Occupy Malheur equals 9-11 attacks that killed thousands

U.S. eyes ways to toughen fight against domestic extremists
The government shifted its focus to international terrorism after al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 Americans on Sept. 11, 2001.

But in recent years anti-government activists, like those who occupied a wildlife preserve in eastern Oregon last month, have regained prominence.

Bear in mind that some of those ‘domestic terrorists” they’re talking about are the Hammonds, who were convicted under terrorism statute for losing control of a prescribed burn. And the ‘domestic terrorists’ in the NWR have only been charged, at the last report I saw, interfering with law enforcement.

The police have your back, apparently

Clashes with cops more injurious than civilian-only skirmishes
Civilians injured by law enforcement had 27 percent longer hospital stays (4.7 vs. 3.7 days) and twice as many back and spine injuries (7.4 percent of those injured by cops vs. 3.3 percent of those injured by civilians). They were nearly 2.5 times more likely to need extended care following discharge from the hospital (20 percent vs. 8 percent).
[…]
Equally troubling, the researchers also found that only 10 percent of the people injured by law enforcement were sent to jail after being discharged from a hospital.
[…]
The researchers also noted that a disproportionate number of persons with pre-existing paralytic disorders were among those injured during contact with law enforcement.

“These are people who would be unable to physically comply with police officer commands to lay on the ground or put their hands up or defend themselves when force is used,” Friedman said.

Too bad personnel record privacy prevents a follow-up study on the police, to determine whether these incidents, requiring hospitalization but not arrest, tended to involve the same relatively few officers.

Soviet State of Oregon

That such a thing could even be thought of…

Maybe The Most Dangerous Bill Ever
We have received a preliminary copy of one of the most dangerous pieces of anti-gun legislation we have ever seen.

While the concept was first floated by Ginny Burdick, there may be other legislators behind it.

This bill eviscerates due process and turns Oregon into a Soviet style collection of secret snitches!

The draft legislation lets any doctor, healthcare provider, mental health professional, teacher, instructor, principal, administrator, employer, or family member report baseless suspicions, whereupon the victim loses the right to purchase a firearm. Period. No due process. No hearings. In fact…

(c) The department may not notify the person: (emphasis added-cb)
(A) Of the existence of the hold unless the person attempts to purchase a firearm.
(B) Of the date of expiration of the hold.
(C) Of the identity of the reporter.

A secret order, no due process, no facing your accuser. No judicial oversight of the process at all; the hold is done by whoever takes the call; it doesn’t go to a judge unless and until you learn about the existence of an order.

The person so disturbed and dangerous that he can’t have a gun, but somehow isn’t disturbed and dangerous enough for the authoritahs to… you know, approach and investigate, refer him for evaluation. Thee’s no provision for helping or taking a dangerous person off the streets; just violating his rights.

And you thought protective orders were abusive.

About that horrible problem Red Herring has with Out-of-State CCW criminals

I wondered exactly how many CCW holders from those 25 states committed crimes in Virginia?

Someone FOIA’d it.

Dear Sir,

The Virginia Department of State Police (the Department) has received your request for records. As you may be aware, requests for records of the Commonwealth, its agencies and political subdivisions are governed by the Virginia Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), §§ 2.2-3700 et. seq.

Pursuant to Virginia Code § 2.2-3704(B)(3), the requested records could not be found or do not exist.

I regret that the Department could not be of more assistance to you.

Sincerely,

Corinne N. Geller
Public Relations Director
Virginia State Police
(Office) 804-674-2789
(Cell) 804-263-5547

None. But you knew that.

L.A. has apparently eliminated all violent crime

…since they can redirect their resources to this:

Drive by LA’s Prostitutes? Your Wife May Get a Letter
Los Angeles is considering a controversial policy to help cut down on prostitution: City Council voted this week to have the city attorney’s office review a proposal to send warning letters to the owners of cars spotted in areas frequented by prostitutes, reports the Los Angeles Daily News. The plan would rely on license plate information to discover the owners.

Can’t let those ALPRs go to waste. Too bad if you work or live in the area. Or have to commute through. Or have any other legitimate, non-recreational reason to be there. Or if the ALPR misreads someone elses plate.

I think commenter roddy6667 has the right idea.

Do what people in the UK are doing with speed cameras. They get the license plates of police officials and politicians, an make a perfect replica using Pagemaker or whatever. They tape it over their plate and drive through the speed traps fast. All these people get tickets in the mail. Find out what politicians passed this ordinance, or find out who is speaking out in favor of it. Print the plate. Cruise the hookers. Fun arrives in the mail. Law changed soon.

Of course, with politicians, we’ll have the problem of sorting out the fakes from the real ones soliciting hookers.

-sniff- I smell lawyer bait

Cop Tries New Tack On Car Break-Ins
Lt. Sharp, the top cop for Newhallville and East Rock, is trying to get in front of a rash of burglaries by beating the burglars to the punch.
[…]
Sharp has instructed his officers to take your visible valuables from your car before the bad guys do, making use of a search warrant exception that allows them to do it.
[…]
But if your door happens to be unlocked, and they can’t get you, they will confiscate your stuff, enter it into property at police headquarters and leave you a note (similar to this one pictured) to come down to 1 Union Ave. to pick it up.

Yep, they’re going to keep thieves from stealing your stuff by stealing your stuff. And fencing it.

And what the hell is that ‘search warrant exception’ crap? I’m not a lawyer, but the only warrant exceptions I can think of involve exigent circumstances, unlawful item in plain sight, searches in the course of an arrest…

Well, let this guy explain them. There aren’t many, and none of them include ‘I saw something cool in a car.’

My bet is that they’re relying on the ‘caretaker’ exception; ‘merely’ taking property into their care for safe keeping. I’m sure lawyers will line up to get rich explaining in court why taking custody of something found and voluntarily turned over by a third party differs somewhat from sending your officers out to look in vehicles, try to doors, and take anything they can carry.

Under that dumbfuck interpretation any burglar can defend himself in court with the New Haven-I was just taking care of it defense. Fences? Ditto.

NOTE: If the caretaker exception is what they’re using, be aware that also allows them to search any items they steal. Including cell phones. But you know they’ll do that anyway.

Update:
“Oops, never mind,” sez the NHPD.

UPDATE: No answers to the questions, but city spokesperson Laurence Grotheer informs me the program is now officially dead.

Thank you for reaching out about this…

After unanticipated press coverage sufficiently raised community awareness about this issue, NHPD plans for this initiative have been shelved…

Thanks again…

Laurence…

And the Universal BS Translator says:

Oh, shit! The people weren’t supposed to know what we doing. Now we have to wait until the memory-challenged serfs get distracted by the Kardashians again.

Yeah. They didn’t expect ‘community awareness,’ which raises the question of how people would know to check with the cops for their stolen property. It isn’t as if some overloaded looter would forget to leave that note. Or that a note might blow away.

For that matter, was this simply a personal enrichment system for individual cops, or did they have any procedure in place to verify some cop turned in everything he took? “Sorry, ma’am; your cellphone is here, but some damned criminal must have stolen the laptop before our cop helped himself.”

CISA passed the Senate

S.754 – Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2015 passed on a roll call vote of 74-21.

For those not watching, CISA is the bill that’s supposed to allow companies to voluntarily cooperate with the feds (and state, local & tribal governments) to share information about ‘cyber’ attacks. Notice I didn’t say ‘share with law enforcement agencies’. The list of authorized agencies is:

• The Department of Commerce.
• The Department of Defense.
• The Department of Energy.
• The Department of Homeland Security.
• The Department of Justice.
• The Department of the Treasury.
• The Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

‘Troubling,’ you might say.

Now, in theory — taking the bill literally as written and pretending this is a government not interested in abusing its power — this might not be so bad. Aside from a few little problems.

The bill requires any personally identifiable information be stripped out, for anyone caught in the bulk data collection who isn’t the suspected cyber-terrorist. Stripped out by the feds. After they get it. (The companies could do it first, but the bill directs the feds to set up their operation so why would the companies bother spending the money?)

And you’ll just have to trust that your data got stripped out before going to the NSA’s Utah warehouse, because…

SEC. 104. (d) (4) (B) EXEMPTION FROM DISCLOSURE.—A cyber threat indicator shared with a State, tribal, or local government under this section shall be—

(i) deemed voluntarily shared information; and

(ii) exempt from disclosure under any State, tribal, or local law requiring disclosure of information or records.

[…]

SEC. 105. (d) (3) EXEMPTION FROM DISCLOSURE.—Cyber threat indicators and defensive measures provided to the Federal Government under this title shall be—

(A) deemed voluntarily shared information and exempt from disclosure under section 552 of title 5, United States Code, and any State, tribal, or local law requiring disclosure of information or records; and

(B) withheld, without discretion, from the public under section 552(b)(3)(B) of title 5, United States Code, and any State, tribal, or local provision of law requiring disclosure of information or records.

So even if they outright deliberately violate this would-be law, that same law specifically denies you the opportunity to find out. FOIA exempt. No exceptions. ‘[W]ithheld, without discretion’.

So you can see why I’m not a fan of this crock of shit. But wait; there’s more!

Despite the title, this is not just an information sharing bill. It also provides for all these ‘entities’ — federal, state, local, tribal — to sign agreements to let outside parties access and hack their systems. All in the interest of ‘defending’ against an attack. Now, should the FBI be rummaging around your Gmail and phone accounts looking for the right terror-hacker, and finds evidence of bad-think constitutionalism (you think the 2nd Amendment actually means what it says? Bad, bad, bad!)…

Of course they won’t forget to strip out your identifying data, and add bad-boy notes to your dossier, hiding behind that handy FOIA exemption.

Don’t forget that your local .gov gets to do this, too. Privacy aside for a moment, consider your last visit to your town tax office and imagine those incompetents dicking around in phone company computers, or Target stores’. Someone hacked your credit cards? Bummer, dude; we don’t have to tell you jack. Yeah, they’re supposed to, but with that blanket FOIA exemption to hide their activities…

Besides, participating ‘entities’ get immunity for over-sharing, or over-hacking anyway (that’s the carrot to get companies to play: no liability).

Time to place a bulk order.

Can you spot the problem here?

Can you spot the problem here?

Waterloo Police VCAT Unit seizes 200th firearm
WATERLOO | On Wednesday at about 1:30 a.m., officers with the Waterloo Police Department’s Violent Crime Apprehension Team (VCAT) conducted a traffic stop with a vehicle for an equipment violation in the area of West Fourth and Wellington streets.

[rhetorical question]Why does an Iowa town of 68,406 people need a SWAT VCAT* team to write traffic tickets?[/rhetorical question]

Seems like their crime rate is slightly lower than my town’s, yet we don’t see SWAT teams pulling people over for license plate lights being burned out.

* Update: I stand corrected. VCAT is not the WPD’s tactical unit. They’re just paranoid enough to think they need a VCAT and a SWAT unit. Actually, if you read the VCAT page, you’ll see that they got feddie tax dollars to hire more cops, and that’s apparently all they could come up with to justify the grant application.

Kiss my muscular buttocks

“I’d also like to see some legislation that if a cop is on the ground struggling with someone, like he was the other night and everybody is videotaping, someone should be held accountable for not stepping up and helping them,” [Boston police Commissioner William B. Evans] said.

Fuck. You. Asshole.

Funny how rules for us don’t apply to them. Now we just have to make it more so, eh?

Deadly Assault Dog

But is it highly concealable (I wanna see a gangbanger stuff one of those into his pants)?

Man: Officer shot my dog while police chased neighbor
Davis is accused of picking up the dog, with only two feet touching the ground and ordering the dog to attack the police officer.

Witnesses say the dog was tied up, tried to run from the cop when he shot at the accused perp, and ran out of chain.

” A police spokesman said the officer, in fear of his life,peed his pink lacey panties shot the dog.”

The cops claim no complaint has been filed about the cowardly dog shooting, probably because Mr. Alexander is afraid of being shot himself, as cops find credible accusations against themselves frightening.

---

* That’s in reference to this: