalency between Hitler’s treatment of the Jews and their treatment of the Palestinians. And Limbaugh condemned Brokaw’s comparison in no uncertain terms.
Limbaugh pointed out that ever since they were attacked by and then defeated the Arabs during the Six Day War, the Israelis have been pressured into making concessions without any concessions asked in return of the Palestinians. He also pointed out that whenever the Israelis gave up lands they captured in 1967, all they got in return was suicide bombers and rocket fire.
Brokaw or some of his apologists will probably say he misspoke. Having listened to him for many years, I can say with certainty that Tom Brokaw does not misspeak.
If Tom Brokaw hasn’t lost his mind, then he is an anti-Semite of the worst kind. I no longer have any respect whatsoever for that man. When Brokaw passes on, may he rot in Hell!
Brokaw asked the president, "What can the Israelis learn from your visit to Buchenwald? AND WHAT SHOULD THEY BE THINKING ABOUT THEIR TREATMENT OF PALESTINIANS?"
How dare Brokaw imply that there is even a speck of similarity between the slaughter of 6,000,000 Jews by the Nazis and the treatment of Palestinians by the Israelis.
To his credit, Obama immediately cut that analogy off at the heels. The president told Brokaw, "Well, look, there’s no equivalency here." And there sure as hell isn’t!
What can the Israelis learn from the president’s visit to Buchenwald? What was Broakaw thinking? It’s not what the Israelis can learn, it’s what the world can learn from Buchenwald. There probably would not be an Israel in the first place if it were not for the Holocaust. President Ahmadinejad of Iran, a Holocaust denier, must be applauding Brokaw right now.
I rarely ever agree with anything Rush Limbaugh has to say. But I agree with what he had to say this morning about Brokaw’s interview with the president. Rush was quick to give Obama credit for saying there was no equivalency between Hitler’s treatment of the Jews and their treatment of the Palestinians. And Limbaugh condemned Brokaw’s comparison in no uncertain terms.
Limbaugh pointed out that ever since they were attacked by and then defeated the Arabs during the Six Day War, the Israelis have been pressured into making concessions without any concessions asked in return of the Palestinians. He also pointed out that whenever the Israelis gave up lands they captured in 1967, all they got in return was suicide bombers and rocket fire.
Brokaw or some of his apologists will probably say he misspoke. Having listened to him for many years, I can say with certainty that Tom Brokaw does not misspeak.
If Tom Brokaw hasn’t lost his mind, then he is an anti-Semite of the worst kind. I no longer have any respect whatsoever for that man. When Brokaw passes on, may he rot in Hell!
OUR NAIVE COMMANDER IN CHIEF
Yesterday, President Obama reached out to the Muslim world in a major speech from Cairo. Obama reiterated his commitment to a two-state solution despite the fact that the Palestinians only want a one-state solution, a Palestinian state from the river to the sea. And while he condemned the Holocaust deniers, his demand that all settlement construction cease flies in the face of that catastrophe’s survivors.
Columnist Michael Freund blasts Obama for his naivete in heaping praise on Al-Azhae (Mosque and University) despite the fact that the head of Al-Azhar calls Jews "the descendents of apes and pigs" and has for years spewed forth heaps of anti-Semitic venom.
As one of those descendents, I herewith give you Freund’s column:
WHAT WAS OBAMA THINKING?
By Michael Freund
IsraelNationalNews.com
June 5, 2009
US President Barack Obama's speech yesterday in Cairo may very well go down in history as a turning point, though not of the sort that the mainstream media and pundits are hoping for.
Rather than heralding a new era in relations between the West and Islam, the president's performance projected weakness and lack of resolve. And while his charm and poise may work well with voters in Middle America, among the radicals and jihadists of the Middle East they will be viewed with litte more than contempt and derision.
Indeed, the very opening of his remarks reveal just how out of touch Obama is with the reality on the ground in the region.
The president started off by saying the following, "Good afternoon. I am honored to be in the timeless city of Cairo and to be hosted by two remarkable institutions. For over a thousand years, Al-Azhar has had stood as a beacon of Islamic learning. And for over a century, Cairo University has been a source of Egypt's advancement. Together, you represent the harmony between tradition and progress."
Did he say "harmony between tradition and progress"?
What Obama undoubtedly did not realize is that Grand Sheikh Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi, the man who stands at the head of Al-Azhar, is anything but a beacon of progress.
Back in November 2004, Tantawi led the prayer services at Yasser Arafat's funeral in Ramallah, where he praised the Palestinian terrorist by saying, "Arafat has done his duty as a defender of the Palestinian cause, with courage and honesty".
Furthermore, as historian Benny Morris noted in The New Republic last year, Tantawi authored a book in the late 1960s called The Jews in the Qur'an and the Traditions which was reissued in 1986 and which said as follows: "The Qur'an describes the Jews with their own particular degenerate characteristics, i.e., killing the prophets of Allah, corrupting His words by putting them in the wrong places, consuming the people's wealth frivolously, refusal to distance themselves from the evil they do, and other ugly characteristics caused by their deep-rooted lasciviousness ....only a minority of Jews keep their word.... [But] not all Jews are the same. The good ones become Muslims."
And, as Morris further pointed out, Tantawi has called Jews "the descendants of apes and pigs."
What was Obama thinking in heaping praise on an institution run by such a man? Is this the type of person to be held up as an example of "the harmony between tradition and progress"?
If you listen carefully, you can hear the sounds of snickering in Damascus, Teheran and Riyadh, as the region's extremists enjoy a good laugh at the naivete of America's commander-in-chief.
Columnist Michael Freund blasts Obama for his naivete in heaping praise on Al-Azhae (Mosque and University) despite the fact that the head of Al-Azhar calls Jews "the descendents of apes and pigs" and has for years spewed forth heaps of anti-Semitic venom.
As one of those descendents, I herewith give you Freund’s column:
WHAT WAS OBAMA THINKING?
By Michael Freund
IsraelNationalNews.com
June 5, 2009
US President Barack Obama's speech yesterday in Cairo may very well go down in history as a turning point, though not of the sort that the mainstream media and pundits are hoping for.
Rather than heralding a new era in relations between the West and Islam, the president's performance projected weakness and lack of resolve. And while his charm and poise may work well with voters in Middle America, among the radicals and jihadists of the Middle East they will be viewed with litte more than contempt and derision.
Indeed, the very opening of his remarks reveal just how out of touch Obama is with the reality on the ground in the region.
The president started off by saying the following, "Good afternoon. I am honored to be in the timeless city of Cairo and to be hosted by two remarkable institutions. For over a thousand years, Al-Azhar has had stood as a beacon of Islamic learning. And for over a century, Cairo University has been a source of Egypt's advancement. Together, you represent the harmony between tradition and progress."
Did he say "harmony between tradition and progress"?
What Obama undoubtedly did not realize is that Grand Sheikh Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi, the man who stands at the head of Al-Azhar, is anything but a beacon of progress.
Back in November 2004, Tantawi led the prayer services at Yasser Arafat's funeral in Ramallah, where he praised the Palestinian terrorist by saying, "Arafat has done his duty as a defender of the Palestinian cause, with courage and honesty".
Furthermore, as historian Benny Morris noted in The New Republic last year, Tantawi authored a book in the late 1960s called The Jews in the Qur'an and the Traditions which was reissued in 1986 and which said as follows: "The Qur'an describes the Jews with their own particular degenerate characteristics, i.e., killing the prophets of Allah, corrupting His words by putting them in the wrong places, consuming the people's wealth frivolously, refusal to distance themselves from the evil they do, and other ugly characteristics caused by their deep-rooted lasciviousness ....only a minority of Jews keep their word.... [But] not all Jews are the same. The good ones become Muslims."
And, as Morris further pointed out, Tantawi has called Jews "the descendants of apes and pigs."
What was Obama thinking in heaping praise on an institution run by such a man? Is this the type of person to be held up as an example of "the harmony between tradition and progress"?
If you listen carefully, you can hear the sounds of snickering in Damascus, Teheran and Riyadh, as the region's extremists enjoy a good laugh at the naivete of America's commander-in-chief.
HISTORY TELLS US THAT JERUSALEM DESERVES TO REMAIN UNITED
Michael Freund, a syndicated columnist, is Founder and Chairman of Shavei Israel (Israel returns). Here is a letter he wrote concerning the status of Jerusalem and a column on the history of the Jewish people’s struggle for that eternal city:
This Friday (May 21, 2009) marks 42 years on the Hebrew calendar since Israeli forces liberated eastern Jerusalem and restored the Temple Mount and the Western Wall to Jewish hands. But with the passing of each year, it is hard to escape the gnawing feeling that the reunified city is increasingly coming under siege yet again. Never, it seems, has the pressure been so great for Israel to divide it and "share" it with our enemies.
As I argue in the column below from the Jerusalem Post, just like the Jews of centuries past we must not be deterred. Israel must continue to build, expanding Jewish Jerusalem whether our friends and foes like it or not.
Thanks,
Michael Freund
THE LONGEST BATTLE – FOR JERUSALEM
The emperor Vespasian must be rolling over in his grave. Some 19 centuries after the nefarious Roman ruler sent his legions to pillage Jerusalem under the command of his son Titus, the city once again serves as the united capital of a sovereign Jewish state.
It just goes to show what a difference two millennia can make. Back then, at the height of the struggle, the Romans were convinced of their own superiority. They looked down on the Jews with contempt, making light of their religious beliefs and military prowess, and confident that they would crush them once and for all.
In his book The Jewish War, the historian Josephus records the speech given by Titus to his men as he urged them to press forward in the battle for Jerusalem. "It is unbecoming you, who are Romans and my soldiers," Titus told them, "to be inferior to Jews, either in action of the hand, or in courage of the soul." He did not hesitate to assure them of "a certain and sudden victory," stressing the "immortality of those men who are slain in the midst of their martial bravery."
Interestingly, if you replace the word "Romans" with "jihadists," Titus starts to sound a lot like an ancient version of a Hamas or al-Qaida operative.
The Romans, of course, did eventually prevail, murdering some 1.1 million Jews during the siege and destruction of Jerusalem and taking another 97,000 into captivity, many of whom were either sold into slavery or fed to the lions.
The Jewish commonwealth was snuffed out, the long and dark exile began and the Temple and its sacred daily rituals were abruptly taken from us. Nonetheless, despite the devastating blow which the Jewish people were dealt, here we are in 2009, preparing once again to celebrate Yom Yerushalayim.
THIS FRIDAY (May 21, 2009) marks 42 years on the Hebrew calendar since that wonderful day back in 1967 when Israel liberated the Old City and proudly raised the blue-and-white over the Temple Mount.
What the Romans sought to quash forever has miraculously come back to life, and we must be grateful to God for the mercy He has shown in bringing about our wondrous return.
And yet, even as commemorate this very special day, it is hard not to escape the gnawing feeling that with each passing year, the reunified city of Jerusalem is increasingly coming under siege yet again. Never, it seems, has the pressure been so great, with most of the world demanding that we "share" or "internationalize" the city, and criticizing even the most mundane of governmental actions regarding Jerusalem.
Earlier this month, for example, the UN's Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs released a special report slamming Israel for demolishing Palestinian homes built without permits in the eastern part of the city. This was followed by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon blasting the Jewish state publicly for its policies in this regard. And back in March, during her visit to the region, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton also highlighted the issue of house demolitions, saying that they were "not in keeping with the obligations entered into under the road map."
Where else in the world does the enforcement of local building codes generate such condemnation? It is a sign of how obsessed the international community has become with twisting our collective arm to redivide the city in order to make way for a Palestinian state.
Indeed, they want nothing less than to see a Palestinian flag flying over Jerusalem. How will we ever be able to withstand such pressure? In this respect, it is worth recalling an episode that took place more than a century ago here in Jerusalem, one that contains within it the key to ensuring our continued control over the Holy City.
ON LAG BA'OMER in 1869, the cornerstone was laid for Nahalat Shiva, the first Jewish neighborhood of Jerusalem built outside the walls of the Old City. Two of the main people behind its establishment were Rabbi Yosef Rivlin and Rabbi Yoel Moshe Salomon, and they were aided in their efforts by Rabbi Meir Auerbach and Rabbi Binyamin Beinish Salant (who was the son of Jerusalem's chief rabbi at the time, Rabbi Shmuel Salant, a relative of mine).
By 1875, some 50 Jewish families were living in the area. As author Dovid Rossof recounts in his wonderful book, Where Heaven Touches Earth: Jewish Life in Jerusalem From Medieval Times to the Present, the community quickly came under intense pressure from its Arab neighbors. One night, Rivlin was awakened to the sounds of a commotion. When he looked through the window, he saw a group of Arab men mulling about. Their leader exhorted them, "Remember! Slaughter them all and then take their lumber!" Dozens of Arabs armed with clubs, daggers and guns rapidly approached the entrance to the neighborhood, preparing to attack.
Rivlin reached for his gun and his shofar. He stood by the window and concentrated deeply for several seconds, before bringing the shofar to his lips and blowing the notes that are sounded on Rosh Hashana. He took a breath and then fired a shot out the window, before proceeding to blow the shofar yet again.
Suddenly, the Arabs were struck with terror. "Run for your lives!" one shouted hysterically. "The Jews are killing us!" yelled another, and the group fled in panic and disarray. Later, the residents learned that the Arabs had planned to kill them all and take their possessions."
This time," Rivlin told his neighbors, "The Lord was with us. Let us pray that the fear which God put into them will keep them away from us forever."
Just as it was over a century ago, Jerusalem is again under siege. And just as our adversaries then sought to remove the Jewish presence from parts of the city, they now seek to do so once more. But like the residents of Nahalat Shiva, we must not be deterred. They continued to build, expanding Jewish Jerusalem whether their foes liked it or not. And that too must be our guide.
Whether it is the E1 project connecting Jerusalem and Ma'aleh Adumim, or the nascent Jewish neighborhoods near the Beit Orot yeshiva and the Tomb of Shimon Hatzaddik, it is essential that Israel continue to develop these areas. They will strengthen our capital and reinforce its Jewish majority, safeguarding the city and preventing it from ever being divided. Even in the face of American and Arab opposition, we must press forward with these important plans.
By doing so, we can ensure that Jerusalem will remain ours, never again to be taken away. The last laugh will belong neither to Vespasian or to Titus, nor even their modern-day surrogates, but rather to the descendants of Judah whom they sought to destroy - which is, after all, as it should be.
Comments and feedback may be sent to http://www2.blogger.com/mc/compose?to=letters@jpost.com or to me directly at http://www2.blogger.com/mc/compose?to=msfreund@netvision.net.il
This Friday (May 21, 2009) marks 42 years on the Hebrew calendar since Israeli forces liberated eastern Jerusalem and restored the Temple Mount and the Western Wall to Jewish hands. But with the passing of each year, it is hard to escape the gnawing feeling that the reunified city is increasingly coming under siege yet again. Never, it seems, has the pressure been so great for Israel to divide it and "share" it with our enemies.
As I argue in the column below from the Jerusalem Post, just like the Jews of centuries past we must not be deterred. Israel must continue to build, expanding Jewish Jerusalem whether our friends and foes like it or not.
Thanks,
Michael Freund
THE LONGEST BATTLE – FOR JERUSALEM
The emperor Vespasian must be rolling over in his grave. Some 19 centuries after the nefarious Roman ruler sent his legions to pillage Jerusalem under the command of his son Titus, the city once again serves as the united capital of a sovereign Jewish state.
It just goes to show what a difference two millennia can make. Back then, at the height of the struggle, the Romans were convinced of their own superiority. They looked down on the Jews with contempt, making light of their religious beliefs and military prowess, and confident that they would crush them once and for all.
In his book The Jewish War, the historian Josephus records the speech given by Titus to his men as he urged them to press forward in the battle for Jerusalem. "It is unbecoming you, who are Romans and my soldiers," Titus told them, "to be inferior to Jews, either in action of the hand, or in courage of the soul." He did not hesitate to assure them of "a certain and sudden victory," stressing the "immortality of those men who are slain in the midst of their martial bravery."
Interestingly, if you replace the word "Romans" with "jihadists," Titus starts to sound a lot like an ancient version of a Hamas or al-Qaida operative.
The Romans, of course, did eventually prevail, murdering some 1.1 million Jews during the siege and destruction of Jerusalem and taking another 97,000 into captivity, many of whom were either sold into slavery or fed to the lions.
The Jewish commonwealth was snuffed out, the long and dark exile began and the Temple and its sacred daily rituals were abruptly taken from us. Nonetheless, despite the devastating blow which the Jewish people were dealt, here we are in 2009, preparing once again to celebrate Yom Yerushalayim.
THIS FRIDAY (May 21, 2009) marks 42 years on the Hebrew calendar since that wonderful day back in 1967 when Israel liberated the Old City and proudly raised the blue-and-white over the Temple Mount.
What the Romans sought to quash forever has miraculously come back to life, and we must be grateful to God for the mercy He has shown in bringing about our wondrous return.
And yet, even as commemorate this very special day, it is hard not to escape the gnawing feeling that with each passing year, the reunified city of Jerusalem is increasingly coming under siege yet again. Never, it seems, has the pressure been so great, with most of the world demanding that we "share" or "internationalize" the city, and criticizing even the most mundane of governmental actions regarding Jerusalem.
Earlier this month, for example, the UN's Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs released a special report slamming Israel for demolishing Palestinian homes built without permits in the eastern part of the city. This was followed by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon blasting the Jewish state publicly for its policies in this regard. And back in March, during her visit to the region, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton also highlighted the issue of house demolitions, saying that they were "not in keeping with the obligations entered into under the road map."
Where else in the world does the enforcement of local building codes generate such condemnation? It is a sign of how obsessed the international community has become with twisting our collective arm to redivide the city in order to make way for a Palestinian state.
Indeed, they want nothing less than to see a Palestinian flag flying over Jerusalem. How will we ever be able to withstand such pressure? In this respect, it is worth recalling an episode that took place more than a century ago here in Jerusalem, one that contains within it the key to ensuring our continued control over the Holy City.
ON LAG BA'OMER in 1869, the cornerstone was laid for Nahalat Shiva, the first Jewish neighborhood of Jerusalem built outside the walls of the Old City. Two of the main people behind its establishment were Rabbi Yosef Rivlin and Rabbi Yoel Moshe Salomon, and they were aided in their efforts by Rabbi Meir Auerbach and Rabbi Binyamin Beinish Salant (who was the son of Jerusalem's chief rabbi at the time, Rabbi Shmuel Salant, a relative of mine).
By 1875, some 50 Jewish families were living in the area. As author Dovid Rossof recounts in his wonderful book, Where Heaven Touches Earth: Jewish Life in Jerusalem From Medieval Times to the Present, the community quickly came under intense pressure from its Arab neighbors. One night, Rivlin was awakened to the sounds of a commotion. When he looked through the window, he saw a group of Arab men mulling about. Their leader exhorted them, "Remember! Slaughter them all and then take their lumber!" Dozens of Arabs armed with clubs, daggers and guns rapidly approached the entrance to the neighborhood, preparing to attack.
Rivlin reached for his gun and his shofar. He stood by the window and concentrated deeply for several seconds, before bringing the shofar to his lips and blowing the notes that are sounded on Rosh Hashana. He took a breath and then fired a shot out the window, before proceeding to blow the shofar yet again.
Suddenly, the Arabs were struck with terror. "Run for your lives!" one shouted hysterically. "The Jews are killing us!" yelled another, and the group fled in panic and disarray. Later, the residents learned that the Arabs had planned to kill them all and take their possessions."
This time," Rivlin told his neighbors, "The Lord was with us. Let us pray that the fear which God put into them will keep them away from us forever."
Just as it was over a century ago, Jerusalem is again under siege. And just as our adversaries then sought to remove the Jewish presence from parts of the city, they now seek to do so once more. But like the residents of Nahalat Shiva, we must not be deterred. They continued to build, expanding Jewish Jerusalem whether their foes liked it or not. And that too must be our guide.
Whether it is the E1 project connecting Jerusalem and Ma'aleh Adumim, or the nascent Jewish neighborhoods near the Beit Orot yeshiva and the Tomb of Shimon Hatzaddik, it is essential that Israel continue to develop these areas. They will strengthen our capital and reinforce its Jewish majority, safeguarding the city and preventing it from ever being divided. Even in the face of American and Arab opposition, we must press forward with these important plans.
By doing so, we can ensure that Jerusalem will remain ours, never again to be taken away. The last laugh will belong neither to Vespasian or to Titus, nor even their modern-day surrogates, but rather to the descendants of Judah whom they sought to destroy - which is, after all, as it should be.
Comments and feedback may be sent to http://www2.blogger.com/mc/compose?to=letters@jpost.com or to me directly at http://www2.blogger.com/mc/compose?to=msfreund@netvision.net.il
HOW THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WORKS
A friend sent me this tongue-in-cheek description of how the federal government works:
Once upon a time the government had a vast scrap yard in the middle of a desert. Congress said, "Someone may steal from it at night."
So they created a night watchman position and hired a person for the job.
Then Congress said, "How does the watchman do his job without instruction?"
So they created a planning department and hired two people, one person to write the instructions, and one person to do time studies.
Then Congress said, "How will we know the night watchman is doing the tasks correctly?"
So they created a Quality Control department and hired two people. One to do the studies and one to write the reports.
Then Congress said, "How are these people going to get paid?"
So they created the following positions, a time keeper, and a payroll officer, then hired two people.
Then Congress said, "Who will be accountable for all of these people?"
So they created an administrative section and hired three people, an Administrative Officer, Assistant Administrative Officer, and a Legal Secretary.
Then Congress said, "We have had this command in operation for one year and we are $18,000 over budget, we must cutback overall cost."
So they laid off the night watchman.
Once upon a time the government had a vast scrap yard in the middle of a desert. Congress said, "Someone may steal from it at night."
So they created a night watchman position and hired a person for the job.
Then Congress said, "How does the watchman do his job without instruction?"
So they created a planning department and hired two people, one person to write the instructions, and one person to do time studies.
Then Congress said, "How will we know the night watchman is doing the tasks correctly?"
So they created a Quality Control department and hired two people. One to do the studies and one to write the reports.
Then Congress said, "How are these people going to get paid?"
So they created the following positions, a time keeper, and a payroll officer, then hired two people.
Then Congress said, "Who will be accountable for all of these people?"
So they created an administrative section and hired three people, an Administrative Officer, Assistant Administrative Officer, and a Legal Secretary.
Then Congress said, "We have had this command in operation for one year and we are $18,000 over budget, we must cutback overall cost."
So they laid off the night watchman.
Thursday, June 04, 2009
P. T. BARNUM WAS RIGHT
Pardon me while I gather myself together. I’ve been rolling around on the floor, splitting my guts with laughter after seeing the following story on a TV news broadcast:
A Long Island convenience store owner in Garden City, N.Y. confronted by a bat-wielding robber, felt sorry for the man after he collapsed in tears claiming he was only committing the crime to support his starving family. The store owner said, "I felt bad for him. I mean, this wasn't some kid."
The store owner said he was getting ready to close his store shortly after midnight on May 21 when a man in his 40s entered with a bat in his hand. Believing that the man did not have a gun, he grabbed the rifle he kept behind the counter and ordered the robber to drop the bat.
The robber, who was wearing a hooded pullover to hide his face, dropped to his knees and begged for forgiveness. He started crying that he was out of work and was only trying to feed his hungry family. The store owner then provided the man with $40 and a loaf of bread on the condition that he promised never to rob again.
The robber tucked the $40 into his waistband, dropped the loaf of bread, picked up his bat and fled from the store.
Looks like the bat was more important to the robber than the loaf of bread. What does that say about his starving family?
P. T. Barnum was right when he supposedly coined the phrase, "There’s a sucker born every minute." The robber obviously suckered the store owner in this episode. He was left free to rob the next convenience store with the handy little bat he retrieved.
One truly has to admire the kindness of the victim in this case. What made me break out in laughter though, was the store owner’s naivete. He did not know anything about the robber’s background or whether he even had a family to worry about.
You can bet the robber in this case had a criminal history. It sort of looks like he was trying get money to feed a drug habit, not a starving family. The store owner simply fell for what was most likely a phony sob story and left the man free to rob again.
A Long Island convenience store owner in Garden City, N.Y. confronted by a bat-wielding robber, felt sorry for the man after he collapsed in tears claiming he was only committing the crime to support his starving family. The store owner said, "I felt bad for him. I mean, this wasn't some kid."
The store owner said he was getting ready to close his store shortly after midnight on May 21 when a man in his 40s entered with a bat in his hand. Believing that the man did not have a gun, he grabbed the rifle he kept behind the counter and ordered the robber to drop the bat.
The robber, who was wearing a hooded pullover to hide his face, dropped to his knees and begged for forgiveness. He started crying that he was out of work and was only trying to feed his hungry family. The store owner then provided the man with $40 and a loaf of bread on the condition that he promised never to rob again.
The robber tucked the $40 into his waistband, dropped the loaf of bread, picked up his bat and fled from the store.
Looks like the bat was more important to the robber than the loaf of bread. What does that say about his starving family?
P. T. Barnum was right when he supposedly coined the phrase, "There’s a sucker born every minute." The robber obviously suckered the store owner in this episode. He was left free to rob the next convenience store with the handy little bat he retrieved.
One truly has to admire the kindness of the victim in this case. What made me break out in laughter though, was the store owner’s naivete. He did not know anything about the robber’s background or whether he even had a family to worry about.
You can bet the robber in this case had a criminal history. It sort of looks like he was trying get money to feed a drug habit, not a starving family. The store owner simply fell for what was most likely a phony sob story and left the man free to rob again.
Wednesday, June 03, 2009
WHY "POLICE RACISM" HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT
As the controversy continues to rage over the killing of a black cop in Harlem by a white cop, msnbc.com had an excellent explanation written by "Venusta" on why "police racism" had nothing to do with the officer’s death. Here is that explanation:
msnbc.com
06/02/09
A HARLEM TRAGEDY AND ITS EXPLOITERS: OFFI8CER’S DEATH HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH RACE
By Venusta
The fatal shooting on Saturday of New York City police officer Omar Edwards by a fellow officer is an unbearable tragedy. Officer Edwards was an honor to New York. As a child growing up in Brownsville, he loved the NYPD and determined early on to become a cop; he recently married the mother of his children and was looking forward to a life together with them. All New Yorkers grieve for Officer Edwards’s family and friends.
But Officer Edwards’s death was not an instance of police racism (Edwards was black; the officer who shot him was white), however much the usual suspects—the New York Times, Al Sharpton, Charles Rangel, New York City Councilman Charles Barron—despicably try to portray it as such. And though painful to consider, it appears at this point in the investigation that Edwards’s own actions in the heat of the moment, while understandable, may have put him at greater risk of friendly fire.
At around 10:30 PM on May 28, Officer Edwards was leaving a police station on E. 124th Street in Harlem after work. He was wearing street clothes. He spotted a man trying to steal his car’s GPS system and initially grabbed him, but the thief wriggled free and took off down E. 125th Street. Edwards gave chase and pulled out his gun.
Three plainclothes officers in an unmarked car observed the chase and noticed that the pursuer had a gun drawn. They stopped to intervene; two officers grabbed the perp, and the third, Officer Andrew Dunton, yelled to Edwards: "Police! Stop! Drop the gun! Drop the gun!" according to the NYPD. Instead, Edwards wheeled toward Dunton with his gun still in his hand, and Dunton fired off six rounds, killing him.
At first glance, the charge that the Edwards shooting exemplifies police racism looks like the familiar conceit: when white officers see a black man with a gun, they assume that he is a criminal. But within that conceit, in the present instance, is another idea: that the burden rests on an officer confronted by a man pointing a gun at him to disprove that the armed man is an undercover or off-duty police officer before legitimately using deadly force in self-defense.
Thus, this line of reasoning goes, since Officer Dunton did not establish that Edwards was not a cop, he should not have fired his gun. And the reason that Dunton did not bother to establish Edwards’s identity was that Edwards was black.
This implicit argument is absurd. Within the split second available to him, an officer staring down the barrel of a gun cannot possibly gather the evidence to rule out that he is facing a fellow cop before firing. If the department’s version of the events is confirmed, Dunton did everything he could under the circumstances, and everything he was trained to do: identify himself as an officer and shout for Edwards to drop his gun. When Edwards instead spun toward him, Dunton had no more time to ask: "Are you a police officer?" and wait for an answer.
That Dunton’s perception that he was facing an armed perp turned out to be sickeningly wrong does not mean that it was not justified under the circumstances—especially since Dunton had just observed Edwards chasing another man down the streets of Harlem, where such episodes involving criminal gun use happen with far greater frequency than they do 50 blocks south.
As for whether Edwards was justified in taking out his gun while chasing the car burglar, the police department leaves it to the judgment of an officer regarding when to unholster his gun. Officers are allowed to draw and point their weapon when they have a "reasonable belief" that they might have to use it—such as when confronting a known violent offender. Presumably, Edwards perceived a threat from junkie Migueal Goitia.
Yet officers are also taught that they should not come within striking distance of a suspect with their weapon drawn, except in the most extreme circumstances, a teaching that Edwards presumably would not have followed had he caught up with Goitia.
msnbc.com
06/02/09
A HARLEM TRAGEDY AND ITS EXPLOITERS: OFFI8CER’S DEATH HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH RACE
By Venusta
The fatal shooting on Saturday of New York City police officer Omar Edwards by a fellow officer is an unbearable tragedy. Officer Edwards was an honor to New York. As a child growing up in Brownsville, he loved the NYPD and determined early on to become a cop; he recently married the mother of his children and was looking forward to a life together with them. All New Yorkers grieve for Officer Edwards’s family and friends.
But Officer Edwards’s death was not an instance of police racism (Edwards was black; the officer who shot him was white), however much the usual suspects—the New York Times, Al Sharpton, Charles Rangel, New York City Councilman Charles Barron—despicably try to portray it as such. And though painful to consider, it appears at this point in the investigation that Edwards’s own actions in the heat of the moment, while understandable, may have put him at greater risk of friendly fire.
At around 10:30 PM on May 28, Officer Edwards was leaving a police station on E. 124th Street in Harlem after work. He was wearing street clothes. He spotted a man trying to steal his car’s GPS system and initially grabbed him, but the thief wriggled free and took off down E. 125th Street. Edwards gave chase and pulled out his gun.
Three plainclothes officers in an unmarked car observed the chase and noticed that the pursuer had a gun drawn. They stopped to intervene; two officers grabbed the perp, and the third, Officer Andrew Dunton, yelled to Edwards: "Police! Stop! Drop the gun! Drop the gun!" according to the NYPD. Instead, Edwards wheeled toward Dunton with his gun still in his hand, and Dunton fired off six rounds, killing him.
At first glance, the charge that the Edwards shooting exemplifies police racism looks like the familiar conceit: when white officers see a black man with a gun, they assume that he is a criminal. But within that conceit, in the present instance, is another idea: that the burden rests on an officer confronted by a man pointing a gun at him to disprove that the armed man is an undercover or off-duty police officer before legitimately using deadly force in self-defense.
Thus, this line of reasoning goes, since Officer Dunton did not establish that Edwards was not a cop, he should not have fired his gun. And the reason that Dunton did not bother to establish Edwards’s identity was that Edwards was black.
This implicit argument is absurd. Within the split second available to him, an officer staring down the barrel of a gun cannot possibly gather the evidence to rule out that he is facing a fellow cop before firing. If the department’s version of the events is confirmed, Dunton did everything he could under the circumstances, and everything he was trained to do: identify himself as an officer and shout for Edwards to drop his gun. When Edwards instead spun toward him, Dunton had no more time to ask: "Are you a police officer?" and wait for an answer.
That Dunton’s perception that he was facing an armed perp turned out to be sickeningly wrong does not mean that it was not justified under the circumstances—especially since Dunton had just observed Edwards chasing another man down the streets of Harlem, where such episodes involving criminal gun use happen with far greater frequency than they do 50 blocks south.
As for whether Edwards was justified in taking out his gun while chasing the car burglar, the police department leaves it to the judgment of an officer regarding when to unholster his gun. Officers are allowed to draw and point their weapon when they have a "reasonable belief" that they might have to use it—such as when confronting a known violent offender. Presumably, Edwards perceived a threat from junkie Migueal Goitia.
Yet officers are also taught that they should not come within striking distance of a suspect with their weapon drawn, except in the most extreme circumstances, a teaching that Edwards presumably would not have followed had he caught up with Goitia.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)