Shit, if it came down to it and I was starving, I'd probably eat all four starting with the pig and salad flowed by the dog and if it was the only thing left, then the daisies.
All the best,
Glenn B
Sunday, February 22, 2015
When Vegans Ask - Just Show Them This
Shit, if it came down to it and I was starving, I'd probably eat all four starting with the pig and salad flowed by the dog and if it was the only thing left, then the daisies.
All the best,
Glenn B
Glock Knocks The 1911 Down A Notch Or Three
What more can you say but that the Glock 19 must be one hell of a fine pistol when United States Marines prefer it over the once veritable choice of our armed forces - the 1911. Marines assigned to the Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command (aka: MARSOC) have been given the option of choosing the Glock 19 in 9mm over the Colt Defense LLC custom built 1911, the Colt M45 Close Quarter Battle Pistol, in .45 ACP (source).
The custom built Colt M45 1911 pistols were chosen as the issue weapon for MARSOC in 2012 to replace Beretta M9s. The contract called for 12,000 of them plus spare parts and magazines at a whopping $1,875 each (source). Reportedly, most of the Marines currently within that command prefer the Glock over the 1911 although it was not specified as to whether it was a Gen 3 or Gen 4 model 19 that was chosen (source).
I have both a Glock 26 and a Remington R1 1911. I also carried a Glock 19 for many years at work. I loved my issued Glock 19, issued Glock 26 and love my personally owned Glock 26 but I also love my Remington R1 1911. I have to say though that for sheer simplicity of operation the hands down winner is the Glock. In addition, I can take the Glock apart and put it back together myself, I do not need a gunsmith to fix whatever might go wrong with it. (Yes, I am a certified Glock armorer but just about anyone who can handle a pistol properly could learn to do the same.) I surely cannot do that with the 1911 and if I could, my guess would be, it would require a set of tools to do so as opposed to the single punch pin style tool required to strip a Glock down. Also, no Glock I have ever fired ever has required a break-in period, tooling or customizing to have it deliver excellent performance; I don't think that the same can be said for many 1911s.
I am not going to debate knockdown potential of the 9mm compared to the .45ACP. I don't know why they opted for the Model 19 in 9mm over a Glock in .45ACP but that is what they have chosen as an option to the 1911. More rounds, less recoil maybe are the reasons but that also equates to less stopping power from each round. Of course, it may also mean better accuracy for a fatigued shooter and you can bet that Marines get fatigued while doing their jobs.
Whatever the reason, Gaston Glock is probably very pleased about it all.
All the best,
Glenn B
 |
| Colt M45 Close Quarter Battle Pistol |
The custom built Colt M45 1911 pistols were chosen as the issue weapon for MARSOC in 2012 to replace Beretta M9s. The contract called for 12,000 of them plus spare parts and magazines at a whopping $1,875 each (source). Reportedly, most of the Marines currently within that command prefer the Glock over the 1911 although it was not specified as to whether it was a Gen 3 or Gen 4 model 19 that was chosen (source).
I have both a Glock 26 and a Remington R1 1911. I also carried a Glock 19 for many years at work. I loved my issued Glock 19, issued Glock 26 and love my personally owned Glock 26 but I also love my Remington R1 1911. I have to say though that for sheer simplicity of operation the hands down winner is the Glock. In addition, I can take the Glock apart and put it back together myself, I do not need a gunsmith to fix whatever might go wrong with it. (Yes, I am a certified Glock armorer but just about anyone who can handle a pistol properly could learn to do the same.) I surely cannot do that with the 1911 and if I could, my guess would be, it would require a set of tools to do so as opposed to the single punch pin style tool required to strip a Glock down. Also, no Glock I have ever fired ever has required a break-in period, tooling or customizing to have it deliver excellent performance; I don't think that the same can be said for many 1911s.
I am not going to debate knockdown potential of the 9mm compared to the .45ACP. I don't know why they opted for the Model 19 in 9mm over a Glock in .45ACP but that is what they have chosen as an option to the 1911. More rounds, less recoil maybe are the reasons but that also equates to less stopping power from each round. Of course, it may also mean better accuracy for a fatigued shooter and you can bet that Marines get fatigued while doing their jobs.
Whatever the reason, Gaston Glock is probably very pleased about it all.
All the best,
Glenn B
Saturday, February 21, 2015
An Almost Forgotten Classic
This is one hell of a great song but I am sure that the Dew Drop Inn in this song is not the same as the one where I used to tip a few (although it doesn't sound all that much different).
All the best,
Glenn B
Just Ordered A Brick of 22 LR...
..at Palmetto State Armory and still almost can't believe that by the time I receive it I will have paid a total of $54.40 for it. It worked out to $39.90 for ten 50 round boxes, plus $3.50 shipping (additional shipping over the shipping for the other part of my order). I will also have to pay an additional $10 for the transfer to me from an FFL here in NY.
Just the ammo alone going for $40 still befuddles me. Virtually all other ammo has come down considerably in price (with the exception of M855 that just skyrocketed but that is another story) in recent months and availability of virtually all ammo has gone way up (again excepting M855) but for some reason 22LR is still priced sky high by most dealers. The one online exception I have seen is Cabella's but finding it available with them at their lower price is like hitting the lottery.
It's not like the ammo I just ordered is anything special either, it's Magtech 22LR, standard velocity, 40gr lead round nose ammo. I figure a decent price for it would be between .04 to .05 cents per round. I bought it anyway; I really am concerned that within the remaining time he has in office, president Obama and his cronies/henchmen will attempt something that will drive prices of ammunition even higher (like a new tax) or may even attempt to place an outright ban on all ammo sales.
I probably would not have bought it as a stand alone item but figured, since I was already buying a hundred rounds of .308 WIN ammunition, I might as well add one brick's worth of it to the order. That only added another $3.50 to the shipping charge and the transfer fee in NY remains the same no matter how much ammo is in a single order. Such a deal, maybe I should have bought two or three or...
Now the long wait to receive it - PSA is notorious for taking about 2 weeks to ship an order. I don't mind the wait, I have more than enough 22LR to hold me over until then and well beyond.
By the way, Palmetto State Armory had a fairly decent price on Prvi Partizan .308 WIN, 180 grain, soft point ammo at $13.99 per box. I know I could have gotten a better price, by maybe a penny or two a round, on this particular 308 ammo but customer loyalty played a part in this order. Anyway, had I gotten it elsewhere, they probably would not have had the 22LR ammo in stock and maybe not the reliability that PSA is known for either.
All the best,
Glenn B
Just the ammo alone going for $40 still befuddles me. Virtually all other ammo has come down considerably in price (with the exception of M855 that just skyrocketed but that is another story) in recent months and availability of virtually all ammo has gone way up (again excepting M855) but for some reason 22LR is still priced sky high by most dealers. The one online exception I have seen is Cabella's but finding it available with them at their lower price is like hitting the lottery.
It's not like the ammo I just ordered is anything special either, it's Magtech 22LR, standard velocity, 40gr lead round nose ammo. I figure a decent price for it would be between .04 to .05 cents per round. I bought it anyway; I really am concerned that within the remaining time he has in office, president Obama and his cronies/henchmen will attempt something that will drive prices of ammunition even higher (like a new tax) or may even attempt to place an outright ban on all ammo sales.
I probably would not have bought it as a stand alone item but figured, since I was already buying a hundred rounds of .308 WIN ammunition, I might as well add one brick's worth of it to the order. That only added another $3.50 to the shipping charge and the transfer fee in NY remains the same no matter how much ammo is in a single order. Such a deal, maybe I should have bought two or three or...
Now the long wait to receive it - PSA is notorious for taking about 2 weeks to ship an order. I don't mind the wait, I have more than enough 22LR to hold me over until then and well beyond.
By the way, Palmetto State Armory had a fairly decent price on Prvi Partizan .308 WIN, 180 grain, soft point ammo at $13.99 per box. I know I could have gotten a better price, by maybe a penny or two a round, on this particular 308 ammo but customer loyalty played a part in this order. Anyway, had I gotten it elsewhere, they probably would not have had the 22LR ammo in stock and maybe not the reliability that PSA is known for either.
All the best,
Glenn B
Global Warming (aka: Climate Change) Has Me Hopeful...
...that someday soon, I will once again see a sight like this blissful scene:
In fact, Global Warming, or Climate Change (if you will) has warmed it up in my neck of the woods to an astounding 30 degrees Fahrenheit today! Can you imagine that, it's 30 friggin degrees - a veritable heat spell compared to what it has been lately.
The next thing you know it will be spring and trees will be budding and the Crosuses will be blooming and I'll be complaining about yard work.
All the best,
Glenn B
 |
| East Branch of the Delaware River, New York State. |
The next thing you know it will be spring and trees will be budding and the Crosuses will be blooming and I'll be complaining about yard work.
All the best,
Glenn B
Che Guevara - A Brutal Killer & Commie
Che Guevara "...a good roll model for all of us...". I did not make that up, someone reportedly marching in an American Teachers' Union rally actually said that. Watch the look on her face when the reporter asked her to tell him a little bit about Che. That she knew almost nothing historically verifiable about him was obvious immediately, that she was the typical loony leftist who would say anything to support her ideology, whether truthful or not (such as her saying that he fought for labor rights and is a good roll model), became readily apparent within the time it took for only a couple of sentences to come out of her mouth. Imagine, she could be in a classroom educating indoctrinating your children.
Pay attention to the below video, she certainly was not the only one at that march with a similar attitude, look at all the others wearing Che Guevara t-shirts. They are the so called educators of our children. They should be ashamed of themselves. If President Obama ever wanted to apologize for the behavior of any of our citizens, that would be a good place to start but somehow I imagine he has at least one of those shirts in his own closet.He probably wears it as a nightie.
Really, pay attention to the video, learn a little history about the man that so many on the left idolize.
Pay attention to the below video, she certainly was not the only one at that march with a similar attitude, look at all the others wearing Che Guevara t-shirts. They are the so called educators of our children. They should be ashamed of themselves. If President Obama ever wanted to apologize for the behavior of any of our citizens, that would be a good place to start but somehow I imagine he has at least one of those shirts in his own closet.
Really, pay attention to the video, learn a little history about the man that so many on the left idolize.
Che Guevara was a cold blooded killer who killed in the name of a revolution to instate communism. Communists have been responsible for more summary executions than were the Nazis. Did you catch the quote about not being able to determine if people were guilty before executing them, it is despicable.
If you don't believe that about him, that he was a heinous killer, and an oppressive tyrant, go to the history books and look it up or if you prefer - use the Internet. It's all there for you to see if you look for it as opposed to just seeking out leftist propaganda that glorifies him. Yet, for some reason, the same leftists who support trash like him want to take away my right to keep and bear arms. Screw them, stopping guys like him is one of the reasons we all should be well armed.
All the best,
Glenn B
Irrefutable
You may think that just so much fluff but in fact everything in it is supported by the attitude of 43% of the Democrat party. A recent Rasmussen poll has shown that a whopping 43% of demoncrats Democrats believe that President Obama should be allowed to disregard the courts when he decides to do so.
Along those same lines, President Obama criticized and faulted his predecessor President George W. Bush for allegedly disregarding the Constitution and Congress. Obama stated that if he were president he would reverse what he claimed GWB was doing. The truth be told, regarding virtually every of Bush's policies that Obama denounced, once he was in office, Obama extended or expanded on those policies (and created new and even more egregiously illegal ones) while exercising an utter, contemptible and illegal disregard of the Constitution, the Courts and the Congress.
I had thought that GWB was bad in his disregard for the Constitution on some issues but everything Obama does has intensified exactly the things for which Obama faulted Bush and more. In that regard, Obama has established himself as the Tyrant King of the American Presidency. As I best recall history, we in essence threw the last king and his minion out on their arses.
A hat tip and my thanks to Peter Q for the poster.
All the best,
Glenn B
Friday, February 20, 2015
For The Gun Owning Pussy Lover
Some guys love guns, some guys love pussy, some guys love both. The perfect thing, for the ones who love both (the gun owning pussy lovers), is right here.
All the best,
Glenn B
All the best,
Glenn B
Bobblehead Bomber
I used to have a Bobblehead Mohammad Bomber. For the life of me, I cannot remember what I did with it or what happened to it. I doubt I gave it away or lost it and while it is possible that the wife threw it out when I was away on a work assignment, I get the
extremely vague feeling, if not exactly a recollection, that it wasstolen lifted from my desk when I worked for the G. Of course, I may have lost it on 9/11 in the Custom House at 6WTC. I really don't remember one way or the other with any certainty.
Now, I don't know exactly why it has come to mind, again and again, but it sure has been coming to mind quite a bit over the past several days. So much so that I sure wish I could find that one or at least a source for another one. I checked on Amazon, at Ebay and by doing a general search of the web but found nothing available. In fact, I could only find a single photograph of one online but it is exactly as I remeber the one I had so long ago.
Anyone know of a source?
All the best,
Glenn B
extremely vague feeling, if not exactly a recollection, that it was
Now, I don't know exactly why it has come to mind, again and again, but it sure has been coming to mind quite a bit over the past several days. So much so that I sure wish I could find that one or at least a source for another one. I checked on Amazon, at Ebay and by doing a general search of the web but found nothing available. In fact, I could only find a single photograph of one online but it is exactly as I remeber the one I had so long ago.
Anyone know of a source?
All the best,
Glenn B
That Under The Weather Thing Continues
Went to Costco late this afternoon. I hate it there when it is crowded, especially on Friday afternoons and had I thought of what day it was, I would have waited until tomorrow in the middle of our expected snowfall to have gone then. Anyway, I am still feeling so crappy, I don't know why I went at all. Yeah, I was feeling somewhat better yesterday but whatever bug I have hit back with a vengeance today and I have been hacking away most of the day. I guess those little germ bastards don't like whatever antibiotic I am taking and are fighting back; hopefully they will lose and will not start eating the antibiotic with gusto.
Well, once back home, when I walked in the door, there was my daughter for an unexpected visit. She and my son were gracious enough to help out with all the stuff from Costco which was not all that much but enough to just about knock me out in my current condition. Once I got all the stuff out of the car and to the doorway, they helped me bring it inside. It really had dragged me down to get that done and I started hacking nonstop for a good long time - too long a time. Too bad I forgot to hit the pharmacy for the prescription cough medicine that awaits me there before I came home. Well, as I was hacking away, what does my daughter tell me?????????? She says I am to be her designated driver tonight after she gets sloshed at happy hour somewhere (to be announced later when she calls me to get her). She will be lucky if I am alive, let alone feeling like picking her up, when she calls judging by how I feel right now.
Oh well, probably better me than her behind the wheel if she will have been drinking. Time to take a rest before I have to pick her up. Maybe this time I will remember to also hit the pharmacy.
Lest I forget to mention it, allow me to add, at least my bout of gout seems to have ended and that is a very good thing indeed.
All the best,
Glenn B
Well, once back home, when I walked in the door, there was my daughter for an unexpected visit. She and my son were gracious enough to help out with all the stuff from Costco which was not all that much but enough to just about knock me out in my current condition. Once I got all the stuff out of the car and to the doorway, they helped me bring it inside. It really had dragged me down to get that done and I started hacking nonstop for a good long time - too long a time. Too bad I forgot to hit the pharmacy for the prescription cough medicine that awaits me there before I came home. Well, as I was hacking away, what does my daughter tell me?????????? She says I am to be her designated driver tonight after she gets sloshed at happy hour somewhere (to be announced later when she calls me to get her). She will be lucky if I am alive, let alone feeling like picking her up, when she calls judging by how I feel right now.
Oh well, probably better me than her behind the wheel if she will have been drinking. Time to take a rest before I have to pick her up. Maybe this time I will remember to also hit the pharmacy.
Lest I forget to mention it, allow me to add, at least my bout of gout seems to have ended and that is a very good thing indeed.
All the best,
Glenn B
Lightweight RazorSword - I Am Sure NY State Will Ban It Soon...
...or maybe it's already banned. I mean, after all, NY State Senator Tony Avella is currently trying to ban machetes so why not also ban this sword! Whatever the case in NY, the embedded video gives a brief demo of an interesting product, the Lightweight Razor Sword by RazorRazor that will probably remain commercially available in free states.
I have to say, it sure looks like a lethal surprise and as if it could be quite effective in a bad situation. Personally though, I would probably never carry one. Anything that apparently requires me to wear my belt, a does good the man in the video, without passing it through all of my belt loops would be problematic. First off - my pants would be falling, secondly - my strong side hip holster would not be secure or maybe not possible to wear with one of these belts as far as I can tell. Then there is the fact that some of the blades are laminate bladed. Laminate makes me think of the word separation but maybe that is just me who thinks like that - so enough said on that. Of course, there is also the fact that I am no swordsman.
The company offers a variety of such swords and also offers daggers to fit a similar style belt containment method. They all look deadly but even in the other videos I watched, videos showing the daggers and other swords, the belt seemingly was never placed through all of the belt loops on the guy's pants. It would seem at least next to impossible, if not actually impossible, to be able to rapidly deploy a sword or dagger so concealed if the belt went through all of the loops, especially through the most forward belt loops. Thus, my guess is that it is next to impossible to use the RazorRazor belt concealment system as a belt to properly hold up pants and securely carry a gun while also using it for effective concealment and rapid deployment for this sword. That is just my guess though and I readily admit, no I did not watch every one of the at least 54 (yes - fifty four) videos this guy has on the company's video page to see if he ever passes the RazorSword belt concealment system through all of his belt loops.
Regardless of how many videos this guy has, and if the belt passes through the loops or not, I am not interested in these products enough for me to make an inquiry of the company. Not making the inquiry I just mentioned in that last, struck out, sentence would be less than responsible of me. So, what I just did was actually made a inquiry of RazorRazor via their contact page/form about whether or not the system can be utilized effectively while the sword belt concealment system passes through (under) all of the belt loops on a typical pair of trousers. I will probably repost any reply here on my blog as a follow-up post or comment within this post.
I have to say, it sure looks like a lethal surprise and as if it could be quite effective in a bad situation. Personally though, I would probably never carry one. Anything that apparently requires me to wear my belt, a does good the man in the video, without passing it through all of my belt loops would be problematic. First off - my pants would be falling, secondly - my strong side hip holster would not be secure or maybe not possible to wear with one of these belts as far as I can tell. Then there is the fact that some of the blades are laminate bladed. Laminate makes me think of the word separation but maybe that is just me who thinks like that - so enough said on that. Of course, there is also the fact that I am no swordsman.
The company offers a variety of such swords and also offers daggers to fit a similar style belt containment method. They all look deadly but even in the other videos I watched, videos showing the daggers and other swords, the belt seemingly was never placed through all of the belt loops on the guy's pants. It would seem at least next to impossible, if not actually impossible, to be able to rapidly deploy a sword or dagger so concealed if the belt went through all of the loops, especially through the most forward belt loops. Thus, my guess is that it is next to impossible to use the RazorRazor belt concealment system as a belt to properly hold up pants and securely carry a gun while also using it for effective concealment and rapid deployment for this sword. That is just my guess though and I readily admit, no I did not watch every one of the at least 54 (yes - fifty four) videos this guy has on the company's video page to see if he ever passes the RazorSword belt concealment system through all of his belt loops.
I am just stating my opinion here and will not try to encourage or discourage you from purchasing one of these items. Yet, I do recommend that if you are considering getting one of these systems and can't wait for me to receive and post that requested reply here, that you make such an inquiry yourself (if you want an answer in a hurry, their phone number is listed on the linked contact page) to determine if one of these suits your needs. My needs would be that the belt could be worn as a normal belt (under the loops) and still be effective to conceal the sword or a dagger while maintaining the capability of rapidly drawing the blade, act as a normal belt, and secure a firearm in a holster all at the same time; your needs might differ.
As for me, I think it not being under at least some of the loops potentially could be problematic in as much as I would foresee the sword (or dagger) possibly shifting out of concealment as you move this way or that way during the course of a day wearing it. Watch video 5 and you will see that merely turning the belt over and lifting it up a bit causes the dagger handle to pop out. Normally the front belt loops on your pants would prevent a belt from riding up or flipping over near the buckle. What is to prevent the belt from doing that when the belt does not pass under the loops - say as you climb in and out of a vehicle or do other activity that may cause the belt to flip and move up? It appears to me that nothing is preventing that from happening and that is another reason I am a bit leery of such a system but again that is merely my guess.
If anyone has personal experience with this sword containment system, it's utility and quality and how well it stands up after continued use, I encourage you to please leave a comment about your take on it. I am curious to learn more about it. In all, I think it could be a fairly effective way to conceal a sword or dagger and also be an effective surprise method of concealment and delivery for such a weapon within the limitations I see for it. As I said think I have already made clear, you can make up your own mind as whether or not to make a purchase and none of the above jabber is intended to persuade or dissuade you from legally purchasing any of these products.
As a side note, the next time you get into it with some dude wearing his belt without it passing through the loops, and he keeps fidgeting around the buckle - beware.
A Hat tip and my thanks to Kerry F for sending me the video.
All the best,
Glenn B
Thursday, February 19, 2015
I Almost Always Recommend A Strong Side Hip Holster...
...for both open and concealed carry of handgun. While carrying concealed, in an on the outside of the belt, or in an inside the waist band, hip holster does limit how you can dress - I usually explain, to someone asking about holsters, that limitation should be of minimal concern under most circumstances and furthermore that what is of primary concern is safety. Under most conditions, more so than with other holsters, a strong side hip holster assures you can draw on target without jeopardizing yourself or others as you otherwise might do when drawing from cross draw, shoulder, groin, or ankle holster or from something like a belly band or bra holster. It is virtually always better than carrying in pocket carry or carrying stuffed inside your waistband without a holster. With each of those other holsters, or types of carry, it is very likely you will cover yourself or someone else while drawing or that you will necessarily point the weapon in a direction other than at the target. The same goes for other concealment specialty holsters such as belly bands and bra holsters. You are simply less likely to ever point the weapon at yourself when drawing from a strong side hip holster if drawing with the strong side hand which would be the normal way to draw from one. It is almost always easier to holster a pistol, using only one hand (which can be a great tactical advantage) with a strong side hip holster (on the outside of the belt).
A single yet very sad example of why I do not like, use or recommend other types of holsters can be seen at this link in a brief article about a woman who accidentally and fatally shot herself while adjusting her bra holster. Of course, it may have been a good idea to have removed the gun from the holster before trying to adjust the fit of the holster on her body but I readily admit, I hike up my belt while the gun is in a hip holster on the belt; yet, never with a chance that I can think of that I would shoot myself with my pistol while secured in that type of a holster (at least in one that covers the trigger). Reaching inside my clothing to push around, let's say a groin holster, with the pistol still in it, would not be something I would do - it's small enough already. Likewise I would not recommend a woman reach down to adjust a bra holster while the pistol is in it; it's just too risky and as I said, I don't even recommend carry in that type of holster.
All the best,
Glenn B
A single yet very sad example of why I do not like, use or recommend other types of holsters can be seen at this link in a brief article about a woman who accidentally and fatally shot herself while adjusting her bra holster. Of course, it may have been a good idea to have removed the gun from the holster before trying to adjust the fit of the holster on her body but I readily admit, I hike up my belt while the gun is in a hip holster on the belt; yet, never with a chance that I can think of that I would shoot myself with my pistol while secured in that type of a holster (at least in one that covers the trigger). Reaching inside my clothing to push around, let's say a groin holster, with the pistol still in it, would not be something I would do - it's small enough already. Likewise I would not recommend a woman reach down to adjust a bra holster while the pistol is in it; it's just too risky and as I said, I don't even recommend carry in that type of holster.
All the best,
Glenn B
Gout Sucks...
...but luckily for me, I currently have only a minor bout of it. Yet, I still am feeling miserable from my so called bad cold. In fact, I was diagnosed today with an infection in my lungs or with bronchitis - luckily it is supposedly not pneumonia. Whatever it is, the doc was not very clear on it except to assure me I have a pulmonary infection so she started me on antibiotics.
That put the kibosh on an outpatient test (in the hospital while under anesthesia) on Monday, that now has to be rescheduled. I was hoping to get that unpleasantness over with sooner than later so, I did not need the infection let alone another bout of gout. Oh well, I'll have to pick up some Moonshine Cherries since cherries are supposed to do wonders for reducing uric acid in the blood.
Anyhow, Jay G over at MArooned is also suffering from a bout of gout. Why not stop by and leave him a comment wishing him well, I am sure he would appreciate it if you did so.
All the best,
Glenn B
That put the kibosh on an outpatient test (in the hospital while under anesthesia) on Monday, that now has to be rescheduled. I was hoping to get that unpleasantness over with sooner than later so, I did not need the infection let alone another bout of gout. Oh well, I'll have to pick up some Moonshine Cherries since cherries are supposed to do wonders for reducing uric acid in the blood.
 |
The Gout by James Gillray. Published May 14th 1799
and no one has illustrated it better since then.
|
All the best,
Glenn B
Wednesday, February 18, 2015
Sometimes You Probably Are Better Off Calling The Police...
...instead of trying to take care of business yourself. That holds especially true if you were involved in an incident that you got away from safely such as having arrived at home safe and sound and out of danger. Too bad the mom who was recently shot to death in Las Vegas and her son did not think that way. New information has revealed that after an initial incident (an apparent verbal altercation) with a group of guys in another car, during driving lessons for her 15 year old daughter, the mom and daughter headed home. Once at home, the mom had her armed son hop into her car with her and went back out looking for a carful of guys with whom she had just had an altercation. After finding them, she followed them for awhile, then she and her son headed back home. The thing is they went out looking for trouble and they found it - more than they expected because the guys in the car followed them home and at least one of them allegedly shot the mom. More here. I think they would have been much better off had they just called the police or maybe better yet had they just left it alone once she arrived home the first time or even better yet if her daughter had minded her own business because it was her action that apparently triggered the altercation. No, she did nothing that deserved her mom getting shot but when I look at the big picture, I see the possibility that at least three members of the family seem to maybe be the type that go out of their way to look for altercations. If that is the case; well, this time they found one that was way more than they could handle.
All the best,
Glenn B
All the best,
Glenn B
Stop On Over At Borepatch's Blog...
...to wish him well. He evidently was in a motorcycle crash and had to have surgery to put his collar bone back together and now has a "potential" bone infection. More here.
I swear by all that is everywhere, I am ever so happy I never let anyone talk me into getting myself a MC.
All the best,
GB
I swear by all that is everywhere, I am ever so happy I never let anyone talk me into getting myself a MC.
All the best,
GB
Don't Tread On Me
I don't know if the photographer named this picture or not but the title of this post would be more than apt.
It makes one hell of a wallpaper. You can download the full sized one here:
http://www.pickywallpapers.com/miscellaneous/guns/snake-and-gun-picture/
All the best,
Glenn B
It makes one hell of a wallpaper. You can download the full sized one here:
http://www.pickywallpapers.com/miscellaneous/guns/snake-and-gun-picture/
All the best,
Glenn B
Been Sick As A Dog...
...and feeling pretty miserable, aches and pains everywhere. I slept away most of yesterday and the day before and have been hacking away quite a bit. Been thinking I have bronchitis or just one hell of a cold. More blogging whenever I feel up to it
All the best,
GB
All the best,
GB
Sunday, February 15, 2015
Another Ammo Buying Frenzy?
Here we go again, another ammo buying frenzy evidently is well
underway (and please note I did not say definitely underway but the evidence seems to support that such is the case).
BATFE recently announced that it is moving to remove the exemption for 5.56x45mm M855 ammunition as armor piercing ammunition which would in effect make it illegal to manufacture, import or sell within the USA (at least in the commercial market). I got that wonderful news at three different sources: Knuckledraggin My Life Away, at Nobody Asked Me and at their source: the NRA/ILA. (I obviously was behind the times on that one since the NRA/ILA alert came out this past Friday; I have since resigned-up for alerts from them.)
That news spurred me on to check to see if I could find any available M855 at online retailers. I checked with 17 different online ammo dealers. Almost all of them that I checked were already out of stock although three (3) dealers had it at (one of them appeared to have it but did not list it as M855). In my opinion, all offered it at very over inflated prices – one for as much as about .72 cents per round (which would work out to about $720 plus dollars for 1K rounds). Here are the results of my search for 5.56x45mm M855 ammo, as of 1730 hours, on February 15, 2015:
Good luck finding any at a reasonable price within at least the next month. BATFE is accepting comments on the proposed change up until mid-March. Please see the NRA/ILA article on how to contact BATFE to oppose this change.
BATFE recently announced that it is moving to remove the exemption for 5.56x45mm M855 ammunition as armor piercing ammunition which would in effect make it illegal to manufacture, import or sell within the USA (at least in the commercial market). I got that wonderful news at three different sources: Knuckledraggin My Life Away, at Nobody Asked Me and at their source: the NRA/ILA. (I obviously was behind the times on that one since the NRA/ILA alert came out this past Friday; I have since resigned-up for alerts from them.)
That news spurred me on to check to see if I could find any available M855 at online retailers. I checked with 17 different online ammo dealers. Almost all of them that I checked were already out of stock although three (3) dealers had it at (one of them appeared to have it but did not list it as M855). In my opinion, all offered it at very over inflated prices – one for as much as about .72 cents per round (which would work out to about $720 plus dollars for 1K rounds). Here are the results of my search for 5.56x45mm M855 ammo, as of 1730 hours, on February 15, 2015:
AIM Surplus sold out of M855
Able Ammo M855 out of stock
Ammo Man – while they have 5.56x45mm 62g, FMJ ammo, none of
it is M855
Ammo Supply Warehouse out of stock
Cheaper Than Dirt none in stock although they offer 62 grain
5.56x45
Classic Firearms – no M855 in stock
Keep Shooting sold out M855
Lucky Gunner M855 out of stock
Midway USA M855 shown as out of stock or temporarily unavailable
depending on brand
Military Shooters no M855 in stock
Natchez Shooter’s Supplies out of stock M855
PSA M855 out of stock
Surplus Ammo - ammo labelled M855 not available in bulk
U.S.A.C. M855 none in stock
Some of the above sites were indexed on www.gunbot.net as having M855 in stock within the last few hours prior to my checking the actual sites;
however, when I checked with the actual sites they were almost all out of it. A few sites had it
in stock but at inflated prices:
Ammunition Depot had 150 round boxes of Federal American
Eagle 5.56 NATO 62 Grain XM855 FMJ Ammo at $67.47 per 150 rounds (about .45
cents per round) see this link.
Cabela’s has Winchester 62 grain, green tip ammo, for $12.99
per box of 20 (about .65 cents per round), see this link. Note: I am not certain if this is actually M855 spec ammo or not but it is shown as 62 grain, green tip.
J&G Sales has, what I think is, the outrageous price of $649.80 for 900 rounds
(about .72 cents per round) of Australian Defense Industries M855, see this link.
Good luck finding any at a reasonable price within at least the next month. BATFE is accepting comments on the proposed change up until mid-March. Please see the NRA/ILA article on how to contact BATFE to oppose this change.
All the best,
Glenn BRocks Can't Hurt Law Enforcement Officers - Yeah Right!
I remember, it was way back when I was a Border Patrol Agent, the agency head (or possibly one of the heads of the I&NS in general) came out with a statement that in essence said the agents were not justified to use deadly force against someone throwing rocks at them because rocks could not hurt us. A new policy came out that we should not shoot at rock throwers. If I remember correctly, it was less than a month later that a Border Patrol helicopter was flying low to the ground in the Chula Vista Sector of California when illegal aliens started to throw rocks at it. A rock evidently hit the rotor blade breaking it and that caused the helicopter crashed (source). Note, that as I recall this was in 1980 and not in 1979 asstated in the linked article but that is my memory speaking just as the article relied on another agent's recollection for the date. Also note that, in 1979 I was not in the field yet, I was at the academy, but my recollection is vivid as to the point that this took place while I was already actually working in the field in Calexico, CA. Then again my little grey cells are not as sharp as they once were once upon a time in the west.
Regardless of the time frame, I do not remember if the pilot or passenger were injured but the potential for them, or for anyone else in the chopper or on the ground under it, to be killed or badly injured was certainly there (just look at the photos in the above linked article). As I recall, the new policy about being unable to defend yourself against a rock thrower, by using deadly force, was rescinded almost immediately after the downing of the chopper.
I also remember having the windshield of my Border Patrol vehicle smashed by a rock thrown at me and glass winding up all over my face and in my eyes. That was because a group of wetbacks threw several rocks at me in an ambush for which they had set me up. I fired on a guy in the group, who was winding up to throw another rock at me, and was subsequently fully justified for having done so (too bad I missed). In another case, a brother agent, in Calexico, was afoot chasing an illegal alien and when he reached a blind corner. The illegal he was chasing ambushed him and a relatively large rock at him striking him in the testicles. They blew up to the size of grapefruits and the doctors at the time considered that injury to have been life threatening and believed he would possibly be sterile after the incident. There are many other cases of people being injured and even killed by rocks that have been thrown at them.
Yet for some reason today - just like with the head of the agency back then - politicians, bureaucrats, race baiting individuals and groups, and sometimes even the public in general seem to think that rocks being thrown at a law enforcement do not constitute deadly force being used against the officers. I just don't get it because they certainly are deadly weapons and when a deadly weapon is used against you it definitely constitutes deadly force. I suppose it is mostly political correctness gone amuck, ignorance or even anti law enforcement sentiment that would make someone believe a rock thrown at an officer cannot seriously injure or even kill the officer.
Such sentiments seem to be in play if the suspect in this linked article was throwing rocks at the police, as claimed by police and witnesses, then ran from them, then turned and appeared as if he was about to throw another (or even grab another to throw). However, the police involved are now the subject of a multi-million dollar lawsuit and the potential for criminal charges against the officers is being weighed. Tell me though, why would the police have been wrong to have shot him if the facts, as I just mentioned them, are correct? Of course, the actual facts could conflict with those I just stated; they are what I have gathered from news reports but my guess is that people are all to ready and willing to hang law enforcement officers even when they were justified in doing whatever it was they did that led to the controversy.
I would prefer to wait for all the facts to be presented and reviewed in an objective manner, unaffected by political correctness, police cronyism, racism and or money grubbing mud-shark lawyers, before anyone makes a decision on this one. I would also prefer that people wake up and realize that if you are going to attack a law enforcement official with deadly force, law enforcement officers involved are likely going to take appropriate defensive measures to stop you and those will include the use of deadly force to defend themselves. Just as you have a right to defend yourself against the unlawful use of deadly force, so too do law enforcement officers have the right to defend themselves.
All the best,
Glenn B
Regardless of the time frame, I do not remember if the pilot or passenger were injured but the potential for them, or for anyone else in the chopper or on the ground under it, to be killed or badly injured was certainly there (just look at the photos in the above linked article). As I recall, the new policy about being unable to defend yourself against a rock thrower, by using deadly force, was rescinded almost immediately after the downing of the chopper.
I also remember having the windshield of my Border Patrol vehicle smashed by a rock thrown at me and glass winding up all over my face and in my eyes. That was because a group of wetbacks threw several rocks at me in an ambush for which they had set me up. I fired on a guy in the group, who was winding up to throw another rock at me, and was subsequently fully justified for having done so (too bad I missed). In another case, a brother agent, in Calexico, was afoot chasing an illegal alien and when he reached a blind corner. The illegal he was chasing ambushed him and a relatively large rock at him striking him in the testicles. They blew up to the size of grapefruits and the doctors at the time considered that injury to have been life threatening and believed he would possibly be sterile after the incident. There are many other cases of people being injured and even killed by rocks that have been thrown at them.
Yet for some reason today - just like with the head of the agency back then - politicians, bureaucrats, race baiting individuals and groups, and sometimes even the public in general seem to think that rocks being thrown at a law enforcement do not constitute deadly force being used against the officers. I just don't get it because they certainly are deadly weapons and when a deadly weapon is used against you it definitely constitutes deadly force. I suppose it is mostly political correctness gone amuck, ignorance or even anti law enforcement sentiment that would make someone believe a rock thrown at an officer cannot seriously injure or even kill the officer.
Such sentiments seem to be in play if the suspect in this linked article was throwing rocks at the police, as claimed by police and witnesses, then ran from them, then turned and appeared as if he was about to throw another (or even grab another to throw). However, the police involved are now the subject of a multi-million dollar lawsuit and the potential for criminal charges against the officers is being weighed. Tell me though, why would the police have been wrong to have shot him if the facts, as I just mentioned them, are correct? Of course, the actual facts could conflict with those I just stated; they are what I have gathered from news reports but my guess is that people are all to ready and willing to hang law enforcement officers even when they were justified in doing whatever it was they did that led to the controversy.
I would prefer to wait for all the facts to be presented and reviewed in an objective manner, unaffected by political correctness, police cronyism, racism and or money grubbing mud-shark lawyers, before anyone makes a decision on this one. I would also prefer that people wake up and realize that if you are going to attack a law enforcement official with deadly force, law enforcement officers involved are likely going to take appropriate defensive measures to stop you and those will include the use of deadly force to defend themselves. Just as you have a right to defend yourself against the unlawful use of deadly force, so too do law enforcement officers have the right to defend themselves.
All the best,
Glenn B
Saudi Arabia Calling Killings Heinous Terrorist Act
Of course, they are not calling the killings committed by Muslim terrorists that. Wouldn't it be something noteworthy and a step in the right direction if the nation of Saudi Arabia condemned every killing of a Jew, Christian, Hindu, Muslim (or anyone else) by Islamic terrorists? Sure it would but that is not the case. What they did, by way of their official press agency, was to condemn the killings of the three Muslims in North Carolina as a "heinous terrorist" act. The killings they condemned were apparently motivated by a dispute over a parking spot and not by terrorist ideology. Whether or not that was a so called hate crime, and whether or not their religion was a factor, that played a part in the motive for their murders - the act was not terrorism per se. Yet, in Qatar, Muslims are marching in protests by the thousands and an Egypt based Muslim institute, al-Azhar, has called the killings of the three people in NC a "cowardly terrorist act." (Source.)
Even if it winds up being classified as terrorism by investigating authorities, what about all those other terrorist killings on which Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Muslim world have remained mum - the ones committed by Muslims. Sure, they have spoken out now and again on a few of them but for the most part they ignore them and by their silence are, in essence, supporting them.
Isn't Mecca in Saudi Arabia - if we nuked it until it glowed - wouldn't that give the Saudis and all of Islam a good reason to call something a heinous terrorist act and this time they would be right! (Yes, the sarcasm alert should be on, or on second thought...)
All the best,
Glenn B
Even if it winds up being classified as terrorism by investigating authorities, what about all those other terrorist killings on which Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Muslim world have remained mum - the ones committed by Muslims. Sure, they have spoken out now and again on a few of them but for the most part they ignore them and by their silence are, in essence, supporting them.
Isn't Mecca in Saudi Arabia - if we nuked it until it glowed - wouldn't that give the Saudis and all of Islam a good reason to call something a heinous terrorist act and this time they would be right! (Yes, the sarcasm alert should be on, or on second thought...)
All the best,
Glenn B
Saturday, February 14, 2015
Black Sabbath My All Time Favorite Album
Sometimes I actually give some little time wasting consideration to the question of what is my all time favorite album and I kind of teeter back and forth between a few from The Grateful Dead such as: Workingman's Dead (the original) or American Beauty or Reckoning (disc 1 & disk 2) or Grateful Dead (the album) as compared to Black Sabbath's first Album - Black Sabbath. Such was my mindset this evening and I arrived at my usual and unerring conclusion. Without a doubt, the hands down winner is Black Sabbath. Now, let me tell you, I was and remain a bigger fan of the Dead than I was ever of Black Sabbath. Yet, nothing in my mind beats that album for music or lyrics.
Listen to it here, and hopefully this is an unadulterated version:
I love it, not only because it was one of my first albums, if not the first album, I ever owned and not only because it was banned by the Catholic Church in its newspaper The Tablet but because it was and remains one hell (no pun intended) of an album. It is truly an excellent work.
My favorite set begins at about 27:43 and ends at about 38:08 in this version of the album.
By the way, for second place - it's probably a tie between one of those Grateful Dead albums I just mentioned. Man do they bring back memories of time gone by.
All the best,
Glenn B
Listen to it here, and hopefully this is an unadulterated version:
I love it, not only because it was one of my first albums, if not the first album, I ever owned and not only because it was banned by the Catholic Church in its newspaper The Tablet but because it was and remains one hell (no pun intended) of an album. It is truly an excellent work.
My favorite set begins at about 27:43 and ends at about 38:08 in this version of the album.
By the way, for second place - it's probably a tie between one of those Grateful Dead albums I just mentioned. Man do they bring back memories of time gone by.
All the best,
Glenn B
Food For Thought - Are Shooting Lessons Appropriate Mental Therapy
You know, I believe the guy who shot them should be executed (or at least wind up in jail for life) if convicted; yet, I also find myself pondering why they ever took a guy reportedly suffering from both PTSD and schizophrenia out shooting (source). I know the reason - on the face of it - was to help him. Still, I find myself asking did they consult with anyone who was treating the guy or with any mental health
Don't get me wrong, I am not faulting them in any way, they were trying to do good for the guy. Now that it has happened, I am just trying to give food for thought to others who might think that a day at the range might be just the thing for a person with a mental illness. I am thinking that in some cases the answer is a definitive yes but also that in other cases, such as folks suffering from a psychosis, you would be risking your life, or the lives of others, to do so. If you plan on taking a mentally ill person, especially a severe case, to the range, you had best give it some long hard thought beforehand and may want to consider consulting with a mental health professional beforehand.
Hopefully justice will be done.
All the best,
Glenn B
Survey Says - Police Brutality Or Not - Was The Officer Justified
Based on the scant evidence available to the public, what is your judgment as to whether or not the police officer, in the following video, is guilty of assault or was merely doing his job as trained and as justified by use of force guidelines and by the actions of the suspect? Watch the video. Then please answer my question by jotting down your answer immediately after watching the video, don't read ahead until you do so.
Maybe you want to watch it again before proceeding.
Okay, now that you have watched the video and jotted down your determination as to justified or not, please read the article at this link (also watch the video that is in the article, it is a bit different than the first one as it shows two views). Pay careful attention to the facts that are divulged in the article and accept them as facts on the face of it until proven otherwise just as you accepted what you saw in the video as factual on the face of it. Now that you have read the article, telling you what the police said happened, is your determination as to whether or not the officer was justified the same as it was before reading the article. Please jot down another note marked as #2 as to what you now believe. When you make your note this time, please do it independently of the statements and or actions of the chief of police and the district attorney and based only on the facts you know so far (after seeing both videos and reading the news account) directly bearing on the actions of the officer. After watching video and reading the reported facts, is your take on this the same as that of the chief of police who said the officer will be fired and the same as that of the District Attorney who has charged him with assault. Do you think those determinations correct or do you think they were made due to political correctness after recent police related incidents which resulted in violent protests?
Bear with me please for just one more request for another comment from you. I want you to determine yet a third time as to whether or not you think the officer was justified or not. Before making this third decision, bear in mind that:
The officer legally had a right to stop the man after receiving a call about a suspicious man, engaged in suspicious activities, in the neighborhood. He also had a right to question him. If what the police said is true, about the man continually trying to walk away from him and then trying to jerk away from him during the frisk (which is apparent in yet a longer length video of the incident) and you add that to the call of suspicious activity and maybe add that the suspect (which indeed Mr. Patel was a suspect at that moment) was acting hinky (nervous) and that Mr. Patel reportedly put his hands in his pockets as he tried to jerk away, the officer probably had enough reasonable cause to frisk him for weapons. Also bear in mind (and I readily admit I could not tell one way from the other by watching the video) if the officer reasonably believed that the man was going for a weapon (putting his hands into his pockets as he tried to jerk away from the officer), the officer had the right to stop the perceived threat to defend himself.
As for the move he used, the officer was almost definitely taught the move he used in his police training and even if not, it would have been considered an acceptable and legal amount of force in such an instance (if indeed the suspect put his hands into his pockets and tried to move away while being frisked) in any training I ever received or taught during my 32 years in federal law enforcement if an officer reasonably believed a suspect was reaching for a weapon (or even if merely trying to escape under some circumstances). There is no reason for that to have changed in the three plus years since I retired except maybe because of someone using political correctness to guide his judgment.
Now, accepting that what I said that the legality of the stop, the pat-down and the use of force are legitimate, please note down one more time if you think the officer was justified or not in the use of force. Please do not argue that you think it not justified based on your personal opinion and feelings. Unless you can argue those points from a purely legal standpoint don't distract from this discussion by ranting on and on about how the state is a tyranny and officers are running amuck. In other words, please go by the law and not by your opinion of the current law. If you want, please also add an explanation as to why you think he was or was not justified. Then put all three of your answers labeled 1,2 and 3 into a comment for this post. I am looking for intelligent and respectful discussion here, any deviation from that will be deleted. Don't read further here until you have done so because I do not want to influence your decision by what else I have to say here.
As to the extent of injuries suffered by Mr. Patel (the suspect and or victim depending on how one sees it), I can only imagine that the man suffered from some condition by which the bones of his vertebrae were weakened. I base that on lots of experience with takedowns over the years, both personally doing them and seeing other officers do them - most onto sidewalks or blacktop and not onto front lawns. After participating in and seeing literally hundreds of them, I never once saw anyone injured in anyway that even came close to the injuries sustained by Mr. Patel. About the worst I have seen, from such a takedown, was a broken nose. In fact, I and probably you have seen way too many news reports with videos of people getting brutally beaten but that have not resulted in such horrific injuries.
One thing I have seen though that you probably have not unless you are in LE, and have seen it at least scores of times, was suspects reaching into their pockets to pull out a weapon. I have never seen a man put his hands into his pockets, in a frisk situation, for no reason except to either pull out a weapon or to try to dispose of drugs or other evidence (usually running suspects are those who try to dispose of evidence but I have seen it with stationary suspects as well but with them a weapon has been more likely in my experience). Before you say it, allow me to note that not even once have I seen someone try to pull out ID when I was frisking them like that and not even once have I seen a guy just put his hands into his pockets like that during a frisk for no apparent reason. In my experience it would have been probable that it was due to him trying to grab a weapon. I am not saying that it might not happen simply because someone has a weird reaction to being stopped and frisked but what I am saying is that a move like that, if it indeed took place (which I cannot tell from the video) would be more than enough reasonable suspicion that the man had a weapon for the officer to have used a defensive takedown, in fact with all things considered that the officer knew, it would have amounted to probable cause.
Now think about it, it was evidently a defensive takedown (in my opinion) on the face of it if in fact the officer believed he was at risk (and again I am not sold on that yet but neither am I denying the possibility of it). It was defensive because as soon as the officer took him down and controlled him, he handcuffed him. He, nor any of the other officers, began to beat or otherwise do anything to Mr. Patel except try to get him up to complete the frisk and they did so without applying any unnecessary force. Then they gently helped him back to the ground when they realized he was incapable of walking or standing. They did nothing that would indicate police brutality as far as I can see unless the takedown itself was brutality and was not legally justified. On that point, without me making up my mind one way or the other on the actions of the officer, I believe the chief of police and DA has overreacted out of political correctness but, of course, they may have more evidence available to them so that is merely my guess right now.
Note just one other thing, I am not making a determination one way or the other as to whether or not the officer was justified so, don't start an argument with me over what you believe is my mindset on this issue. My mind truly is not made up on it but I am very curious to see what others out there think after they see the video, then after they see some additional background on it, and then after they understand what would justify those actions on the part of the officer.
As a final note, bear in mind that if you are ever stopped by law enforcement officers, whether you think the reason for the stop legitimate or not, I highly recommend that you do not make any sudden move(s) that the officer(s) might see as you reaching for a weapon. Again though, with this last comment, I am not justifying or condemning the action(s) of the officer in question, just trying to let you know a good way to prevent yourself from being injured when in a stop situation.
Oh, one more question. I mentioned a longer version of the video above - in the event you would you take the time to watch it, I have embedded it below. It gives a lot more information:
I wonder, did the additional content of the longer video change your mind at all as to the facts and as to justification or not?
All the best,
Glenn B
Maybe you want to watch it again before proceeding.
Okay, now that you have watched the video and jotted down your determination as to justified or not, please read the article at this link (also watch the video that is in the article, it is a bit different than the first one as it shows two views). Pay careful attention to the facts that are divulged in the article and accept them as facts on the face of it until proven otherwise just as you accepted what you saw in the video as factual on the face of it. Now that you have read the article, telling you what the police said happened, is your determination as to whether or not the officer was justified the same as it was before reading the article. Please jot down another note marked as #2 as to what you now believe. When you make your note this time, please do it independently of the statements and or actions of the chief of police and the district attorney and based only on the facts you know so far (after seeing both videos and reading the news account) directly bearing on the actions of the officer. After watching video and reading the reported facts, is your take on this the same as that of the chief of police who said the officer will be fired and the same as that of the District Attorney who has charged him with assault. Do you think those determinations correct or do you think they were made due to political correctness after recent police related incidents which resulted in violent protests?
Bear with me please for just one more request for another comment from you. I want you to determine yet a third time as to whether or not you think the officer was justified or not. Before making this third decision, bear in mind that:
The officer legally had a right to stop the man after receiving a call about a suspicious man, engaged in suspicious activities, in the neighborhood. He also had a right to question him. If what the police said is true, about the man continually trying to walk away from him and then trying to jerk away from him during the frisk (which is apparent in yet a longer length video of the incident) and you add that to the call of suspicious activity and maybe add that the suspect (which indeed Mr. Patel was a suspect at that moment) was acting hinky (nervous) and that Mr. Patel reportedly put his hands in his pockets as he tried to jerk away, the officer probably had enough reasonable cause to frisk him for weapons. Also bear in mind (and I readily admit I could not tell one way from the other by watching the video) if the officer reasonably believed that the man was going for a weapon (putting his hands into his pockets as he tried to jerk away from the officer), the officer had the right to stop the perceived threat to defend himself.
As for the move he used, the officer was almost definitely taught the move he used in his police training and even if not, it would have been considered an acceptable and legal amount of force in such an instance (if indeed the suspect put his hands into his pockets and tried to move away while being frisked) in any training I ever received or taught during my 32 years in federal law enforcement if an officer reasonably believed a suspect was reaching for a weapon (or even if merely trying to escape under some circumstances). There is no reason for that to have changed in the three plus years since I retired except maybe because of someone using political correctness to guide his judgment.
Now, accepting that what I said that the legality of the stop, the pat-down and the use of force are legitimate, please note down one more time if you think the officer was justified or not in the use of force. Please do not argue that you think it not justified based on your personal opinion and feelings. Unless you can argue those points from a purely legal standpoint don't distract from this discussion by ranting on and on about how the state is a tyranny and officers are running amuck. In other words, please go by the law and not by your opinion of the current law. If you want, please also add an explanation as to why you think he was or was not justified. Then put all three of your answers labeled 1,2 and 3 into a comment for this post. I am looking for intelligent and respectful discussion here, any deviation from that will be deleted. Don't read further here until you have done so because I do not want to influence your decision by what else I have to say here.
As to the extent of injuries suffered by Mr. Patel (the suspect and or victim depending on how one sees it), I can only imagine that the man suffered from some condition by which the bones of his vertebrae were weakened. I base that on lots of experience with takedowns over the years, both personally doing them and seeing other officers do them - most onto sidewalks or blacktop and not onto front lawns. After participating in and seeing literally hundreds of them, I never once saw anyone injured in anyway that even came close to the injuries sustained by Mr. Patel. About the worst I have seen, from such a takedown, was a broken nose. In fact, I and probably you have seen way too many news reports with videos of people getting brutally beaten but that have not resulted in such horrific injuries.
One thing I have seen though that you probably have not unless you are in LE, and have seen it at least scores of times, was suspects reaching into their pockets to pull out a weapon. I have never seen a man put his hands into his pockets, in a frisk situation, for no reason except to either pull out a weapon or to try to dispose of drugs or other evidence (usually running suspects are those who try to dispose of evidence but I have seen it with stationary suspects as well but with them a weapon has been more likely in my experience). Before you say it, allow me to note that not even once have I seen someone try to pull out ID when I was frisking them like that and not even once have I seen a guy just put his hands into his pockets like that during a frisk for no apparent reason. In my experience it would have been probable that it was due to him trying to grab a weapon. I am not saying that it might not happen simply because someone has a weird reaction to being stopped and frisked but what I am saying is that a move like that, if it indeed took place (which I cannot tell from the video) would be more than enough reasonable suspicion that the man had a weapon for the officer to have used a defensive takedown, in fact with all things considered that the officer knew, it would have amounted to probable cause.
Now think about it, it was evidently a defensive takedown (in my opinion) on the face of it if in fact the officer believed he was at risk (and again I am not sold on that yet but neither am I denying the possibility of it). It was defensive because as soon as the officer took him down and controlled him, he handcuffed him. He, nor any of the other officers, began to beat or otherwise do anything to Mr. Patel except try to get him up to complete the frisk and they did so without applying any unnecessary force. Then they gently helped him back to the ground when they realized he was incapable of walking or standing. They did nothing that would indicate police brutality as far as I can see unless the takedown itself was brutality and was not legally justified. On that point, without me making up my mind one way or the other on the actions of the officer, I believe the chief of police and DA has overreacted out of political correctness but, of course, they may have more evidence available to them so that is merely my guess right now.
Note just one other thing, I am not making a determination one way or the other as to whether or not the officer was justified so, don't start an argument with me over what you believe is my mindset on this issue. My mind truly is not made up on it but I am very curious to see what others out there think after they see the video, then after they see some additional background on it, and then after they understand what would justify those actions on the part of the officer.
As a final note, bear in mind that if you are ever stopped by law enforcement officers, whether you think the reason for the stop legitimate or not, I highly recommend that you do not make any sudden move(s) that the officer(s) might see as you reaching for a weapon. Again though, with this last comment, I am not justifying or condemning the action(s) of the officer in question, just trying to let you know a good way to prevent yourself from being injured when in a stop situation.
Oh, one more question. I mentioned a longer version of the video above - in the event you would you take the time to watch it, I have embedded it below. It gives a lot more information:
I wonder, did the additional content of the longer video change your mind at all as to the facts and as to justification or not?
All the best,
Glenn B
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)