Sunday, February 15, 2015

The Low

I find my blood pressure spikes every time I read stories of people like Shawn Glans, the bully thug in a police uniform who assaulted & battered a citizen unaware he was being recorded.
Official United States Bully, Shawn Glans
You can imagine how I felt reading yet another similar story, this time from Alabama. A Police Department Training officer named Eric Parker and his trainee came across a supposedly suspicious person whose crime started and ended there. I have yet to see where it is a crime to be a suspicious person in any ordinance or edict in any city or state.
"Found guilty of being a suspicious person, Abraham Lincoln of Springfield Illinois was today sentenced to two months' jail time. He was rigorously reprimanded & the accused promised never to be suspicious in the future."
Eric Parker will end up costing the citizens of his city millions of dollars, but worse, he will solidify the visceral hatred of the police that ordinary citizens continue to harbor. The chief of police stated that Parker did not exhibit the "high standards" of that city's police department. Sure, chief, that's why he's a training officer.

How dare you be a suspicious person!

If you don't know, (now ex-) Officer Eric Parker accosted an Indian grandfather who had been reported as suspicious. The law requires that a crime be currently & actively investigated before an officer may detain a citizen and in this case, that crime was being suspicious, you see. Alas, the frail Indian gentleman did not understand he was committing this crime, and after he added on the veritably hateful inability to speak English, paid for it by having his neck broken in a takedown befitting the felony crime of being suspicious.

As bad as that is, there's something far, far worse at play here, and is the reason these two jerks acted the way they did. I've already touched on this topic in my other post, In Mala Fide. It is characterized by the following statement: someone somewhere once did X therefore everyone is guilty of X until they prove otherwise.

These officers are trained to ensure that every interaction with the citizenry holds within the potential for violence. Because of this, it conditions these simpletons--and I use this term advisedly, because for too many police officers it is unfortunately true--to act as if the citizen is already guilty of the crime of executing a police officer and it is their job today, right now, to stop their own murder from commencing.

They deal with citizens in bad faith, assigning the worst intentions to every person until that guilt person has proven otherwise. This is the same thing the TSA does: everyone is guilty of trying to blow up airliners until they've proved they won't. Someone once tried to blow up an airliner by smuggling a bomb in their shoe therefore everyone thenceforth is guilty of trying to blow up an airliner with a shoe bomb and must prove they won't by taking off their shoes for inspection.

Once you think of it like that, everything snaps into focus. The Newtown board set up to Do Something about the shooting there just came out with even more restrictions to be placed on the sale & transfer of not only firearms but cartridges as well. None of this would have prevented Newtown from happening, as even a laudatory ("courageous!") newspaper editorial points out. Nevertheless, proceed full speed ahead, guilty citizens one and all.

Seen through the filter of bad faith, it makes sense why these simpletons would call for further restrictions on erstwhile law-abiding citizens. Let's see how it fits into our bad faith template: Adam Lanza committed a crime with guns therefore every citizen in his state is now guilty of committing a crime with guns and must prove they (i) have not (ii) are not now (iii) will never commit a crime with guns. The burden of proof lies with them.

Aside from the fact that it is in a 180-degree direction from how our system was designed to operate--the presumption of innocence, in case you missed it--it is actually a completely worthless approach to law enforcement & safety. This is likely the reason why our Founders designed the system in that way! Who would've thought. While it is straightforward to prove I have not committed a particular crime, it is quite difficult to prove that I am not currently committing said crime and further, just about impossible to prove I will never commit that crime.

We treat each other with the basest of assumptions, assigning the worst possible to our intent, locking us away in virtual jail cells until we have each proven to one another that we are not guilty. If you want to exercise your Second Amendment rights, you are guilty of trying to murder someone. So you must prove you haven't and aren't currently by undergoing a background check. If not that bad, then you are certainly guilty of negligence. You will leave your weapon unattended and someone will get hurt. You will kill your wife and children with that weapon. You will shoot up the local elementary school.

Some other examples, in passing: men who sit with their legs open in subway cars are guilty of patriarchal oppression and must be shamed & punished. A mother brings in a child to the ER who hurt itself falling off a high chair; she's guilty of Munchausen-by-Proxy until she proves she isn't. That guy who made a joke about Asians is guilty of racism and must be prove to our collective sense of justice that he is not a racist; until then he is to be punished. Eric Eich once gave money to a cause therefore he is guilty of hating homosexuals and must prove his innocence; until then he is punished.

Someone suspicious once walked the streets casing houses for later burglary. Therefore the frail Indian gentleman is guilty of both being suspicious and casing houses therefore he must prove to Officer Parker's finely honed sense of justice that he is not guilty of that crime, but in the meantime, will be handled like a guilty criminal until such time as he has proven he's no threat.

Do you see how nefarious this is? Low-trust societies do not survive long yet this is exactly what we're positively encouraging each other to do. It is brutal if you're the person caught in the headlights of the oncoming Guilty Train for the simple reason that it is very difficult if not sometimes impossible to prove a negative, to prove something isn't there. Asking me to prove there are no black swans requires an extraordinary amount of work on my part because I must search every corner of the earth for a negative, as you sit there actively punishing me.

Guilty of rara avis!

Bad faith.

Thursday, February 12, 2015

In Mala Fide

There are a great many people out there, including police officers unfortunately, who feel (not think) that the mere presence of a gun implies evil. In the case of the police--like this unfortunate meathead Idaho sheriff, who actually shot himself--the presence of a gun screams criminal!

What tosh.

The Idaho Supreme Court, in a case from 1909, includes this diamond of a quote among a long and rather dry analysis of an appeal before it:
A man may need a gun for a great many things other than that of shooting his neighbor. In fact, it should be presumed in the first instance that a man is going to use his gun for a lawful purpose and that he is not out gunning for his neighbor. [Emphasis mine.]
 Well there you go. Our system works on a presumption of innocence; even in the case of a clear-cut case against a violator with many witnesses, the burden of proving guilt lies with the prosecutor only.

It is the same way outside the courtroom as well. More people are pummelled to death by hands and feet than get shot by so-called assault rifles (AKA a black rifle) yet this doesn't make anyone afraid for their safety simply walking by a man equipped with those tools of destruction. One commences in life by placing good faith in their fellow citizen that they will not suffer battery at the hands (and feet) of passersby. In other words, unless and until you have good reason to believe you will be battered, proceed as usual.

Another quick example: chances are, you get into your car everyday and drive wherever you need to go. You do this without living in crippling fear that an oncoming vehicle's driver will swerve into your lane and take you out in a head on collision. Since you have no good reason to believe that the 2000 pound weapon under the control of your fellow citizen will be used with malice against you, you proceed as usual. (Need I point out that more people die in vehicle accidents a year than get shot?)

We presume that everyone around us will act in a lawful and peaceable manner.

Except, of course, if that person were carrying a firearm. In which case, small-minded, scaredy cat, safety-first-last-always folks will assign the worst motives.

Common sense ain't.

Wednesday, February 11, 2015


Watch then think what you'd have done. I'd have lit the fucker up.
Kudos to the kop.

Also, we all need cardiovascular exercise.

Tuesday, February 10, 2015

Base Assumptions

Ran into this execrable pile of shit this morning and "felt led" to opine. I'll quote it here and tell you what I think following:
Rep. Curt Oda, R-Clearfield’s HB260 bill permitting concealed guns without a permit is irresponsibly dangerous. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the U.S. Supreme Court held, “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues of arms.”

As a licensed clinical social worker, I counsel men in relational disputes. Jacqueline C. Campbell, Ph.D., an internationally recognized domestic violence expert, has research suggesting the risk of a man killing a woman is highest where he is unemployed and possesses a weapon. Such men would often not be deemed mentally ill at the time of purchase of a weapon prior to relational disputes occurring.

Rep. Oda’s bill is irresponsible and would increase the likelihood that more women will be seriously injured or murdered than save people from criminals. Now is the time when government has a responsibility to protect its people and not promote freedom to handle anger and frustration to the detriment of people’s lives. Our freedoms on[sic] not unlimited, says the U.S. Supreme Court.

Tab L. Uno, LCSW, MPA

The open assertion is interesting, but there it is in all its sordid glory, the theme of his letter. Pity he follows up with a quote from a Supreme Court case that does not contribute in any way to his conclusion that a permitless concealed carry is "irresponsibly dangerous." Perhaps there's more following.

The second paragraph continues with an appeal to authority that because he's a licensed social worker--leftist alert!--what follows should be accepted without argument. What does he follow up with, a quote from yet another expert that suggests that a "man killing a woman is highest when he is unemployed and possesses a weapon."

Let's look at his base assumptions here: as a licensed clinical (no less) social worker, he's telling you to accept the "research" which "suggests" (though not actually proves) that there is a increase in the risk of men killing women when they're (a) unemployed and (b) in possession of a weapon. Keep it at the front of your mind his thematic conclusion: that permitless concealed carry is "irresponsibly dangerous" then ask yourself what connection permitless concealed carry has with research from some unknown authority figure named Jackie--whom he asserts is an internationally recognized expert--produced which show unemployed men who own guns are at risk of killing women.

Think of his assumptions here, based even though they are on this purported "research": he's assuming that men will have to be both unemployed and simply own a firearm to raise the risk of them killing women. That alone is debatable but it betrays a vicious mindset, a generalization that slanders men. Though strangely this curtails his argument, such as it is, since all I would have to do to destroy it is to say that employed male gun owners exist in much larger numbers.

Continuing: since the risk is "raised" that unemployed men are at risk of killing women (women in general or just ones they run into on the street?), we should not pass a law permitting concealed carry without a license. Okay, that makes all the sense in the world!

Unemployed male gun owners are at risk of killing women therefore do not pass a bill that would allow permitless concealed weapons carriage. Do you see the meandering illogic of this? The pure emotionality of it all? Women will die! The only thing that would round out this perfect dunghill of an argument is if he can somehow work in minorities, preferably gay minorities--into the whole stewpot.

His final paragraph seals the tomb: this bill will increase the likelihood that women will be murdered. H'm. Doesn't that require his two ingredients of male unemployment and simple gun ownership? Alas, he doesn't say. He just wildly asserts. His premises don't support his conclusions, but I wager he doesn't care, women will die! The fantastic rat's nest of assumptions that draws a connection between unemployed males killing women with their guns is a work of a very disturbed mind. That this person is "counselling men" is only just this side of frightening.

Secure in the fact that he has indeed made the connection between unemployed, gun-owning males, the women they kill, and permitless concealed weapons carry, he proceeds:
Now is the time when government has a responsibility to protect its people and not promote freedom to handle anger and frustration to the detriment of people’s lives.
Does that statement make any sense to you? I've read it a few times and each time, I get more confused. "Now is the time [as opposed to when other time?] when government has a responsibility to protect its people and [here comes the super bizarre part] not promote freedom to handle anger and frustration to the detriment of people's lives [Huhhuhwhat? Is there a freedom fit to be promoted by the government to "handle anger"? Seriously, what the fuck does this mean?]

By passing a permitless concealed weapons carry law, this is government "promoting freedom to handle anger and frustration to the detriment of people's lives"? How about permitted concealed weapons carry, which is legal now? How is the permitting process supposed to weed out unemployed men who will kill women? What standard ought the government use here? Will there need to be a question in the form for concealed carry that asks whether you're employed if you're male and which will deny you the right to keep and bear arms since it raises the risk of you bad male person you killing women?

Our freedoms are not unlimited, says the Supreme Court. I have so many questions: what does this have to do with permitless concealed weapons carry? Does the Supreme Court get to decide what those limitations on our freedoms are, or just the right to keep and bear arms? What will a limitation on the right to keep and bear arms mean with respect to unemployed male gun owners killing women?

This letter gives you an insight into the disjointed mind of a leftist who speaks only in buzzwords. Men kill women. Buzz! Guns are bad. Buzz! I am a clinical social worker. Buzz! Freedoms are not unlimited. Buzz! Supposition based on emotion riding on the rails of base assumptions with a touch of just pure crazy.