The Inevitable Guilt

Years back, when an obscure film maker of a you tube video got arrested for …well, objectively for being a perfect scape goat.

I watched my husband and his sister go the full rounds with Dan saying “If they arrested him for anything, it was for making a movie against Islam, and do you want to set that precedent” and her saying “Well, he was violating his parole which required him to not post on the net.”

Even though we tried to make her see that without the need for a scapegoat, he’d never have been arrested for a “parole violation” she told us it was fair that he be arrested.  After all, if he weren’t a criminal, he wouldn’t have been arrested.

Yesterday Larry posted — sorry I was/am out of the country till next week and therefore don’t know the details — about police called to an incident where someone decided an autistic kid was trying to commit suicide.  The policeman didn’t shoot the kid (though he tried) but shot the caretaker.

Most people — including policemen — agree this man really screwed the pooch (and you’re talking to someone who thinks police are under attack at the front of a race war because the left needs a scapegoat.)  But even on Larry’s thread there was the inevitable “it’s all his fault.”  In this case it was “he wouldn’t have been shot if he’d run away.

Since what he’d done instead of running away was to lie down on the ground, hands up, as the police ORDERED, this is not a valid objection.

But some people feel a strong need to blame victims of authority/violence that might also hit them.  It’s a little incantation to convince themselves they’re safe.  (Look to the whole left and blaming victims of islamic violence, for further examples.)

It is comforting and helpful, psychologically,to think that the guy who just got kicked in the nads did something to deserve it.

And I’ll say that in the vast majority of run ins with police that turn violent, yeah, someone did something to bring it about.  Most of the time someone is arrested, yeah, they did something to bring this about.  Were it no so, then all criminals would be — as the left pretends -= angel.

Yet the police and the government of which they are instrument, are necessary but dangerous tools.  It is necessary, when humans live together, to have sheep dogs that control the wolves.

To imagine that when a sheep dog goes crazy and goes after a lamb, though, it was the lamb’s fault for looking particularly vulpine, is to give permission to tyranny.

In every tyranny in the world, the victims are blamed.  Under communism you were often called crazy and sent to a madhouse instead of to prison, but it comes to the same.  There was always a justification. “He caused panic by speaking against the government.”or “He was spreading despondency” or “He was really evil and one dayy when he chewed gum, he just threw the wrapper on the sidewalk.

Even in petty tyrannies like the SJWs, where you don’t lose your life, only your livelihood, people can be attacked for writing a respectful article about sf/f female writers and editors.  But it’s okay, they had it coming. They used the word “ladies.”

Stay alert.  Remember this.  Do not let yourselves be manipulated into piling in on the side of tyrants because victims aren’t perfect.

No one is perfect.  This is no justification for using disproportionate force against them.

Stay awake.



219 thoughts on “The Inevitable Guilt

    1. It can be difficult to keep the discussion on what really matters when the argumentative distractions — such as othering — start flying.

  1. This is what you get when you hire people of low intelligence and then condition them to shoot quickly without thinking. Especially since you hired the one who aren’t great at thinking anyway. The truth is it worked. They got the result desired.
    Now start asking yourself why they want this result.
    I’m past believing it’s stupidity. It’s design. Who benefits from the conflict and destroying trust in police?

    1. Remember, though, we’ve heard only one side of it, and the press isn’t above manipulation. It’s not a matter of automatically trusting cops; it’s a matter of not automatically trusting the press.

      That’s just an example. In an era of political strong men and women, know that just because they come after someone doesn’t mean that it’s justified.

        1. Pshaw — you are too kind.

          We’re living in Baghdad Bob’s neighborhood.

          The Mainstream Press is convinced that theirs is the duty to foster a socially just society, and any exaggerations, misrepresentations, ignoring of inconvenient facts and outright lies are justifiable in this pursuit.

          1. The media is effectively an unelected branch of the government at this point, completely unaccountable to anyone.

    2. I think your ‘low intelligence’ is a cheap shot. In today’s environment with the Media/Obama pouring gasoline on the cop killer targeting, and the religion of peace having daily random killings; yes the Police are justifiably a little trigger happy.
      Racial angle: Was it the white cop shooting at the black victim or was it the black cop shooting at the white autistic guy?
      No one was killed in the making of this cell phone video.

      1. Specifically, it may be a cheap shot. In general, we’ve let our crime problem grow to the point that we need a larger police apparatus that wears out employees faster. This does mean recruiting people who are less suited to the work, and slides in the material preparing them for the job.

        1. In my experience, in some jobs you should not be recruiting for high intelligence. Certain types of data entry, for example, tend to make highly intelligent people keel over in a stupor. Child care (or low level nursing in general) is another area where high intelligence is not essential and may be detrimental what is essentially a task of low-level drudgery.

          Effective identification of essential job-related traits and training to develop those are critical for development of an effective police force. The nature of the work — always seeing the darkest aspects of humanity — and its physical demands ensure that the careers will be relatively short, so effective player development programs are necessary — and always susceptible to budget cuts.

          1. RES, speaking as someone who nearly screamed at her mother-in-law for answering a three-year-old’s ‘why is grass green?’ with ‘because God made it so’, no. We need highly intelligent people taking care of kids. People who will take the time to explain photosynthesis to three-year-olds, which means people who understand both what it is and understand how to engage children.
            The only things you get from kids being brought up by unintelligent people are kids who have learned to not think or who rebel against authority, or both. Because outhinking the caregivers is a sure way to get in trouble.

            1. I am not deriding intelligence in child care providers, simply saying it is not the primary qualification, coming after empathy, good character, honor, integrity and others.

              The average three-year-old will not understand most explanations of photo-synthesis, won’t actually care and doesn’t need an explanation — the best answer is probably “let’s look it up and see!” This relieves the caregiver of the burden of being all knowing and develops habits of pursuit of knowledge.

              Besides, when you get right down to it, ‘because God made it so’ is merely a way of conveying to the child a placemark for knowledge the instructor doesn’t have/can’t communicate. And it is ultimately correct, unless you can offer me a strong reason that chlorophyll reflects the green band to work most efficiently, much less how light absorption operates.

              1. You have dealt with different folks. ‘Because God made it so’ means if the child continues to continue to ask questions on the subject he is questioning God and is evil, in the paradigm I am thinking of. So the child is never allowed any more knowledge on that subject.
                And in my experience, three-year-olds are pretty able to understand ‘because being green is caused by chlorophyl, which is what makes plants able to absorb energy from sunlight.’ Usually elicits a response about ‘why can’t we be green and get energy from the sun?’

                I know my kids are Odd, but I really don’t thinm they’re that Odd!

                1. No, but I think your mother-in-law is odd, if she thinks asking why God did something is evil.

            2. Outthinking caregivers may be a sure way to get in trouble, but it also is a sure way to learn problem solving.

              And yes I gave mine gray hairs, the few they didn’t pull out. 😉

      2. OK perhaps ‘low intelligence’ doesn’t quite cover it, but police departments are deliberately *not hiring* high intelligence candidates for their forces.

          1. *Points to friend who was recently hired by the neighboring county’s sheriff’s department*


          2. Actually, I remember a court case where the court ruled that a police department could refuse to hire someone for being too smart, because walking the beat is fundamentally dull, and the smarter ones get bored and quit.

            1. I’m pretty sure it’d be a bad idea to ask me to handle large groups of prisoners. Partly because I very much do not have the patience and social skills for it, partly I’d get frustrated, and partly because I’m interested in solutions involving machinery and automation.

          3. Is the New York Times good enough for you?

            Tried to embed this in my original post on this issue, but it didn’t ‘take’.

            1. So, one obscure/oddball court case from 20 years ago magically proves that all police departments, everywhere, today, are deliberately not hiring smart people?

              1. Didn’t say ‘all’, or ‘everywhere’, just ‘departments’, as in more than one. Is it more reasonable to assume that New London, Conn. is the *only* department in the country *ever* to have such a policy, or to assume that this was the first time such a policy caused sufficient perceived harm to an applicant that it rose to the level of a Fe(de)ral Court case? (And just because *you* haven’t heard of it, it’s somehow ‘obscure’? And is that an indictment more of the case, or of the media’s priorities in *not* bringing it to greater prominence?) That a quick Google search produced just one court case doesn’t mean there aren’t more out there, but the issue isn’t important enough to me to spend any more time on it. And, because of ‘precedent’, it’s possible that this case would cause lawyers to advise potential clients that their chances of winning any similar suits are nil.

                Evidence that the policy is in place, currently and widely, is all around us, most recently and egregiously in the statement by the Cleveland police union leader’s statement to the effect, ‘I don’t care if it’s unconstitutional, I want Gov. Kasich to ban carry at the RNC.’

    1. When Sarah says Larry, I assume Larry Correia. Since it’s not on his blog, I assume it’s on Facebook which I try not to look at.

  2. In other words, don’t let yourself be manipulated by politically strong men – or politically strong women, as the case may be, right?

    Frankly, I don’t know what went down with the cop shooting a guy that was apparently flat on his back. I do know shooting someone who’s laying on the ground, hands where he can’t reach a weapon, isn’t justified. I also know that manipulation can – and has – gone both ways these last few years. It’s skepticism and danged well not automatic justification of actions by authority or presumed authority.

    1. The video showed him on his back on the ground, with the autistic man sitting next to his feet. The autistic man was holding something and the caregiver was shouting that it was a toy truck.

      The caregiver was shot in the leg, but I don’t remember hearing where in the leg (thigh or calf?). I was wondering if the officer who shot him was just a lousy shot, thinking the autistic man had a weapon and shooting at but missing him.

      1. Later reporting seems to point to the cop being a lousy shot (and trust me, most of us are – when under severe stress). Current wisdom is that when under stress – you’ll shot about half as well as you do at the range. He apparently was shooting for the autistic fellow – believing that was handling a gun, rather than a toy truck – missed – and the ricochet hit the care-taker. I’m not making excuses for poor training, or improperly identifying a threat. I just wanted to point out that it’s easier to make this mistake than you might think. And that’s not even accounting for the reporters having an agenda…

        1. In crisis our bodies are designed to produce adrenaline which boosts strength in support of fight or flight. Unfortunately it also plays hob with fine motor skills which are a major component to putting rounds on target.
          The answer of course is to practice your shooting until you develop muscle memory to the point where you are barely thinking of the shot. Unfortunately that requires infrastructure, resources, and a bit of dedication. Ideally, an officer should visit the range at least once a month. Most departments only require requalification once a year.

          1. Another solution is for cops to hunt. Buck fever is a real thing, and shows up with other game as well, and us boys used to joke about it. For most affected hunters, it goes away. You get where you check whether you can make a safe shot and call your shots, adrenaline or not.

            Arguably, you might be able to accomplish the same thing with range time, and hunting experience might just be more entertaining, but range time doesn’t have the aspect of adrenaline.

            1. On fine motor skills, absolutely. In the surprisingly informative CCW class the Commonwealth required me to take, the instructor brought this up, pointed out that most gun fights happened at touching distance, and most shots missed. He recommended aiming for the hips, for various reasons. (Less shakes, arm not extended, reflexively in that position in prep to guard the head with our arms, etc.)

              Re: Buck fever, I don’t hunt. I do shoot groundhogs in the field in front of my house. The ones that walked away are the ones I took time to line up and take my time on. The ones that didn’t were snap shots. I step out my front door and shoot immediately. I don’t know if it was BRM and pop-up targets that did it, that I don’t have time to stress, or that I don’t have time to think about the idea that I’m about to kill. I don’t know that range time would help, unless it’s conditioning to shoot reflexively (aka, BRM).

              1. I have known quite a few hunters with the same results. Buck jumps up, they throw up their rifle and shoot, buck falls over. Buck is grazing two hundred yards away, they have lots of time to find a rest, settle in, take a nice deep breath, and… bang!… buck looks around to see what the noise was… bang, bang… buck decides it is too noisy here to have a relaxing brunch and bounces off. 🙂

                Personally deer and elk hunting don’t give me that much of an adrenaline rush, but I bear hunt with hounds, and that does. Crawl into a brush thicket with a bear fighting half a dozen dogs, where you are five to ten feet from it in order to see it, and then wait until you have a head shot with no dogs in the way; because a non-instant kill shot means hurt dogs (the dogs know when the gun goes off, the bear is dead, and they instantly run in to chew on it) when the dogs realize you are there, they get nervier, and there always seems to be one dog in the pack that learns the best way to get the bear killed is to run in and grab the bear by the butt, then instantly run and hide behind you. Probably a third of my shots the range is measured in inches, rather than feet. And you must keep an eye on half a dozen dogs, to make sure none are running in front of you, or on the other side of the bear, in line with the bullets trajectory (this is one reason for such close shots, then you are shooting down into the ground on a pass-through, rather than into whatever is on the other side of the bear. That gets your adrenaline pumping, and you learn how to handle the rush. It also gets addictive, which I suspect happens to a number of cops also, causing them to (in all likelyhood unconsciously) look for situations that will provide them that adrenaline rush, and after a while, they will start creating such situations.

                1. No offense intended, but you’re insane. Your dogs don’t sound terribly well balanced either. The best way I can think of to hunt bear would be to very calmly and quietly slink back to my truck, climb in, and hide under the floor mat until the bear dies of old age.

                  (It also sounds like you’ve heard of my brother and his famed hunting prowess.)

                  1. He is probably going after black bears, and not the other kinds. Pistol and dogs is said to work well enough for those. At least he isn’t hunting boar with a spear.

                    1. I’m not deliberately interacting with anything bigger than me, faster, and with claws. Nope. Discretion is the better part of not getting eaten.

                      I’ll hunt boar with a spear, provided it’s already in bacon form.

                      Oddly, the deer that congregate in my yard (along with foxes, rabbits, stray cats, etc. – at least one of the females in my house must be a Disney princess) don’t react to me yelling and waving my arms, waving a broom, or firing a .22 in their general direction. They haul deer butt when I go out with a spear. Deer evolution apparently hasn’t gotten past ‘Injun’ on the threat matrix.

                    2. Ruffin, the deer probably have learned that most people can’t shoot well enough to hit them with a gunshot (or, as I suspect, they can read city limit signs), but spears mean someone who intends business.

            2. Buck fever oh h-ll yes. I was almost killed by a [censored gerund] moron in Flatter State who fired into a wildlife refuge into which two does and a buck were running. I survived because 1) he lead too much and 2) I was at the far end of his range and he shredded bushes instead. The men with him took his shotgun away and sent him back from whence they had come. I was wearing a bright red jacket and was on a paved trail through an open area. I never go hiking in wooded areas on the first weekend of deer season any more.

  3. OK, I don’t know what actually happen in the case that Sarah is talking about but it doesn’t look good for the cop.

    However there have been too many d*mn cases where the News Media shouts “Evil Cops Murder Innocent Person” but the facts actually show that the “Innocent Person” was a criminal and gave the cops good reasons to kill him.

    Right now, there have been several cases where the cops were ambushed by their killers for no good reason.

    Cops get killed on the job and assholes don’t care but people killed by cops are Innocent Victims.

    Now don’t get me started on those Black Lives Matter assholes who don’t give a shit for Blacks murdered by Black Criminals. 😦

    1. I also don’t know a lot about this particular incident. But just as it’s important to not instantly assume the police have shot an innocent person it’s also important to investigate every police-involved shooting to be sure that it was a righteous shoot. The police are just people like the rest of us, who can get scared (and these days, they have more reason to be scared than they used to) or who can become convinced of the rightness of any action they decide to take. We must determine the circumstances of each incident, and when the police are in the right give them our full-throated support; but when they are in the wrong we need to hold them to account.

      1. This is why, in most states, police shootings are automatically turned over to the state bureau of investigation, the idea being to let a third party look into it.

        1. Third party? They both have the same boss, and are getting paid out of the same purse.

          1. How do they have the “same boss” when one group reports to the State Government and the other reports to a City/County government?

          2. Municipal police departments are funded by towns. County/parish sheriff departments are funded by the county/parish. State highway patrols are funded by the state. State bureaus of investigation are also funded by the state but are a separate entity. So you only have state patrol and state bureaus of investigation funded by the same purse. And all are separate.

            1. All are paid out of tax dollars doled out by one government agency or another. It is like claiming that Lowe’s and Home Depot are separate, when they are both owned by the same parent company.

              1. That’s incorrect, and I can give a historic example. Ever hear of Ludowici, Georgia? Ludowici is a small town on US 1, and before Interstates got big ran a speed trap. It was so notorious that Georgia Governor Lester Maddox tried to shut it down. He found out he couldn’t, for Ludowici’s police department was run by the town, not the state. Other than the state legislature uncorporating the town, there was nothing the state could do. So Maddox had billboards put up outside the city limits warning of a speed trap ahead. If it was all run by the same outfit, the state could have demanded the speed trap be removed and Ludowici would have had to comply.

              2. Nope, there are no chains of authority linking state bureaus of investigation and city/county police departments.

                IMO you’re “reaching”.

      2. The Bolsheviks know only ONE way to power: keep pushing until the authorities respond with overwhelming force. then ride to power on the back of “martyrs.”
        Our police weren’t trigger happy enough and let’s face it they’re already the authorities. So they’re trying to create the outcome they want.

    2. If the Innocent Victims are actually innocent, like Jack Yantis, the Idaho rancher shot last fall, the media tends to ignore the story.*

      *The cops who killed him, and cuffed his wife and nephew, refusing to allow them to try and administer aid, while he lay dying, are still on paid leave.

  4. I wonder what the police officers thought they were responding too. The 911 system is good for getting emergencies reported quickly, but can be kind of like a game of post office. The initial call can be from someone who doesn’t know the full story of what is going on, then it is translated through a couple of steps to get the information to the responding officers. The dispatch call may have only a location and a generic category like “man with a gun” even if the real situation is something quite different.

    1. A better thing would be for “man with gun” reports to be handled like this:

      “Is he shooting right now?”


      “Is is a particularly cool gun, like a musket or a Lewis?”


      “Then why should the police be interested?”

  5. There was no excuse for that — none. An unarmed caretaker who was compliant did not deserve to be shot, end of story. It’s one of the reasons I ask if America has become an authoritarian state.

    That being said, the knee-jerk attacks on police in general don’t sit too well with me. It pained me to hear about that therapist getting shot precisely because it will be used as an excuse to bash police across the country.

    Police must do a better job of calling out officer misconduct.

    1. To expand on something I said somewhere on the book of feces, err faces, you don’t need too many agents provocateurs to cause unforgivable insults on both sides for trust to completely break down. All these events (police shooting innocents, police being shot for no reason) reduce the likelihood that parties in a future confrontation will trust the other. No police force in the world can successfully enforce law and order without the consent of the vast majority of the populace. And without trust there’s no consent.

      This is not going to end well

    2. I think it is possible for both sides of the coin to be “right”, for a given value of right.

      On the police side, there’s an awful lot of incompetence and power-tripping going on. It’s long been my observation that there are an awful lot of people attracted to that job who have no business being entrusted with deadly force, and the power of arrest. There’s also a significant amount of racism involved, but most of it isn’t white-on-black racism, it’s blue-on-black racism, because even black cops hate dealing with a lot of other blacks, due to their experiences. Some of the most openly racist cops I ever encountered were several black Chicago PD cops, who sounded more like the KKK than the KKK did. Even other racist white cops would look at these guys and go “Now, Jake… I don’t think we need to go that far… You’re just exaggerating things, there…”. That came after one of the black guys suggesting that the best way to “fix” South-side Chicago was a line of bulldozers spread out along the Cook County border, and heading East to the lakeshore, and putting the entire population of the area into the resulting landfill…

      Looking at the BLM movement, I’m going to have to point out the unfortunate fact that we have the spectacle of a minority population that is criminal to a degree well out of accordance with its actual numbers–And, which refuses to acknowledge that fact. At least, the anointed spokesmen for it will not… I’m sorry, but when you look at the numbers, I really can’t blame cops in general for what they do when they interact with young black males–And, the amazing thing is, studies have shown that cops are actually more reluctant to employ deadly force against those young black males than they are other groups, because they know they’ll get lit up in the press after a shooting.

      There is a horrendous problem in the black community with criminality and social dysfunction–And, nobody is addressing how to fix it, or even really trying to. The statistics are mind-numbing, once you look into them, and horribly depressing. When you get down to it, the sad fact is that most of the time, when a cop goes to interact with a young black male, he or she is most likely dealing with a criminal–Which inevitably colors the way they react and deal with them.

      One of the black guys I worked with in the service for years got out of the Army and went into police work, and I ran into him again as a Reservist in Iraq. We got to talking about this sort of thing, from something that was in the news back then, and the comment he made was something to the effect of “Well, yeah, sure… You stop twenty white kids, and the most you’re going to find is that maybe one of them has a record… You stop twenty black kids, and the computer takes ten minutes to download their records for about half of them, and it’s all violent felonies… It’s gonna affect your attitude; I’m scared shitless every time I walk up on a car with three-four young black men in it, because I know they’re likely ‘bangers, even if they’re driving a new BMW…”. He also said this: “And, you know what? After awhile, I hate those bastards more than I hate the racists I run into, because these little bastards just see me as a cop, not even another human being, let alone another black man… The racists at least acknowledge who I am…”.

      We’re in a hell of a mess, mostly created by the “good intentions” of putatively well-meaning people, whose only desire was to buy some votes, back in the 1960s. Fixing what they broke is going to be a lot of hard work.

      1. The problem is obvious, as is the reason the MSM and our politicians refuse to discuss it: single-parent households. Heck, Patrick Moynihan put his finger on this some fifty years ago, when he criticized “Welfare” policies that essentially drove men from Black households in “The Negro Family: The Case for National Action,” — commonly referred to as “The Moynihan Report.”

        Your experience as an NCO ought provide plenty of insight into the importance of strong, disciplined male leadership in the social development and maturation of young men. It ain’t a “Black thing” either — we’re seeing the same societal trends in other ethnic groups “enjoying” high rates of unwed motherhood.

        Heather Mac Donald has done the research and assembled the evidence, most recently in her latest book, The War on Cops: How the New Attack on Law and Order Makes Everyone Less Safe and can be found on CSPAN2 talking about her work.

      2. “it’s blue-on-black racism”

        I can’t remember where I heard it, but I suspect a movie or possibly a book, but that reminded me of a saying I heard a black cop tell another black guy, “there’s black, and there’s blue, and if you don’t do what I tell you son, you’re going to be both.”

      3. > a minority population that is criminal to a degree
        > well out of accordance with its actual numbers

        And which had, as far as I can determine, only an average degree of criminality before it was targeted by Federal and state “aid” programs…

        1. Due to an unfortunate juxtaposition of timing, that also happens to coincide with the effective ending of the Jim Crow laws and the prevalence of lynching. I have heard the argument made by racists of various ilks that the more critical event to cause the rise in black crime was that, and not the government aid.

          Hearing that come out of the mouth of a deeply left-wing “activist” type was a bit of a shock, because she denied any effect at all from the “Great Society” bullshit, while essentially saying that blacks were natural criminals whose “unjust suppression” was merely “historical justice” being meted out on the rest of the country for the evils of slavery.

          And, if that sounds incoherent? That’s precisely how she was putting it. To her, ending Jim Crow and allowing black criminals to run rampant, which was what her idea was about the situation, well… That was reparations, see? Your great-granddaddy was a slave, so you get to rape, rob, and pillage people who had no direct involvement in that. Or, so her thinking ran.

          The argument really spun out of control when I started pointing out that most victims of black criminals were other blacks, and asking just when it would be that the tit-for-tat bullshit was going to stop, if ever, in her mind.

          Some of these people are really, truly sick in the ‘effing head. I can’t even talk to most of them, anymore. I just get too damn angry. I’ve heard that same crap come out of black and white mouths, over the years.

          If anyone wants some amusing reading, in a dark way? Go find Adam Tooze’s The Wages of Destruction, and Gotz Aly’s Hitler’s Beneficiaries: Plunder, Racial War, and the Nazi Welfare State. Dig through those, and keep an eye out for Nazi references to “social justice”, and examine just how they went about financing the Nazi state and war effort. If you go looking for them, the parallels between the activities of the current administration, the Clintons and the Nazis are there. Including the laundering of plundered monies through fronts like the various “green energy” initiatives, such as Solyndra. The parallels are there.

          The more I look at it, and think about it, the more I’m convinced that Socialism is basically organized crime, as imagined by intellectuals and conducted by con artists who fraudulently adopt their words and ideas in order to perpetrate vast schemes of societal-scale theft and criminality. Compare Hitler to Chavez, and you see the same thing going on, with all the little scams being run by the noble Socialists. I’m pretty sure that without the German military being there to take advantage of, Hitler’s Germany would have ended up like Venezuela.

          1. Consider twentieth century socialism and communism as being essentially the same thing as nineteenth century anarchism. Anarchism had a certain amount of respectability until people noticed how many anarchists were criminals who thought and acted like other common criminals, and liked having an excuse to rape, murder and steal.

    3. Your report of your pain roiled my neural net; “Muslims fear backlash from tomorrow’s shooting” floated to the surface. Unfair, but that’s what happened.

      Substantively, qualified immunity has been an unmitigated disaster. I’d love us to have Norman Rockwell policing, but we don’t, and we won’t until that pernicious precedent is overturned.

      1. You won’t have it if you do; see Ferguson Effect.

        One reason to look vast askance at our “declining crime rates” is that police, often with implicit and sometimes explicit encouragement from Democrats at the city, state, and Federal levels, is that cops are declining to stop or arrest, and DAs are declining to prosecute, anything involving minorities that falls below gross physical violence, and sometimes not even that. There are literally books full of examples, complete with video links, where a dozen “yutes” chase down and assault people and only one or two get charged.

        The traditional remedy was to move away from the problem; now the Obama HUD has a policy of exporting the thug culture to suburban areas; Google up Westchester County, NY, for a prime example. We are looking at the result of 60 years of blacks and other minorities being told that every problem they have is honky’s fault, and honky owes them for it, so nothing they do is unjustified.

    1. Considering that it’s a well-known tactic for criminals to file complaints in order to have a chance of getting any evidence gathered at their arrest thrown out – or a nuisance settlement from the PD, I’m surprised the number of complaints is that low. They must have taken a sample.

      1. Several years ago, there was an article in the Chicago Tribune about this one police officer (actually a detective).

        There were all these complaints about him being involved in “police brutality” but very few of the complaints involved cases that he was involved with.

        For that matter, many of the instances “happened” when he was definitely far from the place the instances happened. IE He had perfect alibies.

        It became obvious to the article writer that almost all of the stories were made up by the criminals and/or the public defenders of the criminals.

  6. Some time ago, I heard about a critic of the police (sorry no cites) who got put into one of the police training situations.

    These are “shooting galleries” where the police have to make split-second decisions on “to shot or hold your fire”.

    Apparently the critic made several wrong decisions both in terms of shooting innocents and in terms of being “killed”.

    I think anybody who criticizes cops should be put into such “training programs”.

    They might better understand what cops have to face.

    But no, it’s much easier to be an “armchair general”. 😦

    1. There was an episode of “Blue Bloods” that did this. The chief sent a particularly harsh critic of the police through one of the city’s training simulations and afterwards counted up her mistakes.

    2. Maybe the one up in Phoenix with one of the early BLM “activists” (apparently a real one, not just vacuuming up the freebies).

      IIRC, the first two times, he got “shot” – then the third time he “shot” the innocent.

      I didn’t recognize his name in the last round of riot leaders up there… (Not that I’m good with remembering names.)

    3. True to an extent, but as a critic I EXPECT the cops to be better than me, because they HAVE been trained. I get very critical when I perceive the /trained/ cops as being inferior to myself if put in the same situation.
      I know to an extent it is biased by only the stories that went wrong making the news, but I swear police snipers have to be some of the poorest trained, worst shots in the world. Every time I hear mention of one being used, they botch shots that would be a clap shot for any teenage deer hunter. Anybody who can miss a shot at a standing target less than a couple hundred yards away; from a bipod rest, does not deserve the term sniper.

  7. The analysis at, which is where I go for things like this, say that the cop took 3 shots at the sitting autistic man- AND MISSED, with one of the shots hitting the therapist in the leg. So, a twofold error. One- there was no demonstrable reason to be shooting at the sitting autistic man, and two- piss poor target acquistion, putting innocents in the line of fire. Link to their analysis:

    And remember- only properly trained authorities can be trusted with guns, not ordinary citizens like you and me who don’t know how to use them.

    1. If you look carefully at the video, near the end, the autistic man turns to face the police and raises the toy truck in his hand such that it could be considered ‘shooting from the hip’.
      Now, considering such a shot from the autistic man would have poor aim, and the police were sheltered behind their car, and to fire at autistic man has the caregiver directly behind in the line of fire, perhaps the best option would be for police backup from a different angle, and holding fire until the autistic man fired off a round from his toy truck.

      1. Consensus (yes, inserting a dirty word, but…) on the Bar is that the shooting officer just had poor trigger discipline training, or forgot it in these nerve-wracking days – and twitched. Three rounds does sound like he was on burst setting.

        OTOH – the cell phone video cuts off before the shots. Unless they had body or dash cams on it – I’m not making a judgement either way (leaning towards cop screw-up, but I was burned by that Minnesota media fantasy story, too…)

        1. Fully automatic rifles have a burst of three option. Is there such a thing as a fully automatic 9mm (assumed) 1911 style pistol? Granted a cop might have access to one, but it’s not impossible to squeeze off three quick shots with a semi-automatic. If there were three shots fired, then most likely he fired three times.

          Three shots could very possibly be from range training. That’s not a snide remark, but a simple observation. It could be possible to train to fire three shots in quick succession – two to body mass and one to the head – to where it’s automatic. But that wouldn’t mean aiming is necessarily automatic.

          If three shots were fired and none hit the intended target, there are issues here. My experience is with shoulder arms, but even with a shotgun you have to re-aim after each shot.

          1. From bearing arms the officer involved is reported to be SWAT and using a long arm.

              1. I think the reference was meant to imply since he was using a long arm, it is very possible he had an automatic rifle set on burst.

          2. *Some*full-auto rifles have the ‘three-round burst’ option.

            And while I know of no full-auto 1911-style pistols (I doubt the action would be conducive to such shenanigans), I have fired the full-auto 9mm Glock G18. No three-round burst. Very cool.

              1. Not exactly a *production* 1911 machine pistol, bet *very* cool. Want one! Maybe after I win the Powerball lottery jackpot . . .

          3. > fully automatic pistol

            Glock makes a full-auto variant of their pistol, but it’s a “machine gun” in the USA, and while cops can have toys like that, it’s a pretty stupid weapon. I have an Ingram M11A1 SMG in .380 that’s larger and heavier than the Glock, and it’s like holding a rabid weasel in rock-n-roll mode. The smaller Glock, in 9mm… sometimes you really can have too much cowbell.

            1. I found the G18 quite controllable. Of course it had the 30-round magazine so inertia there may have had something to do with it. And I’m a big guy with Herky wrists.

              *Never* too much cowbell! Well, there was that one girl who shot her instructor with the full-auto Uzi recently . . .

      2. Police were sheltered, but a) who knows how many bystanders were in the vicinity b) while police are tied down awaiting backup, who knows how many other situations were going unattended to?

        OTOH, I know that cop ought to have been able to shoot the nail off the kid’s trigger finger — I’ve seen Hopalong do it hundreds of times.

        1. Just to play devils advocate here, I will point out that in Orlando police were present outside the building for some time while the shooter was walking around inside shooting people execution style in the back of the head… while the police waited for backup. For arguments sake, lets say the cop thought the autistic man had a gun and was threatening the caregiver laying on the ground. THEN the decision to fire on the ARMED man threatening an innocent bystander now, before he has time to harm the bystander, without waiting for backup would be the right decision. Because a cop SHOULD value the life of the citizens he is pledged to protect more than he values his own. That is, it would be the right decision, IF the guy was actually armed, a threat to innocent bystanders, and if the cop COULD FLIPPIN’ HIT THE BROAD SIDE OF A BARN!

    2. The really disturbing part of that incident wasn’t necessarily the shooting, either–It was the way the dispatcher casually assumed that the person calling in the report of a “man with a gun” was making an accurate report, and passing it on to the cops, who further assumed that the situation warranted “guns out” and deadly force with no other evidence than what the dispatcher told them.

      You or I do that, as private citizens, and then shoot at someone? Yeah, you’re going to jail. Only a police officer gets the benefit of the doubt, and they’re consistently given an out when these things happen, instead of being held to a higher standard as a trained professional.

      There needs to be a balance struck, and we’ve gone way too far in the direction of giving the police unquestioned freedom to do these things. I fear that the pendulum is going to swing back the other way, and when it does? Not going to be a lot of fun: Can you say “De-policing”, folks? Yes, I knew you could… But, the ramifications of that, the second- and third-order effects thereof? We’re going to learn what those are, and I’d wager that one of them is that the young black men creating this criminal violence problem are going to do most of the dying, at each other’s hands. Ugly, all the way around.

      1. Can you say ‘De-policing’, folks?

        I confess to finding plenty of bitter ironic amusement in the fact that the same people demanding “getting guns off our streets” were the leaders in objecting to practical methods of achieving that, e.g., Stop’N’Frisk.

        Cynical people, mean-spirited people, might conclude their major concern was guns held by law-abiding citizens.

        1. Let me point out that Stop and Frisk was unconstitutional, regardless of the fact that a) it worked or b) it was implemented under a Republican; it was still unconstitutional and should never have been allowed to be implemented in the first place.

          1. Stop and Frisk was unconstitutional.

            Assertion of facts not in evidence.

            The (very) liberal judge who ruled it so was later reprimanded for multiple reasons and the City (de Blasio, NY’s ultra-liberal mayor who ran on a campaign to end the practice) threw in the towel rather than defend the policy.

            Do not believe everything you read in the “news.”

              1. Misapplied Constitutional doctrine — the rights of certain classes of persons may be forfeited for cause with due process. The Constitutional challenge in those arrests was never infringement of the Second Amendment rights, ergo these were persons who either had forfeited that right or opted not to assert it in their defense.

                Abrogation of the Second Amendment is thus not demonstrated.

                1. Okay, this is in reply to both of your replies,
                  I quoted two relevant portions of the constitution that the Stop and Frisk doctrine obviously and blatantly broke. I didn’t state that it was ruled so in court, because frankly I don’t see any reason to need a court ruling. Any reasonable person can see that Stop and Frisk broke both the 2nd and the 4th Amendment.

                  1. The NY City police claim their Stop and Frisk procedures were Constitutionally compliant. They were never found otherwise by an appropriate legal authority.

                    My recollection is that “Stop and Frisk” was a misnomer for the policy, that there was a third step preceding the two named (which would properly make it a First step, but …) and which made the rendered constitutional. I am not inclined to dig through data and articles from several years ago at, IIRC, the NY Sun, NY Post and Manhattan Institute to support my claims, especially as I do not perceive a willingness on your part to accept such research — your mind is made up. Heather Mac Donald has written extensively explaining how the policy is consistent with the Constitution and I found her arguments persuasive enough at the time that I’ve no interest in revisiting them at a distance of about five years.

                    Please consider that simply because you deem a procedure Constitutionally invalid does not make it so, especially when you are ignorant of the full process involved.

                    1. Your correct, my mind is made up, because I dug through much the same data several years ago (I’ll take your word on it being five) when I couldn’t believe a number of supposedly conservative, “freedom protectors” were defending such a policy. I assumed there must be more too it, and it was being misrepresented.
                      No unfortunately I found that while there were nuances, they were very similar to the nuances Draven mentions about other unconstitutional* New York City laws. I came the conclusion then that Heather Macdonald and Rudy Guiliani (as well as some others) were unreasonable people.

                      *Yes you can argue that I am simply deeming such laws unconstitutional, that they have not been ruled so. Again all I can reply to that is that a fact is a fact, regardless of whether a judge or panel of judges has ruled it is so or not. Again any reasonable person will look at the words “shall not be infringed” and conclude that means that Officer Joe Blow does not have the right to decide whether you can own a gun or not.

              2. this was New York City, where your right to keep and bear arms can be infringed by you not being given a permit to buy a firearm because the cop deciding your application got yelled at by his wife that morning.

            1. If you don’t believe in the Second Amendment, how about the Fourth?

              “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

              1. While it was asserted that these were bad stops, the police department maintained they were following proper procedures for probable cause AND were eager to defend their process in court. New mayor took a dive so the claims of Fourth Amendment violation remain unadjudicated, ergo not proven.

                1. Seems to me that “probable cause” in police stops tends to be missing the “Supported by oath or affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched and person or things to be seized” part.

              2. bearcat, unlike the Second Amendment, the Fourth contains the word “unreasonable” precisely because not all circumstances demand the same search.

      2. ” instead of being held to a higher standard as a trained professional.”

        This is what I have a problem with, when I can look at a situation and honestly say, “I could have handled that much better.” Then I have a serious problem with the TRAINED PROFESSIONAL getting a few weeks paid leave and a counseling session for the exact same actions that would have landed me in prison.

        I 100% guarantee that if I had thought an autistic man was threatening me with a gun; and it turned out to be a toy truck, and I fired at him, wounding an innocent bystander, I would be sitting in jail while they decided exactly what all to charge me with.

        1. The big difference between how you would be treated in such situation and how the police are treated rests on the fulcrum that they are authorized to use deadly force in performance of their duties. The city is liable if their duly authorized agents fail in such performance, a principle which does not apply for your actions (assuming you have not been deputized.)

          1. It depends on where you’re at. In some states, deadly force is allowed if you’re in reasonable fear of your life. It varies, and I’m not a lawyer, and it also depends on local attitudes.

            1. I’m pretty sure that all states have a self defense justification for homocide. Some of them have pretty high hurdles you have to clear in order to prove that you had no other choice, but the basic defense is available.

          2. Where I live, I am also authorized to use deadly force in protection of myself and others. I don’t have a problem with the policeman being authorized to use deadly force (without that authorization, he basically has no authority and is worse than useless) by problem is with policemen not being held responsible when they misuse that deadly force.

            And the fact that they SHOULD be held to a higher standard, because they ARE trained professionals, not given a free pass.

            On the other hand I will defend the cops right to use that deadly force in conditions where it is warranted, like Michael Brown, or in the case of Police Chief Doug Schroeder
            Who I agree was a hero, for going in and doing what needed to be done now, instead of playing it safe and waiting for backup, while the gunman continued to shoot bystanders. On the other hand, he was just doing what he was hired to do, and what I should expect him to do; because he is a trained professional and I do hold him to a higher standard.

            1. A higher standard? Sure. But not an impossible standard. Right now all we have are the basic facts. We have no idea what exactly happened in the moments leading up to the decision to shoot.

      3. As a licensed professional, I get truncated protection from good Samaritan laws. Even if off duty and out of district I am assumed to know better. Police should have same but often are not.

  8. Then you have the wanna-be tyrants who seize on every excuse to foment racial discord, in hopes that by destroying the existing order, they will create a new and better one (i.e. more favorable to their tribe) in its place. This, of course, was Marx’s strategy, but it was hardly original or unique to him. Historically, it rarely works that way, but ideologues usually have a highly selective filter for facts.

  9. Assuming all police are angels is as wrong as assuming all are devils — and as destructive of good policing. While police are owed a higher presumption of trust, that properly consists of delaying judgement until facts are available beyond the initial reports — something we ought practice in any and all circumstances.

    OTOH, the MSM reporting can always be safely assumed incomplete when not flat out false.

  10. One neglected factor in most questionable police shootings is the .40 smith and wesson cartridge. To make a long story short, there was an FBI ambush on murderous bank robbers and one of the criminals proved fantastically resistant to the pain and damage done by the 9mm rounds used on him. It wasn’t the failure of the ammo, the bullet that pierced all the way through a lung and stopped just short of the heart would have put down almost every other person on earth. But the 9mm was blamed and eventually they adopted .40s&w and soon almost every police force in the country was using it. 9mm is usually 325foot pounds, .40 is usually close to 500 foot pounds and many police officers just can’t handle it. It was like the police forces who adopted .357 magnum in the sixties, and soon found themselves loading those guns with .38 Special because their people could not handle the magnum. .40 has been a disaster for the nation’s police, one incident after another in which officers fire scores, sometimes hundreds of rounds in the general direction of the perpetrators while flinching helplessly away from their guns.

    1. Flinch is an insidious thing and will destroy aim. I once developed a case of it with a shoulder arm, and at one point thought I’d never overcome it. Such happens when there’s too much recoil or the recoil is distributed in an uncomfortable way. Better a lighter load/weapon that you can place your shots than a hand cannon that you can’t.

      1. It is interesting that most agencies are returning to the 9mm.
        As the pros have shown, the terminal ballistics of the 9mm, .40s&w, and .45acp are pretty much indistinguishable, especially with good, modern bonded ammo. Better to have more BB’s with less recoil and more accuracy.

    2. I personally don’t care for the 9mm at all, and much prefer the .40 As a matter of fact I have never known a policeman that carried one as a service piece however, every policeman former or current that I know carries or carried a 9mm, 357 magnum, 38 Special, 45 acp or in one case 10mm. Personally my first choice for myself would be the 357, but my choice for the majority would be the 40 s&w. The recoil of almost every 40 I have shot has been very mild, in fact in general, because of the generally larger size and heavier design of pistols chambered in 40 I have found felt recoil on them to be milder than a 9mm shooting +P ammo.
      I do know that most that tried the 10mm switched back to the milder .40 s&w however. Regardless, anyone who practices even remotely regularly should be able to shoot a full-size (and why would a policeman who open carries on their belt, and is expected to be ready and capable of using it, be carrying anything other than a full size pistol?) .40 that fits them (which is important, but again, it is tool they are supposed to be familiar and comfortable with using, they better make sure they get one that fits them, if they can’t bother with that, they shouldn’t be a policeman) without appreciable flinching. The problem being that many cops do Not practice regularly.
      IMHO unless there are special extenuating circumstances, anyone who is required to carry and expected to be capable of efficiently using a sidearm should be firing at least 100 rounds through said sidearm weekly. Many of these don’t fire 100 rounds yearly.

      1. I’m not sure I buy this. The wife and I both shoot the .40, and I can make repeated aimed shots on a stationary target out to 100 yards without difficulty with an M&P40C compact.

        I’ve heard the trade-down argument before, and for people with physical impediments I can see the logic. But fit, uninjured adults who’ve had professional training should be able to handle the .40 without difficulty. Panicked or poorly trained shooters can spray and pray every bit as easily with a 9mm as a .40.

        Bottom line though, is of course that the best cartridge is the one you can shoot effectively.

        1. “Bottom line though, is of course that the best cartridge is the one you can shoot effectively.”

          Yep. On the other hand I have introduced several women to pistols using my EAA Witness in .40 (the older, heavier and slightly slimmer butted version) and had no complaints about recoil, (nor did any of them appreciably flinch, except one who flinched on the first shot, and by the second clip had mostly overcome her flinching) while I’ve heard numerous complaints about the recoil from subcompact 9mm’s, and seen horrible flinches developed from them.

        2. If all other factors are equal- say Glock 19 vs Glock 23, a trained shooter will shoot the 9mm better, faster, and more accurately.
          Likewise, the 9mm gun will last longer when shot hard than the similar .40.
          And it is in the realm of the compact/subcompact gun that the .40 truly shines as the True Sucklord. You get fewer bullets, far more recoil, and a gun that is literally hand tingling/wrist & elbow damage painful to shoot.
          The juice is honestly not worth the squeeze, even for trained shooters.

          1. It’s not so much “trained shooters” as that some people just don’t handle recoil well. Often it’s complicated by a grip that doesn’t fit their hand, and fairly often noise is also a factor.

            I learned to shoot with a .44 Magnum. I consider the recoil of a .45 1911 to be negligible. Some people feel it’s more than they can handle. Doesn’t make them wimps; they might do just fine with the same cartridge in a different pistol.

            My wife will burn through multiple boxes of .44 Magnum in a friend’s Desert Eagle even though her hands are so small she can’t even get a proper grip on the thing. She loves shooting it. But she won’t shoot my Security Six, even with mild .38 Special loads, because “it kicks too hard.”

            PDs that decree “one gun, one cartridge” save money and hassle in purchasing, but it makes about the same sense as making all of them wear the same size shoes.

            1. I have a Glock knock-off; a Springfield Armory XD 9mm, and I am very happy with it. Very little kick, and it just feels good in my hand. I have small hands, and hated the service Beretta that I had to train with in the AF. Beretta just felt all wrong. So I was glad that the store where I bought the Springfield let me try out a good number of pistols until I found the one that felt right.

            2. I took a short training course required for a concealed carry permit one time (though I have not yet followed through and am now in another state… with a 6-month-old and a broken hip… um, hm, this may take some logistical work) and they had us try multiple pistols… I seemed to improve as the caliber went up for a while but can’t remember where I topped out, but I was surprised to like the feel of shooting the Glock (….whichever it was… I don’t have the records on me) because it had felt too big for my hands at first.

              To actually carry concealed, however, I’m going to have to account for being a small curvy person and figure out what I can routinely and invisibly secure on my body, in addition to what feels right in my hands and allows me to fire without excessive discomfort.

              …This is starting to sound alarmingly like bra shopping.

              1. The current “one true way” is a high-ride waistband holster on your shooting hand side, with the biggest gun you can find. I guess you’re supposed to wear a poncho to cover it.

                Carrying is a hassle. My best guess is that one in ten carry regularly after the new wears off. They bought too much gun to conceal, never found a holster that suited them, there were too many “gun-free zones” in the course of their daily activities…

                My take is, *any* gun in your hand when you need it beats the double-stack .45 or the Desert Eagle you left at home.

                My maximum-comfort carry rig is a shoulder holster. It holds a 5-shot revolver “upside down” under my arm. A 1/8″ elastic band runs around the other shoulder to keep it from falling off. If you remember the original “Bullitt” movie, it’s similar to the rig Steve McQueen wore. I shrug into the holster, pull a polo shirt over, and it’s practically invisible. Access is faster than an IWB or OWB rig; just reach up and pull down, as opposed to rucking your shirt out of the way to draw up.

                For a female, if you adopted – there’s probably some specific clothier term for it, but I call it a “matador vest” – you could carry a cannon on each side and nobody would be the wiser.

                1. I routinely pack a five shot revolver also when carrying concealed (I tend to open carry a larger pistol in the country) but I routinely tuck my shirts in, and many are too tight to conceal a shoulder rig. So I carry in a pocket holster in most of my pants, and the ones with shallower pockets (Wranglers) I use an inside the pant holster, with that portion of the shirt tucked over the small butt that sticks above the waistband. Not as convenient as a pocket holster or shoulder rig, but much more convenient than having your gun in your truck, in the parking lot, when you need it in the frozen food aisle.
                  A good shoulder rig (like shopping for a gun, try lots of holsters, particularly if you are looking at shoulder holsters, to find the one that fits both you, and your preferred method of carry) is very comfortable way to carry, particularly for people with back issues, whereas hip holsters tend to exascerpate back problems.

                  1. Definitely intend to rank concealability, feel, accuracy. I can live without impressing people at the range.

                    Pocket holster is… unlikely to work routinely in most of my pants, alas. Purse carry could in theory simplify concealment itself, via the spending of more money than I have ever otherwise been tempted to drop on rather than into an admittedly beautiful pocketbook, but I understand introduces its own issues.

                    1. I find I can conceal most anything in winter, while it becomes considerably more problematic in summer, and considering womens fashions, would be more so for a woman. Frankly a lot of women’s fashions are designed to reveal, not conceal much of anything. Hip hugger skinny jeans and a belly tank are likely to severly limit your concealed carry options.

                    2. Skinny jeans in summer? Oogh. Not that cooler options are necessarily much better for concealment. Since getting pregnant last year I have found myself spending a lot of time in yoga pants, and this year rather a lot of time sitting cross-legged with my shirt rucked up and a baby attached. All of which also seem to interfere with various options, to the admittedly limited degree they coincide with being in public. Although actually that last bit might provide an excuse for the poncho idea. 😀

                    3. I believe Foxfier mentioned using her diaper bag for concealed carry. Of course for that to be a long term option, you’re going to have to have a whole tribe of kids. 😉

                    4. Heh. Well, not sure how long I can keep that going, but there’s nothing wrong with keeping in mind the options afforded by one’s current activities.

                      While we’re here, what are your thoughts on calf/ankle holsters? (I like long flowy skirts and bootcut pants but am unsure if this would be sufficient; also, guessing not compatible with “cross-legged with occupied lap”.)

                    5. I’ve never tried a calf/ankle holster. I would think not especially convenient for quick access, but again definitely more convenient than the center console of your car, when you are a quarter mile away from it.

                    6. Wouldn’t the accessibility of a calf/ankle holster be somewhat determined by the length of your arms?

                      More likely, it is a factor of how you anticipate needing to reach it — if you spend a lot of your time sitting, say at a desk, you may well find a calf/ankle holster more accessible than something at the small of your back.

              2. “To actually carry concealed, however, I’m going to have to account for being a small curvy person and figure out what I can routinely and invisibly secure on my body, in addition to what feels right in my hands and allows me to fire without excessive discomfort”

                Everything is a compromise, your most accurate and most comfortable to shoot pistols are unlikely to be easily concealable, unless you routinely wear a trenchcoat. Frankly for self-defense accuracy would be the least of my concerns. I really like accurate guns, but in reality, most gun fights occur at something like seven feet, and practically any gun will shoot minute-of-bad-guy at that range. Figure out which guns in your budget fit where you want to carry them, try all of them that you can for fit and comfort, and as long as they are reliable, choose the one that feels the best. If two of them feel about equal, by all means choose the more accurate one, but in all likelihood, if you want to impress people at the range with your accuracy, you’re going to have to upgrade to a non-concealable pistol.

                1. With a good holster (CCC Gesalt) and good belt (511), I can comfortably conceal a full sized Beretta 92 under a loose buttonup shirt.

                  1. I can conceal a 1911 with minor effort. There’s no way my wife can do that.

                    Open carry has issues all its own, but at least you don’t have to dress around the gun…

              3. Bra shopping is made infinitely easier by applying scientific methods of data recording.

                … which I suppose one could apply to gun shopping as well.

                At any rate, I find that small of the back is the easiest place for me to carry. I do so on a separate belt than the one that holds my pants up, because having my gun on the pants-belt is all but guaranteed to dump the gun on the bathroom floor.

                It’s also been a great incentive to exercise – if I can manage to lose some inches about my waist, my work shirts should start falling in a way that will… make me look exactly as fat as I currently am while hiding my gun better. Bonus though – taking the gun off makes you look four inches smaller.

                1. One of the many advantages of a shoulder rig is you never have to worry about embarrassing bathroom incidents, getting hung up in chair arms, seat belt hassles, etc.

                2. I found small of the back carry, extremely uncomfortable for driving or anytime I am required to sit in a chair with a back in it. If I was doing nothing but walking around all day, it would be perfectly comfortable. Again, you need a loose, untucked shirt, however.

                  1. That is a good point. I have a swayback, so that part doesn’t really bother me at all.

                    As always YMMV!

                3. Learned from the Cornered Cat: if you small-of-the-back carry, beware of leaning back in wooden pews. Imagine “the thunk heard ’round the world” followed by “ow, ow, ow” or words to that effect . . .

            3. Personally, I have big hands, and find the Beretta 92 to be just the right size for me.

  11. A couple of weeks back one of my more liberal friends posted a meme that said “Shouldn’t the police be more outraged about police abuse?”

    For some reason she didn’t think we are.

    1. Well, when somebody in my field does something bad, I don’t shout it out to the world if it is already being dealt with.

      I take notes to improve my own practice, and to better lead, inform and watch my fellows. The public has a right to know, but the information is available if they look, and the layman will be better informed if they do their own digging. I have time for the layman, but they’d need more understanding than I can wrap up in bow and give them. I mostly find out about wrongdoing in my field when the people in charge of enforcement remind us what we shouldn’t be doing.

      The journalists by and large cannot evaluate work in my field. I would not trust them to detect truly heinous acts of malpractice.

      I suspect law enforcement are quietly outraged, and apply it cold bloodedly to their own practice. De escalation is a major tool of law enforcement, and I expect that y’all prefer to avoid careless public statements. Inciting a mob versus reflection, prayer, and things you actually can address.

    2. Stipulating that said friend is correct, police should be more outraged by such abuses of authority, how does she think they ought express that? By joining in the protest marches? (They do — by protecting them while being showered with abuse.) By going out on strike, leaving the populace unprotected? By going on television and egging on their critics criticizing their leadership?

      Perhaps by quietly resolving to be better prepared, to support their fellow officers in upholding high standards, and by making extra efforts to show respect to citizens? How would we know if that was happening?

      This is why it is always good practice to think things through.

    3. Y’know… It’s kinda odd, but I keep hearing folks in law enforcement, including some of my friends, talk about how they enforce standards, and are outraged at cases of criminality amongst themselves, but… I see damn little actual evidence that these guys actually, y’know, do anything about it.

      Case in point, and pretty much what I’m used to seeing and hearing every time this issue comes up was that one up in Fox Lake, Illinois. Lieutenant Joe Gliniewicz? Remember him? Supposedly murdered by three “suspicious men”, and who turned out to be a petty criminal who embezzled money from the Police Explorer’s club, solicited a hit man, and mentored his son into defrauding the Army? Yeah? I gotta ask you–Did he work in a f**king vacuum, or something? Nobody, at any point in his career of crime, noted what he was up to, and exercised some freakin’ initiative to “police their own”? Somewhere, on one of the gun boards I post on, one of his co-workers piped up and said something to the effect of “Oh, yeah… I knew he was doing stuff, but none of the supervisors would ever do anything about it, so I just moved on…”.

      Seems like an awful lot of that same sort of thing goes on, in the police world. I never hear or read, or witness “bad cops” being dealt with by their peers; all I hear or read about is these guys finally getting busted by their own hubris, and getting caught trading blow jobs for tickets with teenage girls. Afterwards, all the other cops always say “Yeah, we had no idea…”, and I’m looking at that going “Huh? He was taking them to the damn police station to get those blow jobs in the office, and you never noticed anything “odd” about it? WTF?

      I think an overall case could well be made for standards and conduct to have slipped across the entire cultural board, but what I see in a lot of cases involving the police is direly egregious, and on a par with the current number of teachers getting caught boinking their underage students. It’s a societal lapse, and where it comes from, I don’t know. I also don’t know the fix, but I can damn sure identify it happening in front of me.

      1. It seems to me that I’ve read similar criticisms of The Church (pick one), Academia, Charity and of the military, where stories of double-dealing, pilfering, nest-feathering officers, NCOs, quartermasters and everybody else have been reported since the nation’s beginnings.

        It is almost as if human organizations, comprised of human beings, display human failings.

        I am shocked, shocked.

        1. Mmmm… It’s not so much the human failings that irritate me, but the “appeal to authority” a lot of cops make, saying that they police their own, when… Well, a lot of them just don’t. They say they do, but when it comes time for them to fall on their swords and actually do something effective about the misconduct, they avert eyes and act as though they don’t see anything.

          Same problem shows up in the military, and I won’t lie to anyone that it doesn’t. You have the same issues in the teaching profession; I know one of the women who taught in the same school as Mary Kay Letourneau, and she freely admits that she knew something hinky was going on, as did a bunch of others, but nobody wanted to be the bad guy, so they looked the other way until they couldn’t.

          Somewhere in the last few generations, it seems as though we lost the ability to actually act when we saw something illegitimate going on in the institutions we work in. My oh-so-prim-and-proper grandmother would have likely been leading a lynch mob, had she discovered a Mary Kay Letourneau in her midst, reported it, and witnessed nothing being done–But, she was a product of late-19th Century values and mores, and that was the way she operated. I’m not so sure that mentality still exists, to tell the truth. We sure as hell aren’t doing anything to inculcate it into the youth, that’s for sure.

          It may be that the whole thing is cyclic, and we’re just at the bottom of several different curves. In which case, I’m gonna go out on a limb and predict the day may come when guys like Gliniewicz just get popped in the back of the head by one of their peers, and nobody even blinks when the guy who pulled the trigger says “Had to do it… For all of us…”.

          1. Somewhere in the last few generations, it seems as though we lost the ability to actually act when we saw something illegitimate going on in the institutions we work in.

            DON’T BE JUDGMENTAL! It’s taught in the schools. Can’t be judgmental. It hurts people’s feeling. Hurting people’s feelings is bad, and must not be done by all right thinking people.

            It started after I went through school, graduated HS in 1973. So it hasn’t been generations- yet. But when you’re taught not to make judgments, this is what you get.

            My kids ARE judgmental. We were able to overcome liberal indoctrination. With help. Among other help: “A Scout is Trustworthy, Loyal….”

            I think the worst misunderstanding of societal roles I’ve seen was when a young women of my acquaintance (almost wrote lady), getting married for the 3rd time, to the man she got pregnant with while married to husband #2, complained her preacher wouldn’t marry them. With the words, “She’s a minister! They’re supposed to be non-judgmental!” Several of us older people in the vicinity swallowed laughter. test test over.

            1. There’s a church I drive by on a fairly frequent basis with a banner, “Jesus didn’t reject people. Neither do we.”

              Alternative view;

              “You are the salt of the earth. But if salt loses its taste, with what can it be seasoned? It is no longer good for anything but to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.”

              “If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed than with two hands to go into Gehenna, into the unquenchable fire. And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life crippled than with two feet to be thrown into Gehenna. And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. Better for you to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into Gehenna, where ‘their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.'”

              “If any one comes to me without hating his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple. Which of you wishing to construct a tower does not first sit down and calculate the cost to see if there is enough for its completion? Otherwise, after laying the foundation and finding himself unable to finish the work the onlookers should laugh at him and say, ‘This one began to build but did not have the resources to finish.’ Or what king marching into battle would not first sit down and decide whether with ten thousand troops he can successfully oppose another king advancing upon him with twenty thousand troops? But if not, while he is still far away, he will send a delegation to ask for peace terms. In the same way, everyone of you who does not renounce all his possessions cannot be my disciple.”

            2. With the words, “She’s a minister! They’re supposed to be non-judgmental!”

              What a judgmental thing to say.l

      2. “Nobody, at any point in his career of crime, noted what he was up to”

        Probably not. It’s not like he would have “9 am: Embezzle money. 10:30 am: Interview prospective hitmen” on his Outlook calendar or leave a copy of Defrauding the Army for Dummies on his desk. The guy was trained in investigative techniques, we can assume he didn’t leave any obvious traces. Remember that a good number of crimes are never solved.

        1. Yeah. Someone forward thinking with self control who knows how everyone who looks at a place might think can be really effective at evading detection. Especially if the people they are trying to counter are rewarded by how well they deal with idiots.

        2. Yeah, see, here’s the thing: The odds that nobody noticed what he was up to, over the course of his career? Nil. You work in that kind of environment, it’s not like the guys on your left and right aren’t seeing what you do, and how you act. It’s one of those things–You see a guy chisel on little things, cheat the system here, screw someone over there, and pretty soon, you know your peers. And, nobody says a damn thing about it–Until the interviews after the fact, when it’s “Well, I always suspected, but…”.

          I walked into a unit where some seriously shady crap had been going on for a very long time, and the thing that just blew my mind was talking to all the “uninvolved parties” were, after the fact, all up front about knowing what was going on. But, here’s the key thing: None of them wanted to “rock the boat” by actually doing anything and exposing the malfeasance that was going on. Why? Because it would have been too hard to turn in their buddy and their boss for the bullshit he was doing out in the open, that everyone knew about. I’m looking around at some of these people, and I’m flabbergasted that they did what they did. Moral courage was completely absent, and what I found really disturbing was that they didn’t see it as though they were lacking that quality–It was just “Well, it didn’t seem like it was that serious…”. My response to one of them, who was someone I’d known elsewhere and had had some respect for, was “Oh, so you’d have done something when he killed someone, huh? Is that what it would have taken you to get off your ass and do something…?”.

          It was like I was talking to a blind man about color.

          You can see the same sort of syndrome playing out in a lot of these situations, hear the same words from the peers. This is a disease across society, and I really don’t know how much more prevalent it is today than it was in the past. Were all these teachers boinking students doing it back when, and just not getting caught, or do we have a higher rate of moral degeneracy happening? I wish I had the perspective to be able to know the reality of this, because it seems as though an increase in the rate of this sort of thing might be a bit of a socio-cultural indicator, y’know?

  12. I hold that republics and democracies are distinct things.

    Democracies could and did change their laws around to fit the situation if enough people wanted.

    For me, a Republic is a deal whose terms are held to even when inconvenient. Sometimes because there are many parties, and what is inconvenient for one is convenient for another.

    Our nation was founded by people with both sentiments, because both were the status quo ante bellum in pieces and patches across the colonies.

    Our civil war was between the two sentiments: The Union could read a mandate in the precise terms of the Constitution. The Confederacy had mustered the balance of local political support.

    Lynching is democratic. The consensus of the mob is that the victims be killed.

    Our republican process, the terms we have agreed to, involve attempting to carefully and coldbloodedly evaluate each incident. Saying ‘the police are right’ or ‘the police are wrong’ involves grouping a bunch of separate incidents and judging them together. I decline to do so.

    Some incidents I have enough information to have an opinion on, and most I do not.

    I do not think the status quo is so flawed that we must renegotiate our terms.

    Am I entirely satisfied? No, I am a contrarian asshole and a horrible human being. I realize that there is no possibility that would leave me entirely satisfied.

    I have ideas for things I think might improve things, but anyone would be a fool to go along with me just because they are upset.

    If changes are appropriate, the republican process we have agreed to makes them slow and deliberate. Not when the mob is out with pitchforks, and ex post facto.

    1. Given your position it is likely you will find this an interesting hour and a half, one which will help sharpen your arguments:

      Book Discussion on Our Republican Constitution
      Randy Barnett talked about his book Our Republican Constitution: Securing the Liberty and Sovereignty of We the People, in which he argues that the disagreement between Democrats and Republicans is based on their differing interpretations of the Constitution and the meaning of the phrase “We the People.”

      Text available at site, but transcription often seems done by someone for whom English is (at best) their fourth language.

  13. From what I’ve read, in multiple sources over many years, police are generally not very good shots. For the most part, they don’t spend hours at the range practicing as a hobbyist does. They spend the minimum amount of time practicing to be able to qualify, and don’t care if it’s with a perfect score or just good enough.

    Having said that, just before I graduated HS, the police in my town answered an armed robbery call from a bank in the town next door. The perp fired upon the officer, who fired ONE shot back, going through the perps heart. The day before, the officer, who was also an obsessed hobbyist, had won the county police officer sharpshooting championship. The robber made a poor choice of banks to rip of that day. In all likelihood, the mandatory investigation in the aftermath of any police shooting probably took about 5 minutes in that case. Local papers praised the officers coolness under fire.

    1. For many cops, they would *love* to be able to practice, but there’s no budget for ammo, no police range to practice at, and long hours preclude doing much on their own.

      I have seen a small-town cop taking a class, in the basement range of a different PD (verra nice range, too). His town was even paying for it, which was smart. But the class was two days long, on the weekend, and they expected you to bring 600 rounds on your own dime. Not many people can do that.

  14. Because it is useful to keep always in mind that there are many and conflicting viewpoints about the police officers’ role in society:

    One of many images that pop up when you Google “how we see police officers meme”

        1. Yup. When you hear an ambulance go past and think, “Hmm, the intersection on the highway, the new stoplight, or Louie on a payday bender? No, Louie’s still in the pokie, so it’s probably AJ and Miguel in the parking lot of the Prancing Pony again.”

        1. I don’t know what you did, but I suspect she did. 😉

          Note, I remember an old movie where this elderly school teacher (female) had to be checked into the hospital.

          This young nurse entered the room and said “Now we are going to take a bath”.

          The elderly school teacher looked sternly at the nurse and said “You may be going to give me a bath but I doubt that we are going to take a bath”. 👿

          1. Note: I think the movie was “Good Morning Miss Dove”. 😉

  15. All *I* ask for is for police to be held to, AT MINIMUM, the same standards the rest of us would be held to for shooting someone. And given that they are agents of the crown, they should be held to higher standards.

    Standard disclaimer than yes, I agree one should not automatically assume police malfeasance, nor do I have any patience at all with these people going around hunting cops.

    However, if you think *you* could shoot someone in the leg like chat cuz “I thought the autistic person next to him had a gun” and not end up in jail, you’ve got several other thinks coming.

    1. I don’t know about where you live, but if the cops here are agents of the crown, they need to be tried for treason.

          1. Reports that Sanders supporters are planning to chant “Locke Her Up!” during Hillary appearances (or maybe it was just for Debbie Whassername Schultz) almost has me interested in watching the Democrats’ convention.

  16. You’ve got one major political party going out of their way to demonize cops while both major political parties are militarizing and arming the police to the teeth and the media acts as cheerleaders for tyranny.

    You’ve got practically zero accountabliity for public officials, from the cop on the street to Hillary Effin’ Clinton.

    You’ve got a police mentality that’s switched from “peace officer” to “law enforcement officer,” with lots and lots of laws for those cops to enforce. “Three Felonies A Day,” remember? There’s pretty much no aspect of our lives that hasn’t been criminalized and regulated to the hilt.

    And at the end of each of those laws and regulations is some schmo with a badge and a gun.

    You’ve also got a bureaucracy and judicial system that has been thoroughly politicized and racialized. And in the process such things as equality before the law, due process and probable case have been thrown right out the window.

    It’s not so much as “rule of law” anymore, but the rule of lots and lots of laws, and those who create and enforce the laws can pick and choose which laws to enforce, when they want to enforce them and who they want to enforce them against. Which, among other things, is how you end up with the YouTube guy being Emmanuel Goldsteined for Benghazi and perp-walked on national television.

    And you wonder why people hate and fear cops? And do you think it’s going to get better any time soon?

  17. Reblogged this on The Arts Mechanical and commented:
    And thus some of the response I’m seeing over my cybercrime series. Which is stupid. The Policeman opened fire and all the other stuff happened because the people who made the stuff happen made it happen. What the victim did or does is irrelevant.

  18. Another off topic, this time a call for assistance from those who are awake still. I’m going live in a few minutes in our LuLaRoe FB group to do a trial run at live sales. It’s members only (or existing clients wouldn’t see it), but I’d appreciate folks checking it out for moral support and constructive criticism. I haven’t been on stage in several years, and I haven’t done realtime sales in over a year. *deep breath* Here it goes…

    1. Someone had to be punished, and we all know it won’t be Hillary, so . . .

    2. Sorry about the busted rhyme in line two, but there are not a lot of words that rhyme with Schultz.

      I considered:

      Gave her Email to the Russkies but the Russkies dumped schmutz
      Gave her Email to the Russkies but they called her a putz
      Gave her Email to the Russkies but they said she’s a klutz
      Gave her Email to the Russkies but Russkies aren’t into cults
      Gave her Email to the Russkies but they said she insults
      Gave her Email to the Russkies but the Russkies opted for dumps

      But there just are not many commonly used words in English that end in that “ultz” sound. I thought about adults, but there don’t seem to be any in the Democrat party.

      Still, Posner is a moron.

Comments are closed.