It seems that a high ranking employee of Columbia Asset (my boldface and italics) Management, a subsidiary of Bank of America, reportedly was dissatisfied with the way the company fired another employee. In order to show his dissatisfaction, he reportedly barged into a high level meeting, dropped his draws, and mooned his boss, along with saying some seemingly inappropriate thing(s) to at least some of those in the meeting. Surprisingly enough, he was reportedly considered so precious to the company, in a special 1% of employees, that at first he was only given a warning. Reportedly, his boss said, he could be granted 'a one-free-mooning reprieve'. However, when the CEO heard of the employee's pant dropping escapade, the employee was fired.
What to do? What else but sue for his job and pay and benefits package back. He lost. He also has lost an appeal of that first ruling. He seems to be out of a job and back pay and benefis as it now stands. Maybe there is still hope for America after all, especially since the company involved was a subsidiary of Bank of America.
Source:
http://bottomline.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/06/13708974-bank-of-america-exec-loses-millions-after-court-says-you-cant-moon-your-boss?lite
All I can say about it, other than the above, is that this guy seemingly had one heck of a lot of cheekiness about himself!
All the best,
Glenn B
Thursday, September 6, 2012
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
Video Says It All About The Mind Set Of Guys Like Obama and Clinton...
...then again, it was actually the campaign advertisement featuring Clinton in support of Obama that says it all. In essence, it says: It is all about Obama and he knows it! In other words folks, he does not give a damn about a Navy Seal, nor about hunting down Osama Bin Laden, nor about the United States of America. He cares only about himself. I think the message of the video has hit that nail right on the head and hopefully has driven it into Obama's political coffin. If so, remind me, after the election, to thank Clinton!
All the best,
Glenn B
All the best,
Glenn B
Watch, Listen, Be Scared- Then Make Sure To Vote Against Obama
When President Clinton was in office, I used to loathe most of what the man in the accompanying video would say. His tune has certainly changed since the Clinton Administration, it seems as if he suddenly has grown up to become a level headed adult since then. Have a listen as to what Dick Morris believes will be Obama's tax plan for Americans if he is reelected in November 2012.
All the best,
Glenn B
All the best,
Glenn B
An Idea For A New Boy Scouts of America Merit Badge
It was with almost total apathy that I read this article: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/09/05/budget-cuts-to-silence-live-performances-taps-at-new-york-military-funerals/.
In brief, it says that in the state of NY, taps, usually played at the funerals of fallen servicemen and veterans, will henceforth never be played by an actual bugler unless the bugler volunteers to do so. Why - federal spending cutbacks. Shit, I have not heard one iota about that bastard in the White House cutting back welfare spending lately. I have heard though that there are more people on it than ever, by far, under his administration. So, once again he just thumbs his nose at our military and veterans while building a new army of citizen welfare slugs.
Well, if the federal and state governments are not going to pay for proper honor guards for our fallen military personnel, then they should at least solicit volunteer organizations who would be happy and willing to do so. That is the way the Catholic Church has done it for years when it came to altar boys and choir singers. It is the way the Salvation Army and Volunteers of America has done it when staffing their Christmas time collection efforts with bell ringing Santas. It is the way of Americans helping Americans, the way we have been doing it since we kicked the arses of the British in the Revolution.
So why can't we do it now. I imagine that at least one group, such as the Boy Scouts of America, probably has a music merit badge. In fact, I know they offer a music merit badge. So OK, they have one already, why not create a new merit bade. Let's call it Honor The Military merit badge or Honor The Ultimate Sacrifice merit badge, or the Honor The Fallen merit badge, or Honor The Families of The Military merit badge, anything that would get the message across that what you would be doing t earn the badge would be to honor those who have passed away yet at sometime in their lives had honored the rest of us by serving us in the military. It would simply require the scout to pay homage to the deceased and his/her remaining loved ones, by performing taps, live, at a set number of funeral services, say 5 within a year, for fallen military personnel or fallen veterans (both who were discharged honorably). Of course a little more could be added to the requirements for the scout such as having to learn the military accomplishments of the deceased, learning about his branch of service and even his unit. Imagine the patriotism that would be instilled in the youth and the history he or she would learn about America and her military. Imagine the honor that would be paid to the family of the fallen and to the fallen him/herself.
If anyone out there, who reads this, is affiliated with the BSA, get on the horn and help me get it done. I could not find any link on their website by which I could send them an email otherwise I would have sent the suggestion to them myself.
All the best,
Glenn B
In brief, it says that in the state of NY, taps, usually played at the funerals of fallen servicemen and veterans, will henceforth never be played by an actual bugler unless the bugler volunteers to do so. Why - federal spending cutbacks. Shit, I have not heard one iota about that bastard in the White House cutting back welfare spending lately. I have heard though that there are more people on it than ever, by far, under his administration. So, once again he just thumbs his nose at our military and veterans while building a new army of citizen welfare slugs.
Well, if the federal and state governments are not going to pay for proper honor guards for our fallen military personnel, then they should at least solicit volunteer organizations who would be happy and willing to do so. That is the way the Catholic Church has done it for years when it came to altar boys and choir singers. It is the way the Salvation Army and Volunteers of America has done it when staffing their Christmas time collection efforts with bell ringing Santas. It is the way of Americans helping Americans, the way we have been doing it since we kicked the arses of the British in the Revolution.
So why can't we do it now. I imagine that at least one group, such as the Boy Scouts of America, probably has a music merit badge. In fact, I know they offer a music merit badge. So OK, they have one already, why not create a new merit bade. Let's call it Honor The Military merit badge or Honor The Ultimate Sacrifice merit badge, or the Honor The Fallen merit badge, or Honor The Families of The Military merit badge, anything that would get the message across that what you would be doing t earn the badge would be to honor those who have passed away yet at sometime in their lives had honored the rest of us by serving us in the military. It would simply require the scout to pay homage to the deceased and his/her remaining loved ones, by performing taps, live, at a set number of funeral services, say 5 within a year, for fallen military personnel or fallen veterans (both who were discharged honorably). Of course a little more could be added to the requirements for the scout such as having to learn the military accomplishments of the deceased, learning about his branch of service and even his unit. Imagine the patriotism that would be instilled in the youth and the history he or she would learn about America and her military. Imagine the honor that would be paid to the family of the fallen and to the fallen him/herself.
If anyone out there, who reads this, is affiliated with the BSA, get on the horn and help me get it done. I could not find any link on their website by which I could send them an email otherwise I would have sent the suggestion to them myself.
All the best,
Glenn B
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
My Blog Almost Went Completely Global...
...which for me means that I would have had visits, within the last 24 hour time period, from folks on every continent excluding Antarctica . (Why exclude Antarctica - because it is inhabited by penguins, why else!)
As it turns out though, it was only an almost and almost only counts in nuclear attacks and horseshoes. I had visitors from North America, Europe, Australia, Asia and Africa. South America was the hold out that kept it from being a full hand. Oh well, there is always tomorrow.
All the best,
Glenn B
All the best,
Glenn B
Sunday, September 2, 2012
INSOMNIA SUCKS ONCE AGAIN
Here it is, 4:08 AM and I am not the least bit sleepy even after having imbibed about 6 to 8 ounces of decent Irish whiskey (Bushmills) in the past couple of hours. I am going to try to get some sleep but something tells me that sleep and I are far apart right now. Then again, the infomercials are on right now, so I have little to keep me awake, or at least will have little once I shut off the laptop.
All the best,
GB
All the best,
GB
A LOOK THAT COULD KILL
...is probably the look that I gave a dude at Gander Mountain yesterday. I was in the firearms department and was walking by a rack of used rifles. Another customer picked one up, and was checking it out. I thought nothing of it and checked out some ammo on the shelves. When I turned away from the shelves, I saw the guy was operating the bolt, with the rifle pointed directly at me, I guessed he had been aiming it at my back when I had my back turned toward him. I can only imagine that the look on my face was enough to scare the shit out of him because he actually paled, put the rifle back into the rack quickly, and walked away at a brisk pace with his head bowed. Oh yeah, he also had a look on his face - one of total embarrassment as if he had just screwed up big and realized it. That also seemed mixed in with a look of an edge of fear.
I did not say a word to him. I did chuckle out loud and maybe whispered the word "asshole". What an arsehat was he, he seemingly knew it too. At least, in his knowing it and in his putting the rifle down and walking away like that, he displayed that he had some sense of how to handle firearms correctly even though he had not done it right just then.
There is a chance that I read him all wrong but we made eye contact and he gave a lot of tells and I am pretty sure I read him right. Then again, maybe he was the Walter Mitty type and was fantasizing about how it could have been if the gun did not have a trigger lock on it and had he had some ammo for it. I prefer to believe the former.
All the best,
Glenn B
I did not say a word to him. I did chuckle out loud and maybe whispered the word "asshole". What an arsehat was he, he seemingly knew it too. At least, in his knowing it and in his putting the rifle down and walking away like that, he displayed that he had some sense of how to handle firearms correctly even though he had not done it right just then.
There is a chance that I read him all wrong but we made eye contact and he gave a lot of tells and I am pretty sure I read him right. Then again, maybe he was the Walter Mitty type and was fantasizing about how it could have been if the gun did not have a trigger lock on it and had he had some ammo for it. I prefer to believe the former.
All the best,
Glenn B
Long Leisurely Drive Home
I left Binghamton, NY at about 1115 AM yesterday morning. I arrived home at 820 PM. Why a 9 hour drive for one that normally takes me about 3 1/2 to 4 hours. No, there was not any road construction to speak of nor was there a lot of traffic. In fact some roads I drove on were almost devoid of other cars. I just decided to stop here there and almost anywhere. So, I stopped at a couple of flea markets and garage/yard sales and at a couple of antiques stores among other places. At one yard sale, I had my eye on a semi-auto rifle in .22LR. I think it was a Savage but regardless the guy wanted $175 for it. He had a similar price on a bolt action shotgun that I have seen go for $75. I just left without look at any of the other 8 or so rifles he had for sale.
I did pick up 12 old bottles at an antiques/junk store in Walton, NY. I got all 12 for $10, figured it was worth it. I am thinking of starting a bottle collection. That is mostly because I found about 8 or so bottles while doing my deer scouting on top f a mountain in a state forest. At first I thought I had come upon an old still out in the woods, there were also lots of metal pots, buckets, some metal tubing and such besides the bottles. Then when I looked further, I saw there was an old foundation, stone without mortar, just a short distance away. maybe the bottles were from that house but I wonder. The bottles actually seemed to recent (probably from the early to mid 1900's) and I would think that foundation was older and the house missing from it for a long time judging by its condition. Who knows though. The house may have still been there and in use much more recently than I imagine.
The bottles I found include an old Coca Cola bottle, a few Certo bottles (something one used to jell preserves and jam), and other bottles without names on them. The bottles I bought include a couple of small Listerine bottles, a couple of ink bottles and some others with local company names from NY and a druggist's bottle or two. I am going to clean em all up and put em up on a shelf or ledge where they can be eyesores and collect dust.
I also stopped at the Little Store in Roscoe, NY. They changed around the insides quite a bit. I was going to ask when the changes were made but just wound up leaving after two morons on line ahead of me were moronic and holding things up for everyone. One thing I noticed was their ammo prices. Wow - a box of Remington Core-Lokt .35 Remington was going for around $39.99 (could have been $39.95) and a box of Remington 7.62x39 for $24.99. Talk about expensive ammo. Well, maybe the Remington 7.62x39 was about right for that higher end 7.62x39 but I'll settle for the steel cased Wolf or TulaAmmo for my SKS and AK any day. The .35 Remington was another story, that was way overpriced.
After that, I also stopped at Gander Mountain in Middletown, NY. I picked up a few things - a portable battery operated aerator, some deer scent for the upcoming hunting season, a pack of pine scented air fresheners for the car, and some Cajun something or other BBQ sauce for tomorrow's BBQ. I checked on their ammo when I saw they had CCI Blazer Brass centerfire pistol ammo on sale, various calibers, in various sized boxes. I needed some .45 Auto ammo and was thinking of getting it until I saw that the various calibers all had the same price. So, 300 rounds of FMJ 9mm, was the same as 200 rounds of .45 ACP, and the same as however many rounds of .40S&W. The prohibitive thing was that they were asking $99.00 for all of them. When I last bought CCI Blazer Brass ammo in .45ACP, it was only $16.69 a box of 50 at CheaperThanDirt.com. I bought 5 boxes of it or 250 rounds back then. Of course, I also had to pay for shipping but that was only $24 and it included shipping for an additional 250 rounds of .45 ACP Federal Classic Hi-Shok JHP 185 Grain 50 Round Box 950 FPS Law Enforcement Ammunition. Even if I had just gotten the 250 rounds of CCI Blazer Brass and paid the same $24 in shipping fees, it would have been cheaper than only 200 rounds of the same ammo from Gander Mountain. For a single box of 50 rounds, they wanted $24.99 or there about. Man, Gander Mountain is very expensive when it comes to ammunition, more than 6 cents per round more expensive and that is when I include CTD's shipping fees in the price! I also checked the price on the Remington Core-Lokt in .35 Remington. They wanted $34.95 a box, I usually see it for about $24 a box lately online. Again, even with shipping, that would be less expensive than gander Mountain's price for it. I don't think I have ever seen a bargain on ammo there. Oh well, they had decent prices on the other things got.
After that, it was off to home.
By the way. I really like the CCI Blazer Brass .45ACP ammo. It shot just fine and was pretty clean shooting too. While I do need to replenish my supply after Brendan shot most of the .45 Auto that I had, at the Northeast Bloggershoot, last month, I think I will buy it from someplace other than Gander Mountain.
All the best,
Glenn B
I did pick up 12 old bottles at an antiques/junk store in Walton, NY. I got all 12 for $10, figured it was worth it. I am thinking of starting a bottle collection. That is mostly because I found about 8 or so bottles while doing my deer scouting on top f a mountain in a state forest. At first I thought I had come upon an old still out in the woods, there were also lots of metal pots, buckets, some metal tubing and such besides the bottles. Then when I looked further, I saw there was an old foundation, stone without mortar, just a short distance away. maybe the bottles were from that house but I wonder. The bottles actually seemed to recent (probably from the early to mid 1900's) and I would think that foundation was older and the house missing from it for a long time judging by its condition. Who knows though. The house may have still been there and in use much more recently than I imagine.
The bottles I found include an old Coca Cola bottle, a few Certo bottles (something one used to jell preserves and jam), and other bottles without names on them. The bottles I bought include a couple of small Listerine bottles, a couple of ink bottles and some others with local company names from NY and a druggist's bottle or two. I am going to clean em all up and put em up on a shelf or ledge where they can be eyesores and collect dust.
I also stopped at the Little Store in Roscoe, NY. They changed around the insides quite a bit. I was going to ask when the changes were made but just wound up leaving after two morons on line ahead of me were moronic and holding things up for everyone. One thing I noticed was their ammo prices. Wow - a box of Remington Core-Lokt .35 Remington was going for around $39.99 (could have been $39.95) and a box of Remington 7.62x39 for $24.99. Talk about expensive ammo. Well, maybe the Remington 7.62x39 was about right for that higher end 7.62x39 but I'll settle for the steel cased Wolf or TulaAmmo for my SKS and AK any day. The .35 Remington was another story, that was way overpriced.
After that, I also stopped at Gander Mountain in Middletown, NY. I picked up a few things - a portable battery operated aerator, some deer scent for the upcoming hunting season, a pack of pine scented air fresheners for the car, and some Cajun something or other BBQ sauce for tomorrow's BBQ. I checked on their ammo when I saw they had CCI Blazer Brass centerfire pistol ammo on sale, various calibers, in various sized boxes. I needed some .45 Auto ammo and was thinking of getting it until I saw that the various calibers all had the same price. So, 300 rounds of FMJ 9mm, was the same as 200 rounds of .45 ACP, and the same as however many rounds of .40S&W. The prohibitive thing was that they were asking $99.00 for all of them. When I last bought CCI Blazer Brass ammo in .45ACP, it was only $16.69 a box of 50 at CheaperThanDirt.com. I bought 5 boxes of it or 250 rounds back then. Of course, I also had to pay for shipping but that was only $24 and it included shipping for an additional 250 rounds of .45 ACP Federal Classic Hi-Shok JHP 185 Grain 50 Round Box 950 FPS Law Enforcement Ammunition. Even if I had just gotten the 250 rounds of CCI Blazer Brass and paid the same $24 in shipping fees, it would have been cheaper than only 200 rounds of the same ammo from Gander Mountain. For a single box of 50 rounds, they wanted $24.99 or there about. Man, Gander Mountain is very expensive when it comes to ammunition, more than 6 cents per round more expensive and that is when I include CTD's shipping fees in the price! I also checked the price on the Remington Core-Lokt in .35 Remington. They wanted $34.95 a box, I usually see it for about $24 a box lately online. Again, even with shipping, that would be less expensive than gander Mountain's price for it. I don't think I have ever seen a bargain on ammo there. Oh well, they had decent prices on the other things got.
After that, it was off to home.
By the way. I really like the CCI Blazer Brass .45ACP ammo. It shot just fine and was pretty clean shooting too. While I do need to replenish my supply after Brendan shot most of the .45 Auto that I had, at the Northeast Bloggershoot, last month, I think I will buy it from someplace other than Gander Mountain.
All the best,
Glenn B
Saturday, September 1, 2012
Deer Scouting Trip Completed - Home Again
I was in upstate NY for the past few days. Guess I forgot to blog. That must have been a good thing because... Well, I don't know why but do know I got two solid days of hiking in while scouting for deer and or bear sign. Did not see much of either this year but then I do think I saw enough to pick a few likely hunting spots. More on the trip later, I have to get some things done now that I am home again. More tomorrow.
All the best,
Glenn B
All the best,
Glenn B
Monday, August 27, 2012
Consumer Reports And Firearms Reviews
I subscribe to Consumer Reports online. Of course, my wife, knowing I did that, decided to subscribe to their magazine. Only she knows why!
Today, CR sent me an online survey. It was brief, geared at improving what they do. The last question in the survey was marked as optional, then again that was rather redundant since the whole survey was optional but I digress, so let me get back to the last question. It was:
If you could do one thing to improve Consumer Reports, what would it be? (optional)
I opted to answer it. My answer was:
Have it review firearms.
I am pretty sure that they will not use my suggestion but it sure would be nice if they did so!
All the best,
Glenn B
Today, CR sent me an online survey. It was brief, geared at improving what they do. The last question in the survey was marked as optional, then again that was rather redundant since the whole survey was optional but I digress, so let me get back to the last question. It was:
If you could do one thing to improve Consumer Reports, what would it be? (optional)
I opted to answer it. My answer was:
Have it review firearms.
I am pretty sure that they will not use my suggestion but it sure would be nice if they did so!
All the best,
Glenn B
If A Civilian Saved A Cop From An Apparent Brutal Assault By Shooting...
..the cop's assailant, after the cop screamed out for help and had already shot the guy at least once, do you think that would be worthy of national media coverage. I would think that yes it would not only be worthy of such coverage but that it should be Headline News. Instead, it seems to only be local news.
Of course, I would also think that the police department would want to commend the actions of the civilian (as in non-law enforcement officer) who came to the assistance of the police officer, maybe even acknowledge that the man saved the officer's life or at least saved him from serious bodily injury. I would be wrong again. It seems I would be wrong again as the chief of police reportedly "stopped short" of saying that Perry Stevens had saved officer Brian Harrison's life. Instead, the police chief is reported to have commented that he thought the incident unfortunate and was quoted as saying: "I think this is a tragic situation all around". On that last point, I would beg to differ with the police chief.
It was not at all tragic or unfortunate for Officer Harrison that, reportedly or apparently: Mr. Stevens was in the area, responded to the officer's calls for help, did not make the response of calling 911 and then standing-by as a good witness, played an active role in defending Officer Harrison, had in his possession his legally licensed pistol, approached the officer and his alleged assailant as he gave verbal command(s) to the alleged assailant to stop, only after giving those commands did he fire 4 times striking the alleged attacker in his abdomen with all 4 shots, (better than the accuracy of the NYPD officers at the Empire State Building a few days ago and better than the accuracy of the officer who shot the man chewing off another man's face in Florida - in both of those incidents, police not only hit the attackers but some of their bullets or bullet fragments hit others who were not the intended targets), upon seeing the attacker continue assaulting the officer he moved in closer and again gave commands for the attacker to stop, he only then finally fired the shot that stopped the attack by firing a single round into the alleged assailant's head. The alleged assailant died.
While it may be unfortunate that the alleged assailant reportedly drove into a funeral procession that Officer Harrison was escorting and while it may be unfortunate that while the officer was giving him a traffic citation, the man allegedly attacked the officer apparently overpowering him resulting in the officer shooting his alleged attacker, and while it may be unfortunate that the officer cried out for help because he required assistance and did not have other officers to help him, and while it may be unfortunate that at least 10 other civilians did not immediately rush to assist the officer as it seems did Mr. Stevens, there is nothing unfortunate about anything that Mr. Stevens did, as far as I can see.
I consider Police officer Brian Harrison to be extremely fortunate in that a person, the caliber of Mr. Stevens (no pun intended, there is nothing funny about this), was there to assist him. If indeed Mr. Stevens did not save officer Harrison from death's door, he certainly saved him from potential serious injury at the hands of his alleged attacker.That that man did not stop, until a fatal shot was fired into his head, I do not see as unfortunate, at least not for the officer and thus this was not "an tragic situation all around".
Sure, the incident is probably quite tragic for the family of the deceased or for his loved ones. The thing is though, as far as the officer was in need of help - Mr. Stevens did what no one else in the area, armed or unarmed did, he went to the aid of the fallen officer and saved him from harm. That is not tragic, that is heroic. The chief of police ought to be ashamed of himself for calling that a tragic situation all around and for not coming right out and acknowledging that Mr. Stevens saved the officer from either serious bodily injury or death! I guess he is just to darned armedciviliaphobic to do so!
Hat tip to HellInAHandbasket.
All the best,
Glenn B
Of course, I would also think that the police department would want to commend the actions of the civilian (as in non-law enforcement officer) who came to the assistance of the police officer, maybe even acknowledge that the man saved the officer's life or at least saved him from serious bodily injury. I would be wrong again. It seems I would be wrong again as the chief of police reportedly "stopped short" of saying that Perry Stevens had saved officer Brian Harrison's life. Instead, the police chief is reported to have commented that he thought the incident unfortunate and was quoted as saying: "I think this is a tragic situation all around". On that last point, I would beg to differ with the police chief.
It was not at all tragic or unfortunate for Officer Harrison that, reportedly or apparently: Mr. Stevens was in the area, responded to the officer's calls for help, did not make the response of calling 911 and then standing-by as a good witness, played an active role in defending Officer Harrison, had in his possession his legally licensed pistol, approached the officer and his alleged assailant as he gave verbal command(s) to the alleged assailant to stop, only after giving those commands did he fire 4 times striking the alleged attacker in his abdomen with all 4 shots, (better than the accuracy of the NYPD officers at the Empire State Building a few days ago and better than the accuracy of the officer who shot the man chewing off another man's face in Florida - in both of those incidents, police not only hit the attackers but some of their bullets or bullet fragments hit others who were not the intended targets), upon seeing the attacker continue assaulting the officer he moved in closer and again gave commands for the attacker to stop, he only then finally fired the shot that stopped the attack by firing a single round into the alleged assailant's head. The alleged assailant died.
While it may be unfortunate that the alleged assailant reportedly drove into a funeral procession that Officer Harrison was escorting and while it may be unfortunate that while the officer was giving him a traffic citation, the man allegedly attacked the officer apparently overpowering him resulting in the officer shooting his alleged attacker, and while it may be unfortunate that the officer cried out for help because he required assistance and did not have other officers to help him, and while it may be unfortunate that at least 10 other civilians did not immediately rush to assist the officer as it seems did Mr. Stevens, there is nothing unfortunate about anything that Mr. Stevens did, as far as I can see.
I consider Police officer Brian Harrison to be extremely fortunate in that a person, the caliber of Mr. Stevens (no pun intended, there is nothing funny about this), was there to assist him. If indeed Mr. Stevens did not save officer Harrison from death's door, he certainly saved him from potential serious injury at the hands of his alleged attacker.That that man did not stop, until a fatal shot was fired into his head, I do not see as unfortunate, at least not for the officer and thus this was not "an tragic situation all around".
Sure, the incident is probably quite tragic for the family of the deceased or for his loved ones. The thing is though, as far as the officer was in need of help - Mr. Stevens did what no one else in the area, armed or unarmed did, he went to the aid of the fallen officer and saved him from harm. That is not tragic, that is heroic. The chief of police ought to be ashamed of himself for calling that a tragic situation all around and for not coming right out and acknowledging that Mr. Stevens saved the officer from either serious bodily injury or death! I guess he is just to darned armedciviliaphobic to do so!
Hat tip to HellInAHandbasket.
All the best,
Glenn B
HUNTING LICENSES PURCHASED - DMPs SELECTED...
...and that means a scouting trip, in the near future, is expected. I have to work tomorrow but that is my only workday this week. Thus, I am hoping to get away by Thursday, late morning as I have an appointment to keep that day. After that I am free until next Tuesday. I have a couple of different places to visit, for scouting trips, so it is likely the trip will last a few days. I am hoping for good weather and will bring along a tent and sleeping bag and other camping gear (and plenty of Aleve for my aches and pains) and make a good time of it. If it rains, or badly threatens to do so, then I may opt to stay at a dirt cheap motel; I gave up sleeping outside in the rain, years ago. Motel 6 comes to mind but if I can find something less expensive, I will go for it. I have both some Priority Club points for Holiday Inns and Hilton Honors points for their chain of motels. I think I will make a couple of advance reservations in anticipation of rain, I can always cancel if it looks like the weather will hold out and then I will sleep under the stars.
Luckily, I got both of the Deer Management Permits for which I applied. Brendan was not so lucky, he only got one of two and lost a preference point on the one he did not get. Oh well, we have three of them in total and we can sign them over to one or the other of us if we want. So, if one of us gets a buck, we can assure the other will also have a chance at a doe (actually an anterless deer) with the DMP, as well as at a buck with his or my regular license. Brendan got his DMP in Wildlife Management Unit 4P, in the NW Catskills, where his girlfriend's parents own a house. He is pretty familiar with the area and is probably bound to score up that way. I hope so and I do mean score by him bagging a deer. Hopefully, I will be invited to hunt there too. The other one, he applied for, was closer to where I got my first choice but as I said he did not get selected for that one.
I got my first choice of DMPs, WMU 7S. It is west and part of it is also south of Binghamton, at least a couple to a few hours from where Brendan got his. There is a lot of public land in the area. So, there probably is a lot of scouting for me to do. The areas I truly would have preferred for my DMP did not have any available or required preference points of which I had none anyway. I can live with it even though not an area with which I am familiar. I am hoping to find a fairly remote area to hunt, yes even overpopulated NY State has some remote hunting areas. I also got a DMP in a pretty populated area WMU 3M. It is much closer to home and can be a back-up sort of area if I don't get a deer on the first few days of the hunt at the other one. It will be a place I can drive to, and return home from, all in one day for some quick later in the season hunts.
If I am really lucky, Brendan will come along with me on the scouting trip but then there is a chance he has to work in that time frame. I'll see soon enough.
All the best,
Glenn B
Luckily, I got both of the Deer Management Permits for which I applied. Brendan was not so lucky, he only got one of two and lost a preference point on the one he did not get. Oh well, we have three of them in total and we can sign them over to one or the other of us if we want. So, if one of us gets a buck, we can assure the other will also have a chance at a doe (actually an anterless deer) with the DMP, as well as at a buck with his or my regular license. Brendan got his DMP in Wildlife Management Unit 4P, in the NW Catskills, where his girlfriend's parents own a house. He is pretty familiar with the area and is probably bound to score up that way. I hope so and I do mean score by him bagging a deer. Hopefully, I will be invited to hunt there too. The other one, he applied for, was closer to where I got my first choice but as I said he did not get selected for that one.
I got my first choice of DMPs, WMU 7S. It is west and part of it is also south of Binghamton, at least a couple to a few hours from where Brendan got his. There is a lot of public land in the area. So, there probably is a lot of scouting for me to do. The areas I truly would have preferred for my DMP did not have any available or required preference points of which I had none anyway. I can live with it even though not an area with which I am familiar. I am hoping to find a fairly remote area to hunt, yes even overpopulated NY State has some remote hunting areas. I also got a DMP in a pretty populated area WMU 3M. It is much closer to home and can be a back-up sort of area if I don't get a deer on the first few days of the hunt at the other one. It will be a place I can drive to, and return home from, all in one day for some quick later in the season hunts.
If I am really lucky, Brendan will come along with me on the scouting trip but then there is a chance he has to work in that time frame. I'll see soon enough.
All the best,
Glenn B
Sunday, August 26, 2012
Video Surveillance Of Empire State Building Shootout
Now that I have seen actual video footage of the Empire State Building shootout, I am more convinced that the two officers involved made some big mistakes. I am not saying they were not justified in the use of deadly force. I am saying, in my opinion, they did not properly assess the situation because had they done so they would not have alerted the subject to their presence (which I am guessing they did by issuing commands, this is a guess because their is no audio, but it is based at least in part on the subject turning to face them as they come up from behind him) before getting behind cover which was readily available to them. Had they been behind cover, they could have shot from a supported position, would have been less likely to fire in a possible reactionary panic when the bad guy aimed and fired at them, and in all probability would have had a bit more time, even if only a split second more, to asses and think it through to take what I think would have been appropriate actions than I think they took. Again, that is merely my opinion but it is now based less on guesswork, than before, now that I have seen the surveillance video.
In the situation in which they placed themselves, they had to fire from a standing and moving position thus making it much harder for them to keep on target what with the immense stress they were under with this guy shooting at them. Had they first gotten behind cover, drawn a bead on the suspect and then ordered him "Police - DON'T MOVE", he probably would have turned, not immediately seen them, or only seen what he could see of them around the cover of those concrete planters, been momentarily confused instead of instantly ready, while they already would have taken aim and had a much more controlled shooting platform from which to take a more accurate set of shots at him. Doing it that way may have also given bystanders a split second more to realize what was going on and to get out of the line of fire. Instead, I am of the opinion, they took a much less tactically sound position when cover was readily available. I believe that had they gotten behind cover before alerting him, the outcome would possibly, even likely, have been much different - the police maybe firing many fewer shots to stop him and thus the potential for harm to bystanders going down markedly.
Of course, it is really easy to Monday morning quarterback but I believe you safely can bet your bottom dollar that the video will be used as a training video by law enforcement firearms instructors for years to come and one of the things their training probably will emphasize is that neither of the two officers properly and fully assessed the situation nor made use of available cover. I am not calling the officers bad guys, not saying they are guilty of a crime, not even saying most of their decisions were wrong. I do think they used somewhat poor judgment, at a critical moment, in a situation in which they had to think and act fast. I also believe that their judgment may have made the situation worse than it otherwise would have been had they opted to take cover. The split second more it would have taken to get behind cover, get sighted in on the suspect from a strong supported shooting stance, and then give their commands, possibly could have made a huge difference. It would have certainly only been a split second more, they were only a couple to few steps away from it before the bad guy was apparently alerted to their presence.
It is a shame, in their obvious willingness to face danger, while doing their duty to stop the guy, they did not take cover first or even after the bad guy knew the police were after him. That is especially so since it appears they could have done so even after the bad guy drew his weapon. I truly believe the outcome would have been much better had they done so immediately before the bad guy was alerted. Thus they might have made it a one or two shot stop of the bad guy with no bystanders injured. Instead one cop has the other cop in, what appears to me to be, a near or actual crossfire situation for a moment. Both are firing while moving trying to avoid being shot. The cop, to our left in the video, while apparently using a two hand, is seemingly left handed and ultimately winds up moving to his off side, making it a more difficult to aim at the suspect. The officer, to our right in the video, is also moving to his off side, he probably realized he had the other cop in, or close to being in, a crossfire and thus making it harder to aim his shots toward his strong side where the bad guy was located. He also seems to be holding his pistol in only his right hand while probably using his left for balance or to avoid running into something as he moves and keeps his eyes on the suspect. The bad guy was indeed stopped after a total of 16 shots were fired by the officers, but 9 bystanders were injured, (corrected to remove that I thought 1 bystander had been killed) and it is suspected that police bullets or bullet fragments hit all 9 of the bystanders and were responsible for their injuries. I think the officers taking cover would have made a world of difference.
That is all just my opinion of the shootout and how things may have turned out differently had, what I think would have been, a sounder tactical assessment been applied. Bear in mind, this is only my opinion and that may change if and when more information and evidence is released for public review. For now, I can only base my opinion on what I have seen and heard reported to date and on my experience and training.
All the best,
Glenn B.
In the situation in which they placed themselves, they had to fire from a standing and moving position thus making it much harder for them to keep on target what with the immense stress they were under with this guy shooting at them. Had they first gotten behind cover, drawn a bead on the suspect and then ordered him "Police - DON'T MOVE", he probably would have turned, not immediately seen them, or only seen what he could see of them around the cover of those concrete planters, been momentarily confused instead of instantly ready, while they already would have taken aim and had a much more controlled shooting platform from which to take a more accurate set of shots at him. Doing it that way may have also given bystanders a split second more to realize what was going on and to get out of the line of fire. Instead, I am of the opinion, they took a much less tactically sound position when cover was readily available. I believe that had they gotten behind cover before alerting him, the outcome would possibly, even likely, have been much different - the police maybe firing many fewer shots to stop him and thus the potential for harm to bystanders going down markedly.
Of course, it is really easy to Monday morning quarterback but I believe you safely can bet your bottom dollar that the video will be used as a training video by law enforcement firearms instructors for years to come and one of the things their training probably will emphasize is that neither of the two officers properly and fully assessed the situation nor made use of available cover. I am not calling the officers bad guys, not saying they are guilty of a crime, not even saying most of their decisions were wrong. I do think they used somewhat poor judgment, at a critical moment, in a situation in which they had to think and act fast. I also believe that their judgment may have made the situation worse than it otherwise would have been had they opted to take cover. The split second more it would have taken to get behind cover, get sighted in on the suspect from a strong supported shooting stance, and then give their commands, possibly could have made a huge difference. It would have certainly only been a split second more, they were only a couple to few steps away from it before the bad guy was apparently alerted to their presence.
It is a shame, in their obvious willingness to face danger, while doing their duty to stop the guy, they did not take cover first or even after the bad guy knew the police were after him. That is especially so since it appears they could have done so even after the bad guy drew his weapon. I truly believe the outcome would have been much better had they done so immediately before the bad guy was alerted. Thus they might have made it a one or two shot stop of the bad guy with no bystanders injured. Instead one cop has the other cop in, what appears to me to be, a near or actual crossfire situation for a moment. Both are firing while moving trying to avoid being shot. The cop, to our left in the video, while apparently using a two hand, is seemingly left handed and ultimately winds up moving to his off side, making it a more difficult to aim at the suspect. The officer, to our right in the video, is also moving to his off side, he probably realized he had the other cop in, or close to being in, a crossfire and thus making it harder to aim his shots toward his strong side where the bad guy was located. He also seems to be holding his pistol in only his right hand while probably using his left for balance or to avoid running into something as he moves and keeps his eyes on the suspect. The bad guy was indeed stopped after a total of 16 shots were fired by the officers, but 9 bystanders were injured, (corrected to remove that I thought 1 bystander had been killed) and it is suspected that police bullets or bullet fragments hit all 9 of the bystanders and were responsible for their injuries. I think the officers taking cover would have made a world of difference.
That is all just my opinion of the shootout and how things may have turned out differently had, what I think would have been, a sounder tactical assessment been applied. Bear in mind, this is only my opinion and that may change if and when more information and evidence is released for public review. For now, I can only base my opinion on what I have seen and heard reported to date and on my experience and training.
All the best,
Glenn B.
Discussion About Deer Management Permits - I Did Something Right When Raising My Son
I sent a text message to my son a couple of nights ago to ask him in which wildlife management unit he wanted to apply for deer management permits, that way I could apply for other areas as I like to have a lot of possibilities open to us. He told me in the unit where his girlfriend's parents had a house in upstate NY, in the NW Catskills. The rest of our back and forth, relative to my having asked where the house was located, follows:
Son: In the town of --------. (He named the village.)
Son: I'll just shoot them without a permit anyway. So it doesn't matter.
Me: No you won't. Say no more.
Son: Haaha, if I got the AK I can't miss! Lol, just kidding, I'd never poach.
Me: There is a low chance of getting a DMP there as first choice only and you can also choose another place as second choice.
Son: ...honestly I'll just go without a permit and keep everything up there.
Me: Stop sending messages like that. All your text messages are kept by phone comp 4ever just like emails. (I really do not know if the phone company keeps texts like emails but suspect they do.)
Son: I'm just kidding. I'm not going to poach animals. Shit is fucked up, if I can get a permit I will hunt there, if not then I will not hunt there. I was not taught about hunting by an asshole.
Me: Good to know whoever taught u bout huntn is not an a-hole.
Son: Haha, well sometimes he is, but on average he isn't ;)
The text messaging went on a little bit longer but all the important stuff, for this post, was over and done with. Sure made me feel good to know that I did at least a few things right in his upbringing, such as what I taught him about hunting, and to know that he does not consider me to be an asshole. Well - at least not for most of the time!
All the best,
Glenn B
Son: In the town of --------. (He named the village.)
Son: I'll just shoot them without a permit anyway. So it doesn't matter.
Me: No you won't. Say no more.
Son: Haaha, if I got the AK I can't miss! Lol, just kidding, I'd never poach.
Me: There is a low chance of getting a DMP there as first choice only and you can also choose another place as second choice.
Son: ...honestly I'll just go without a permit and keep everything up there.
Me: Stop sending messages like that. All your text messages are kept by phone comp 4ever just like emails. (I really do not know if the phone company keeps texts like emails but suspect they do.)
Son: I'm just kidding. I'm not going to poach animals. Shit is fucked up, if I can get a permit I will hunt there, if not then I will not hunt there. I was not taught about hunting by an asshole.
Me: Good to know whoever taught u bout huntn is not an a-hole.
Son: Haha, well sometimes he is, but on average he isn't ;)
The text messaging went on a little bit longer but all the important stuff, for this post, was over and done with. Sure made me feel good to know that I did at least a few things right in his upbringing, such as what I taught him about hunting, and to know that he does not consider me to be an asshole. Well - at least not for most of the time!
All the best,
Glenn B
Some Thoughts On The Police Shooting of 9 Bystanders In NYC
So, it has been reported that NYPD Police Commissioner Ray Kelly has stated that all 9 bystanders, who were injured by gunfire, near the Empire State Building during a police shoot out with an armed man, were injured by police bullets or bullet fragments. (Source: just heard it on Fox News as I was writing this and have read it in various online news agency articles and blogs). These are just some of my thoughts on it all (bear in mind I do not know all of the facts and I am surmising on some of this based upon what I do know about the incident and about law enforcement firearms training):
It has been reported that 9 bystanders were wounded by police gunfire, none by shots from the bad guy. Many other bloggers and folks are saying that the officers missed with 9 shots. They probably did not miss nine times if I got the math right. They reportedly fired a total of 16 shots. The bad guy was reportedly hit 10 times. That means they likely missed with 6 shots.
Working on those reported facts, either the facts are wrong or these things happened:
A bullet or bullets (or bullet fragment[s]) passed through the perpetrator and hit bystander(s).
Likewise a bullet or bullets could have grazed or gone through one bystander and hit another.
A bullet or bullets hit something and ricocheted, maybe fragmenting, and hit bystander(s).
Other bullets may have also hit bystanders directly. (I removed statement that one bystander was deceased, brain fart on my part to have said so).
The police should indeed have drawn their weapons, there is no doubt about it.
A law enforcement officer does not respond to an armed felon who just reportedly shot another man in cold blood with his her pistol holstered unless the officers are the hands on officers with ample back-up who have their weapons drawn at the ready.
The two police officers, involved in the shooting, quite possibly did not act properly once first informed of the info about the bad guy.
Given the location, the time, the crowds, I believe they should have assessed, drawn their weapons and immediately taken cover while ordering bad guy to comply with their first command to not move. Of course that depends on whether or not cover was available. For all I know, maybe they did do that but it does not sound as if they took cover, I believe I read they approached the suspect.
As to whether or not the police or any LEO should ever shoot when there is a possibility of injuring an innocent, the police would likely not be able to shoot in about 90% of the shooting situations in which they may find themselves; that is especially so in a crowded urban area like NYC. Please do not quote the 4 rules of Jeff Cooper, especially the one about knowing your target and what is beyond, if you reply. In many cases, there virtually is no way to know what is beyond your target, within range of a bullet you fire, within the confines of Manhattan - yet, shooting at a bad guy is often appropriate in those instances. The absolute rules, as given by Cooper, are for absolutists and in real life the only absolute we know, of with absoluteness, is death.
In addition, sometimes police will be faced with the decision 'Is it better to take a shot or shots, even when bystander safety is at high risk, from law enforcement fire, or not take the shot(s)'. Sometimes the answer could be yes, it is better to take the shot(s) but I do not believe this was the case here, at least not for all of the shots they took. If you can not imagine when, then you ought to give it some long and serious thought because sometimes the risk to bystanders from LE bullets is outweighed by other risks to the bystanders. Such could be immediate risks posed by bad guy randomly shooting into a crowd or the imminent risk of a bad guy chewing off another man's face. Should they take a shot, if it poses a risk to a bystander but less of a risk than that caused by the bad guy? Maybe yes, under some circumstances. (I don't believe it the case here but it may have been so as I am unaware of all the facts.)
There are a lot of factors that could have caused the officers to miss that many times. Six out of 16 shots is a high percentage of misses and I am making no excuses for the misses just giving reasons as to why they may have been misses (note I said may have
Through all of this though, it was up to the officers to shoot or not shoot. The decision was theirs for each and every shot they fired. They are responsible for each shot they took. Those statements are based on 32 years of firearms training I received as a LEO and on 14 years of instructing other LEO in firearms training. Yet, to anyone who says they sprayed and prayed, while it may well have been the case, I am not all that sure such was the case. It seems that it took 10 rounds to stop the bad guy. There were many possible reasons for their missing with 6 shots. We do not know which shots missed. They could have been the first 6. The officers' assessment, that more shots needed to be fired, could well have been correct or it could have been a case of spray and pray. I think it less likely a case of spray and pray because neither officer likely fired all the rounds in his pistol. They most probably were carrying semi-automatic pistols with at least a 15 round capacity and possibly were carrying MP-5 submachine
The officers, in my estimation, or at least one of the officers made a poor assessment of when it was okay to shoot and one or both were ill prepared mentally (at least at the moment) to face such a situation. (Bear in mind, one of them may have hit the bad guy with every shot he fired and the other may have missed almost every time he fired - one fired 9 shots the other 7 shots, thus the reason I say ' officers or at least one of them.) Being somewhat ill prepared mentally, to face a life threatening situation, in which you may have to take some one's life in order to survive, is not a fault of the officers. In fact, it is probably a sign of their morality. No matter how much we think we would be able to do it if called upon, it goes against the grain of us to do so (unless we are psychos or unless we have been taught, since childhood, that killing is very acceptable). There is no way to train yourself as to absolutely prepare you to be fully ready for such a situation, to train you how you will react and then act in such a situation. Of course, training does help prepare you, it is just not an absolute guarantee of how you will act. These officers probably had a lot of tactical training, at least they should have had such training being assigned, as they were, to an anti-terrorist detail. Again, these are not excuses, just being objective based on my training and my limited knowledge of the facts as presented to the public on this incident.
As I said above, I believe the officers were, or at least one of the officers was, at fault for hitting civilians because I do not think they approached handling the situation from the best way it could have been handled from the beginning. I do not think they assessed the situation properly. I think there were other ways to have handled it that would have been much less likely to have resulted in injury to bystanders by gunshots. Then again, I do not know all the facts and it is easy to criticize when not wearing the shoes of the person being criticized. I would love to be able to review all the reports, witness statements, ballistic evidence reports, possible video of the shooting (it may be out there, lot of people make videos at the Empire State Building) and so on. Then I could make a truly informed decision. So, when it comes right down to it, as I have done in the past for LEOs as well as for accused dirtbags and everyone in between, I will not condemn them without much of or all of the evidence before me (if you know me at all, from this blog or from firearms forums, you know that despite being a retired LEO, I will readily condemn law enforcement when I have become convinced they have screwed up badly and that is not necessarily an uncommon thing for me to do). For now though, I will leave that to the investigators and to the courts because you can bet your bottom dollar this will wind up investigated to the max and will wind up at least in civil courts. These officers are almost sure to face tort claims filed by the wounded bystanders and may face criminal and or will face departmental charges too before all is said and done. They may also be praised as heroes.
I will go as far as to express my opinion, for what it is worth or not, based on my training and experience, on what evidence I have seen or heard reported, and will say that my guess is that these two officers, or at least one of them, screwed up pretty badly at least with regard to 9 non-life threatening to the bystanders. Although, as I have pointed out, there could have been some reasons for the stray bullets that might vindicate the officers of any wrong doing.
I hope you understand, what I just tried to do was give an objective outlook of the incident as opposed to an emotional or biased one. If you are going to leave a comment, please be respectful, be objective, don't get all sorts of emotional or show any obvious bias.
All the best,
Glenn B
It has been reported that 9 bystanders were wounded by police gunfire, none by shots from the bad guy. Many other bloggers and folks are saying that the officers missed with 9 shots. They probably did not miss nine times if I got the math right. They reportedly fired a total of 16 shots. The bad guy was reportedly hit 10 times. That means they likely missed with 6 shots.
Working on those reported facts, either the facts are wrong or these things happened:
A bullet or bullets (or bullet fragment[s]) passed through the perpetrator and hit bystander(s).
Likewise a bullet or bullets could have grazed or gone through one bystander and hit another.
A bullet or bullets hit something and ricocheted, maybe fragmenting, and hit bystander(s).
Other bullets may have also hit bystanders directly. (I removed statement that one bystander was deceased, brain fart on my part to have said so).
The police should indeed have drawn their weapons, there is no doubt about it.
A law enforcement officer does not respond to an armed felon who just reportedly shot another man in cold blood with his her pistol holstered unless the officers are the hands on officers with ample back-up who have their weapons drawn at the ready.
The two police officers, involved in the shooting, quite possibly did not act properly once first informed of the info about the bad guy.
Given the location, the time, the crowds, I believe they should have assessed, drawn their weapons and immediately taken cover while ordering bad guy to comply with their first command to not move. Of course that depends on whether or not cover was available. For all I know, maybe they did do that but it does not sound as if they took cover, I believe I read they approached the suspect.
As to whether or not the police or any LEO should ever shoot when there is a possibility of injuring an innocent, the police would likely not be able to shoot in about 90% of the shooting situations in which they may find themselves; that is especially so in a crowded urban area like NYC. Please do not quote the 4 rules of Jeff Cooper, especially the one about knowing your target and what is beyond, if you reply. In many cases, there virtually is no way to know what is beyond your target, within range of a bullet you fire, within the confines of Manhattan - yet, shooting at a bad guy is often appropriate in those instances. The absolute rules, as given by Cooper, are for absolutists and in real life the only absolute we know, of with absoluteness, is death.
In addition, sometimes police will be faced with the decision 'Is it better to take a shot or shots, even when bystander safety is at high risk, from law enforcement fire, or not take the shot(s)'. Sometimes the answer could be yes, it is better to take the shot(s) but I do not believe this was the case here, at least not for all of the shots they took. If you can not imagine when, then you ought to give it some long and serious thought because sometimes the risk to bystanders from LE bullets is outweighed by other risks to the bystanders. Such could be immediate risks posed by bad guy randomly shooting into a crowd or the imminent risk of a bad guy chewing off another man's face. Should they take a shot, if it poses a risk to a bystander but less of a risk than that caused by the bad guy? Maybe yes, under some circumstances. (I don't believe it the case here but it may have been so as I am unaware of all the facts.)
There are a lot of factors that could have caused the officers to miss that many times. Six out of 16 shots is a high percentage of misses and I am making no excuses for the misses just giving reasons as to why they may have been misses (note I said may have
Through all of this though, it was up to the officers to shoot or not shoot. The decision was theirs for each and every shot they fired. They are responsible for each shot they took. Those statements are based on 32 years of firearms training I received as a LEO and on 14 years of instructing other LEO in firearms training. Yet, to anyone who says they sprayed and prayed, while it may well have been the case, I am not all that sure such was the case. It seems that it took 10 rounds to stop the bad guy. There were many possible reasons for their missing with 6 shots. We do not know which shots missed. They could have been the first 6. The officers' assessment, that more shots needed to be fired, could well have been correct or it could have been a case of spray and pray. I think it less likely a case of spray and pray because neither officer likely fired all the rounds in his pistol. They most probably were carrying semi-automatic pistols with at least a 15 round capacity and possibly were carrying MP-5 submachine
The officers, in my estimation, or at least one of the officers made a poor assessment of when it was okay to shoot and one or both were ill prepared mentally (at least at the moment) to face such a situation. (Bear in mind, one of them may have hit the bad guy with every shot he fired and the other may have missed almost every time he fired - one fired 9 shots the other 7 shots, thus the reason I say ' officers or at least one of them.) Being somewhat ill prepared mentally, to face a life threatening situation, in which you may have to take some one's life in order to survive, is not a fault of the officers. In fact, it is probably a sign of their morality. No matter how much we think we would be able to do it if called upon, it goes against the grain of us to do so (unless we are psychos or unless we have been taught, since childhood, that killing is very acceptable). There is no way to train yourself as to absolutely prepare you to be fully ready for such a situation, to train you how you will react and then act in such a situation. Of course, training does help prepare you, it is just not an absolute guarantee of how you will act. These officers probably had a lot of tactical training, at least they should have had such training being assigned, as they were, to an anti-terrorist detail. Again, these are not excuses, just being objective based on my training and my limited knowledge of the facts as presented to the public on this incident.
As I said above, I believe the officers were, or at least one of the officers was, at fault for hitting civilians because I do not think they approached handling the situation from the best way it could have been handled from the beginning. I do not think they assessed the situation properly. I think there were other ways to have handled it that would have been much less likely to have resulted in injury to bystanders by gunshots. Then again, I do not know all the facts and it is easy to criticize when not wearing the shoes of the person being criticized. I would love to be able to review all the reports, witness statements, ballistic evidence reports, possible video of the shooting (it may be out there, lot of people make videos at the Empire State Building) and so on. Then I could make a truly informed decision. So, when it comes right down to it, as I have done in the past for LEOs as well as for accused dirtbags and everyone in between, I will not condemn them without much of or all of the evidence before me (if you know me at all, from this blog or from firearms forums, you know that despite being a retired LEO, I will readily condemn law enforcement when I have become convinced they have screwed up badly and that is not necessarily an uncommon thing for me to do). For now though, I will leave that to the investigators and to the courts because you can bet your bottom dollar this will wind up investigated to the max and will wind up at least in civil courts. These officers are almost sure to face tort claims filed by the wounded bystanders and may face criminal and or will face departmental charges too before all is said and done. They may also be praised as heroes.
I will go as far as to express my opinion, for what it is worth or not, based on my training and experience, on what evidence I have seen or heard reported, and will say that my guess is that these two officers, or at least one of them, screwed up pretty badly at least with regard to 9 non-life threatening to the bystanders. Although, as I have pointed out, there could have been some reasons for the stray bullets that might vindicate the officers of any wrong doing.
I hope you understand, what I just tried to do was give an objective outlook of the incident as opposed to an emotional or biased one. If you are going to leave a comment, please be respectful, be objective, don't get all sorts of emotional or show any obvious bias.
All the best,
Glenn B
Saturday, August 25, 2012
NY FIREARMS FORUM LINK REMOVED FROM MY BLOG
A moderator there told me, tonight, that he had removed a post from a for sale thread I had there because he or she believed my lowering a price of a shotgun I had for sale was considered a "bump" to my thread. Then I posted a pointless post two days later with the intention of bumping it and he said bumps must be three days apart and he had to delete mine because the dropping the selling price post was a bump. I have never heard anything as ridiculous on a forum concerning bumps. Adding a new selling price or expanding the area of the sale, both things I did, would not be considered a bump by definition of the word bump, nor by other moderators on other forums I use. When I protested and sent in the definition of a bump to that moderator, I was in essence called a name that was a slightly veiled profanity. He or she told me I was being a "smartazz" (did not even have the balls to call me a smartass, probably because the site's filters would not have allowed it but I guess it is okay to call someone profanities as long as they are in code on that forum). Somewhere in his or her private messages to me I was also told that I was being harsh. I was not harsh, not sarcastic, not nasty, not offensive, just straight forward and truthful and gave the definition of bump to him or her: "To bump a thread on an Internet forum is to post a reply to it purely in order to raise the thread's profile." (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bump_(Internet).
Since that seemed harsh, and apparently made it look as if I was being a "smartazz", I decided to remove my offer of the shotgun I was selling there. I can easily sell it elsewhere.
I think it was when I said I would do that when the mod threatened to report me to the administrators (ooh how I trembled) and I guess he or she thought that would be the ticket to get me to comply with someone who did not know about which he or she was speaking. Heck, I had already told him or her I would comply because the rules were made by the people who run the forum, I also sent him or her the definition of bump and I guess that meant, to the mod, that I had overstepped the bounds of Bizarro World. I told him or her I would remove the offer and simply edited my thread to show it no loner available.
Then I also replied and asked to be removed from the forums completely, to have all my threads removed and all my personal info removed and to have my registration removed. Think they would do so. Heck no, Heaven forbid they lose stats for users. Instead, they banned me until September sometime or another. For all I know, or care, it could be next month or ten years from next month.
Allow me to now become disrespectful in turn to them because what goes around comes around and because I truly believe that we should do unto others as we would have done onto ourselves. If I treat anyone with such disrespect then I would expect them to be disrespectful to me in turn. So, let me give it right back to them.
FUCK THEM, they can not even get it right when a forum user asks to be removed from their site. I cannot abide by they whom I believe are assholes and disrespectful ones at that and that is exactly what I believe is that moderator.
This may seem petty to you but dealing with pompous assholes always makes me feel miserable and getting it off of my chest like this sure makes me feel better.
All the best,
Glenn B
Since that seemed harsh, and apparently made it look as if I was being a "smartazz", I decided to remove my offer of the shotgun I was selling there. I can easily sell it elsewhere.
I think it was when I said I would do that when the mod threatened to report me to the administrators (ooh how I trembled) and I guess he or she thought that would be the ticket to get me to comply with someone who did not know about which he or she was speaking. Heck, I had already told him or her I would comply because the rules were made by the people who run the forum, I also sent him or her the definition of bump and I guess that meant, to the mod, that I had overstepped the bounds of Bizarro World. I told him or her I would remove the offer and simply edited my thread to show it no loner available.
Then I also replied and asked to be removed from the forums completely, to have all my threads removed and all my personal info removed and to have my registration removed. Think they would do so. Heck no, Heaven forbid they lose stats for users. Instead, they banned me until September sometime or another. For all I know, or care, it could be next month or ten years from next month.
Allow me to now become disrespectful in turn to them because what goes around comes around and because I truly believe that we should do unto others as we would have done onto ourselves. If I treat anyone with such disrespect then I would expect them to be disrespectful to me in turn. So, let me give it right back to them.
FUCK THEM, they can not even get it right when a forum user asks to be removed from their site. I cannot abide by they whom I believe are assholes and disrespectful ones at that and that is exactly what I believe is that moderator.
This may seem petty to you but dealing with pompous assholes always makes me feel miserable and getting it off of my chest like this sure makes me feel better.
All the best,
Glenn B
Seem To Have A Bug In My Computer...
...and it has been driving me bonkers. So, I have been trying to make up my mind on how best to get rid of it. Maybe I should use Norton Anti-Virus but it does not appear to be the right type of computer bug, certainly not a virus or malware. Maybe Raid Flying Insect Killer, then again I have not seen it take flight. Maybe I should just bring out the heavy artillery, the Remington 870, with a round or two of 00 Buckshot. Since I am none to sure I want to destroy the borrowed laptop, that I have been using, right along with the pesky little vermin - maybe the shotgun would be overkill. If I thought they could get at it, I'd let my Crested Geckos have a shot. Oh decisions, decisions - life seems to be full of tough decisions!
All the best,
GB
A True Hero Gone - Neil Armstrong August 5, 1930 - August 25, 2012
When I was a youngster, and I mean pretty young from about age 5 to age 15 or so, I had a few different real life heroes that I worshipped. One was Buffalo Bill Cody, another was Wild Bill Hickok, another was Daniel Boone and another was much more modern than the other three. He was John Glenn. John Glenn was one of the first U.S. Astronauts to orbit the globe, he was also a pilot of the X-15, the aircraft that holds the all time air speed record. In fact, if an inanimate object could be a hero, then the X-15 was one for me and John Glenn was its master. John Glenn held a place in my imagination and in my heart, I esteemed him above almost anyone else in those youthful days of yesteryear.
I never heard much of the others who flew the X-15, there were about 7 other test pilots who flew it with some regularity. They were all either brave or foolish or both. One of them, a man who was not one to take to the spotlight often, and who reportedly considered himself a geek or a nerd, also wound up being one of the biggest media stars ever. In fact, news casts of him and his co-astronaut, during a single event lasting just around 3 hours, was and remains the most viewed television event of all times having had over 600,000,000 (yes, six hundred million) viewers as it happened live. That event was mankind's first landing on a world other than our own, with Neil Armstrong being the first man to set foot on the Moon. Before even being close to exiting the lunar module though, Neil Armstrong contacted earth and uttered some words that likely would have been remembered as one of the most famous quotes ever had those words not soon been overshadowed by other words he would speak once out of the capsule. The first words, from Armstrong to Mission Control were:
"Houston, Tranquility Base here. The Eagle has landed."
With those first words, the Lunar Landing gave the United States of America a victory in the Space Race segment of the Cold War over the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (commonly known as the USSR or now called Russia). Yet, not long after saying those words, Armstrong would say something that no other man will be in the position of saying ever again, at least not with the same meaning and authority and originality, because that second famous set of words came at the moment he was the first human to set foot on a world not our own. He said:
"That's one small step for [a] man, one giant leap for mankind."
(The word "a" is in parenthesis because it was inaudible in the transmissions to earth and while he meant to say it, and for years believed he had said it, Armstrong later admitted he somehow may have left it out in all the excitement of the lunar landing. There is still controversy over whether he said "a man" or simply "man" and a computer programmer from Australia, who digitally analyzed the audio in recent years, claims that Armstrong did in fact say "a man". Armstrong has been reported as hoping that history would overlook it if he had slipped and said "man" instead of "a man". He was that sort of a guy.)
As I said, he was not one to stand in the spot lights, not a glory seeker, not one to beat his chest and say I was the first man ever to set foot on another world. Yet, he was quite proud of his accomplishments but still considered himself a nerd:
"I am, and ever will be, a white socks, pocket protector, nerdy engineer," he said in February 2000 in one of his rare public appearances. "And I take a substantial amount of pride in the accomplishments of my profession."
Armstrong was also a patriot who believed strongly that lunar and other space exploration would benefit the USA and mankind. He did not agree at all with the new policies on privatizing space exploration set in place by President Barack H. Obama and despite his very private and retiring personality in 2010 he spoke out against those policies.
Many might think of the space race as just another of mans' wars. Indeed it was often part of the Cold War and was championed by the U.S. President John F. Kennedy during the height of the Cold War when he set forth this challenge for America:
"I believe this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before the decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to Earth," Kennedy had said. "No single space project in this period will be more impressive to mankind, or more important to the long-range exploration of space; and none will be so difficult or expensive to accomplish."
Armstrong felt differently about the Space Race, not thinking it so much part of a war as something else:
"the ultimate peaceful competition: USA versus U.S.S.R. It did allow both sides to take the high road, with the objectives of science and learning and exploration".
Armstrong had a lot of help along the way, it was a massive team effort, yet he was the one to actually accomplish being the first to set foot on the Moon. That was on July 21, 1969, just shy of the deadline at the end of the decade, as had been set by President Kennedy!
That he was a patriot and a hero, there is no doubt. That he was a reserved, quiet and private man, there is also no doubt. That he was and remains and American icon, a man of merit even among all those in the world, a man of whose accomplisments
"To this day, he's the one person on Earth, I'm truly, truly envious of."
Neil Armstrong, you will, as long as there are those who dream of traveling among the stars, live forever. Godspeed across the Universe Divide, I hope you do reach the other side, then rest your spirit if you can, before you come back to us again and again and again.
All the best,
Glenn B
I never heard much of the others who flew the X-15, there were about 7 other test pilots who flew it with some regularity. They were all either brave or foolish or both. One of them, a man who was not one to take to the spotlight often, and who reportedly considered himself a geek or a nerd, also wound up being one of the biggest media stars ever. In fact, news casts of him and his co-astronaut, during a single event lasting just around 3 hours, was and remains the most viewed television event of all times having had over 600,000,000 (yes, six hundred million) viewers as it happened live. That event was mankind's first landing on a world other than our own, with Neil Armstrong being the first man to set foot on the Moon. Before even being close to exiting the lunar module though, Neil Armstrong contacted earth and uttered some words that likely would have been remembered as one of the most famous quotes ever had those words not soon been overshadowed by other words he would speak once out of the capsule. The first words, from Armstrong to Mission Control were:
"Houston, Tranquility Base here. The Eagle has landed."
With those first words, the Lunar Landing gave the United States of America a victory in the Space Race segment of the Cold War over the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (commonly known as the USSR or now called Russia). Yet, not long after saying those words, Armstrong would say something that no other man will be in the position of saying ever again, at least not with the same meaning and authority and originality, because that second famous set of words came at the moment he was the first human to set foot on a world not our own. He said:
"That's one small step for [a] man, one giant leap for mankind."
(The word "a" is in parenthesis because it was inaudible in the transmissions to earth and while he meant to say it, and for years believed he had said it, Armstrong later admitted he somehow may have left it out in all the excitement of the lunar landing. There is still controversy over whether he said "a man" or simply "man" and a computer programmer from Australia, who digitally analyzed the audio in recent years, claims that Armstrong did in fact say "a man". Armstrong has been reported as hoping that history would overlook it if he had slipped and said "man" instead of "a man". He was that sort of a guy.)
As I said, he was not one to stand in the spot lights, not a glory seeker, not one to beat his chest and say I was the first man ever to set foot on another world. Yet, he was quite proud of his accomplishments but still considered himself a nerd:
"I am, and ever will be, a white socks, pocket protector, nerdy engineer," he said in February 2000 in one of his rare public appearances. "And I take a substantial amount of pride in the accomplishments of my profession."
Armstrong was also a patriot who believed strongly that lunar and other space exploration would benefit the USA and mankind. He did not agree at all with the new policies on privatizing space exploration set in place by President Barack H. Obama and despite his very private and retiring personality in 2010 he spoke out against those policies.
Many might think of the space race as just another of mans' wars. Indeed it was often part of the Cold War and was championed by the U.S. President John F. Kennedy during the height of the Cold War when he set forth this challenge for America:
"I believe this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before the decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to Earth," Kennedy had said. "No single space project in this period will be more impressive to mankind, or more important to the long-range exploration of space; and none will be so difficult or expensive to accomplish."
Armstrong felt differently about the Space Race, not thinking it so much part of a war as something else:
"the ultimate peaceful competition: USA versus U.S.S.R. It did allow both sides to take the high road, with the objectives of science and learning and exploration".
Armstrong had a lot of help along the way, it was a massive team effort, yet he was the one to actually accomplish being the first to set foot on the Moon. That was on July 21, 1969, just shy of the deadline at the end of the decade, as had been set by President Kennedy!
That he was a patriot and a hero, there is no doubt. That he was a reserved, quiet and private man, there is also no doubt. That he was and remains and American icon, a man of merit even among all those in the world, a man of whose accomplisments
"To this day, he's the one person on Earth, I'm truly, truly envious of."
Neil Armstrong, you will, as long as there are those who dream of traveling among the stars, live forever. Godspeed across the Universe Divide, I hope you do reach the other side, then rest your spirit if you can, before you come back to us again and again and again.
All the best,
Glenn B
7 Year Old Shoots Garbage Man - I Think That Maybe There Is Much More To This Story
So, the report says that a 7 year old has shot, and wounded, a local garbage man inside of a home, they did not specify to whom the home belonged. They did say the gun belonged to the trash man. They quote the local mayor as saying: "He is loved by everyone in town," - referring to, Mr. Delucia, the shot sanitation worker. The guy is in stable condition. They expect no charges to be filed.
I think there is a possibility that charges should and may well yet be filed. Why do I think so?
First of all, one has to wonder why the reporting on this incident is so scanty when coming out of the state of CT - a state well known for its anti-gun sentiments. You would think the press would be all over such a shooting but maybe the police have withheld information due to an ongoing investigation. Second, I have to wonder, even surmise, that this likely took place inside of Mr. Delucia's home. I say that because the gun has been reported as being legally registered to Mr. Delucia. I kind of doubt it likely would have been available to the 7 year old boy, who shot him with it, in another home. That is unless Mr. Delucia were in another home and Mr. Delucia made the pistol available to the child which seems less than likely. Then again, it seems he must have somehow allowed the child access to it whether intentionally or not. That begs the question of charges of child endangerment and it suggests to me that the gun was possibly left unattended and forgotten where the child found it somewhere in Mr. Delucia's home. Again, just guesswork.
Of course, there is also the question of why was the 7 year old child, who apparently was not his child (the boy was reported to be his neighbor) in a home with Mr. Delucia in the first place? Was the child there along with one or both of his parents or with a guardian or was the child there with Mr. Delucia alone or with other children and Mr. Delucia? Was it Mr. Delucia's home, the child's home a neighbors home. As I said above, I would guess it to have been Mr. Delucia's home.
Finally, I wonder, was it actually an accidental shooting (yes one due to negligence) or was it a purposeful shooting? Could the boy have been defending himself?
The article is just so meager as to the amount of fact upon which it has reported that it leaves me to beg answers to these questions, if not directly, then simply by more full reporting of what took place and how and why it happened.
Hopefully there is nothing nefarious involved here. Sadly, at the least, it seems this shooting possibly was due to a failure of the owner to secure his pistol from children. Folks, as gun owners, gun safety is our responsibility. Try to bear in mind that the life you save may be your own.
All the best,
Glenn B
I think there is a possibility that charges should and may well yet be filed. Why do I think so?
First of all, one has to wonder why the reporting on this incident is so scanty when coming out of the state of CT - a state well known for its anti-gun sentiments. You would think the press would be all over such a shooting but maybe the police have withheld information due to an ongoing investigation. Second, I have to wonder, even surmise, that this likely took place inside of Mr. Delucia's home. I say that because the gun has been reported as being legally registered to Mr. Delucia. I kind of doubt it likely would have been available to the 7 year old boy, who shot him with it, in another home. That is unless Mr. Delucia were in another home and Mr. Delucia made the pistol available to the child which seems less than likely. Then again, it seems he must have somehow allowed the child access to it whether intentionally or not. That begs the question of charges of child endangerment and it suggests to me that the gun was possibly left unattended and forgotten where the child found it somewhere in Mr. Delucia's home. Again, just guesswork.
Of course, there is also the question of why was the 7 year old child, who apparently was not his child (the boy was reported to be his neighbor) in a home with Mr. Delucia in the first place? Was the child there along with one or both of his parents or with a guardian or was the child there with Mr. Delucia alone or with other children and Mr. Delucia? Was it Mr. Delucia's home, the child's home a neighbors home. As I said above, I would guess it to have been Mr. Delucia's home.
Finally, I wonder, was it actually an accidental shooting (yes one due to negligence) or was it a purposeful shooting? Could the boy have been defending himself?
The article is just so meager as to the amount of fact upon which it has reported that it leaves me to beg answers to these questions, if not directly, then simply by more full reporting of what took place and how and why it happened.
Hopefully there is nothing nefarious involved here. Sadly, at the least, it seems this shooting possibly was due to a failure of the owner to secure his pistol from children. Folks, as gun owners, gun safety is our responsibility. Try to bear in mind that the life you save may be your own.
All the best,
Glenn B
Friday, August 24, 2012
A Little Blog Roll Updating
I added a new category to my blog rolls, thus have a new blog roll titled: Bloggers Whom I Have Met. Those listed in that particular blog roll may also be listed in one of the other ones such as in GRUMPS, GEEKS, GUN FOLKS AND GENIUSES - All Nice Enough To Give Me A Courtesy Link (just also changed the name on that one a bit) or in one of the other two blog rolls I have on the right side of my blog in The Blue Zone.
Speaking of a blogger whom I have met and who just happens to be someone who placed my blog in his blog roll, allow me to welcome Doubletrouble to my blog roll. His blog is RattailBastard. It is now listed under both BLOGGERS WHOM I HAVE MET and under GRUMPS, GEEKS, GUN FOLKS AND GENIUSES - All Nice Enough To Give Me A Courtesy Link. While I have not had the opportunity to read up on many of his posts yet, I will do so soon as possible. Regardless, I can tell you that, based upon my having met him and his wife, I can say he and his lady are good people and I think his blog should be well worth the read.
All the best,
Glenn B
Speaking of a blogger whom I have met and who just happens to be someone who placed my blog in his blog roll, allow me to welcome Doubletrouble to my blog roll. His blog is RattailBastard. It is now listed under both BLOGGERS WHOM I HAVE MET and under GRUMPS, GEEKS, GUN FOLKS AND GENIUSES - All Nice Enough To Give Me A Courtesy Link. While I have not had the opportunity to read up on many of his posts yet, I will do so soon as possible. Regardless, I can tell you that, based upon my having met him and his wife, I can say he and his lady are good people and I think his blog should be well worth the read.
All the best,
Glenn B
WIN DINNER WITH BARACK
I just entered a contest to win "Dinner With Barack". How many Barack's do you know, yes I mean with President Obama. There were a few ways to enter, two or three by way of making a contribution to his reelection campaign and another that did not require a contribution. Of course, I did not give even a penny.
Even though I find myself in almost total disagreement with the man's policies, and I am certain I will not vote for him, it certainly would have the potential to be an interesting dinner.
Want to give it a try, go here:
https://my.barackobama.com/page/s/om-dinner-with-barack-sept-alt
All the best,
Glenn B
Even though I find myself in almost total disagreement with the man's policies, and I am certain I will not vote for him, it certainly would have the potential to be an interesting dinner.
Want to give it a try, go here:
https://my.barackobama.com/page/s/om-dinner-with-barack-sept-alt
All the best,
Glenn B
Police May Have Shot 8 Bystanders In Shootout Near Empire State Building...
...as reported by NBC: "Eight bystanders were grazed or shot -- all of them, apparently, by police bullets, sources said.", see: http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/24/13455394-2-killed-8-injured-in-shooting-near-empire-state-building?lite/.
In addition, according to a radio report I heard on a local radio station, 1010 WINS (CBS News) this morning at about 1130 or so, the reporter claimed Police Commissioner Ray Kelly, while answering the questions of a mob of reporters, said his officers had no other option. He reportedly said, in sum and substance, that his officers had been fired upon and had to shoot back and something to the effect that things like this just happen! If, I heard that right and if the reporter got it right, and that is in essence what Commissioner Kelly blurted out, it is an outrage and Kelly should be walking the streets looking for a new job as a peanut salesman or similar work for the brain dead. Of course, he will not be fired because his mouth is firmly planted on Mayor Bloomberg's ass when he is not making such statements that show his apparent disregard for the public safety. Guns in the hands of law enforcement only is the policy Ray Kelly and Mayor Bloomberg would like to see - and now Kelly apparently has said it is somehow okay or to be expected for the police to mow down innocent bystanders to protect themselves!
I was a law enforcement firearms instructor for 14 years. I was a law enforcement officer for 32 years. I was taught, and taught others, time and time again, that as LEOs, we are responsible for every bullet that comes out of our guns. I distinctly got the idea that if it was an overwhelming danger, to the public, for me to be shooting at a bad guy, I should either yell for people to take cover and get down, take cover myself, and shoot only when it was unlikely I would hit innocents. I was also well trained to shoot and hit my target. As far as misses go during such confrontations, I can understand it because of such things like adrenalin, being very scared and the pucker factor all contributing to misses. All the more reason not to shoot toward a crowd of innocents and the officers should have known it. It is a touch call to make and I am not about to condemn them, I was not in their shows. I do, however, condemn the alleged statements of Kelly. Folks, if Kelly's supposed statement is not a wake up call about the leftist side's view of the value of the lives of We The People, then nothing is such.
A hat tip to the construction worker who followed the bad guy, and reported him to police. It is now reported that the bad guy shot his ex-coworker on 33rd Street due to a dispute probably associated with him having been fired last year. The construction worker witnessed that shooting, then followed the bad guy, saw the police near the Empire State Building and reported the bad guy to the cops. According to mayor Bloomberg, the construction worker was not a hero, he did what he was supposed to have done, reported the shooter to the professionals and that was that. Un fucking believable, Bloomberg is a royal asshole in my opinion. No one else did what that construction worker did, only he was brave enough to follow the guy until he found police officer to whom he could report the initial shooting. If not for him, the guy might have gone on to kill others. The construction had brass balls and all I can say about what he did is that we owe him thanks, not the pooh-poohing of Mayor Bloomberg. Listen to the mayor at 6m 27sec of this video http://video.msnbc.msn.com/jansing-and-co/48779578#48779578. Bloomberg, once again, has proven himself a pompous ass in my opinion.
All the best,
Glenn B
In addition, according to a radio report I heard on a local radio station, 1010 WINS (CBS News) this morning at about 1130 or so, the reporter claimed Police Commissioner Ray Kelly, while answering the questions of a mob of reporters, said his officers had no other option. He reportedly said, in sum and substance, that his officers had been fired upon and had to shoot back and something to the effect that things like this just happen! If, I heard that right and if the reporter got it right, and that is in essence what Commissioner Kelly blurted out, it is an outrage and Kelly should be walking the streets looking for a new job as a peanut salesman or similar work for the brain dead. Of course, he will not be fired because his mouth is firmly planted on Mayor Bloomberg's ass when he is not making such statements that show his apparent disregard for the public safety. Guns in the hands of law enforcement only is the policy Ray Kelly and Mayor Bloomberg would like to see - and now Kelly apparently has said it is somehow okay or to be expected for the police to mow down innocent bystanders to protect themselves!
I was a law enforcement firearms instructor for 14 years. I was a law enforcement officer for 32 years. I was taught, and taught others, time and time again, that as LEOs, we are responsible for every bullet that comes out of our guns. I distinctly got the idea that if it was an overwhelming danger, to the public, for me to be shooting at a bad guy, I should either yell for people to take cover and get down, take cover myself, and shoot only when it was unlikely I would hit innocents. I was also well trained to shoot and hit my target. As far as misses go during such confrontations, I can understand it because of such things like adrenalin, being very scared and the pucker factor all contributing to misses. All the more reason not to shoot toward a crowd of innocents and the officers should have known it. It is a touch call to make and I am not about to condemn them, I was not in their shows. I do, however, condemn the alleged statements of Kelly. Folks, if Kelly's supposed statement is not a wake up call about the leftist side's view of the value of the lives of We The People, then nothing is such.
A hat tip to the construction worker who followed the bad guy, and reported him to police. It is now reported that the bad guy shot his ex-coworker on 33rd Street due to a dispute probably associated with him having been fired last year. The construction worker witnessed that shooting, then followed the bad guy, saw the police near the Empire State Building and reported the bad guy to the cops. According to mayor Bloomberg, the construction worker was not a hero, he did what he was supposed to have done, reported the shooter to the professionals and that was that. Un fucking believable, Bloomberg is a royal asshole in my opinion. No one else did what that construction worker did, only he was brave enough to follow the guy until he found police officer to whom he could report the initial shooting. If not for him, the guy might have gone on to kill others. The construction had brass balls and all I can say about what he did is that we owe him thanks, not the pooh-poohing of Mayor Bloomberg. Listen to the mayor at 6m 27sec of this video http://video.msnbc.msn.com/jansing-and-co/48779578#48779578. Bloomberg, once again, has proven himself a pompous ass in my opinion.
All the best,
Glenn B
Shootings At Empire State Building
I was just about to start typing up this post, while watching Fox News on the tube (yes it is an old TV) as Fox was interviewing an eye witness to the shootings at the Empire State Building, when the witness described the shooter (at least whom she thought was the shooter). She said: "A young boy, a white boy, uh, uh, and he was dead".
Fox has reported that anywhere from 5 to 8 people were indiscriminately shot outside of the Empire State Building, at 34th Street and 5th Avenue, in the heart of NY City, at 9AM this work day morning. They think it was a possible robbery attempt (seems unlikely to me that this would have been a robbery but that is just a guess on my part). They also reported that the same shooter apparently also had shot someone on 33rd Street. The facts beings reported on have been pretty sketchy and keep changing. They have not said who shot the gunman.
They are now saying, at this moment, that the shooter was an employee who had worked in the Empire State Building until he was fired yesterday (also have said he was fired today, left work and returned with gun). So, they believe it a retaliatory shooting because he had been fired.
In addition, Fox has reported that two NYPD police officers from the 42nd Precinct, who were on an anti-terrorism detail, shot the bad guy.
The NYPD is now confirming 10 people injured (not certain how many shot). Fox is reporting at least3 dead 2 dead (now they are saying maybe only the shooter is dead, keeps changing).
The Empire State Building reportedly has already been reopened to employees of it and the businesses located within. It has not been reopened to tourists yet. Manhattan must be a madhouse as far as traffic goes.
This is all breaking news that keeps changing by the moment.
All the best,
Glenn B
Fox has reported that anywhere from 5 to 8 people were indiscriminately shot outside of the Empire State Building, at 34th Street and 5th Avenue, in the heart of NY City, at 9AM this work day morning. They think it was a possible robbery attempt (seems unlikely to me that this would have been a robbery but that is just a guess on my part). They also reported that the same shooter apparently also had shot someone on 33rd Street. The facts beings reported on have been pretty sketchy and keep changing. They have not said who shot the gunman.
They are now saying, at this moment, that the shooter was an employee who had worked in the Empire State Building until he was fired yesterday (also have said he was fired today, left work and returned with gun). So, they believe it a retaliatory shooting because he had been fired.
In addition, Fox has reported that two NYPD police officers from the 42nd Precinct, who were on an anti-terrorism detail, shot the bad guy.
The NYPD is now confirming 10 people injured (not certain how many shot). Fox is reporting at least
The Empire State Building reportedly has already been reopened to employees of it and the businesses located within. It has not been reopened to tourists yet. Manhattan must be a madhouse as far as traffic goes.
This is all breaking news that keeps changing by the moment.
All the best,
Glenn B
Thursday, August 23, 2012
If You're Brown Bagging It Around The Political Conventions Don't Pack Any Hard Boiled Eggs
If you attend either the Republican or Democrat political conventions, or even if you will be in the area when either is held, and you brown bag it - don't bring along any hard boiled eggs or you may wind up detained for investigation. I jest you not. It seems that the latest news flash, from what probably are paranoid cautious government law enforcement agencies, is that anarchists may try to disrupt the conventions by tossing acid filled eggs (among other things).
I can just imagine some poor slob, sitting down in a public area near the convention, who pulls a couple of hard boiled ones out of his day pack only to be swarmed by SWAT. Even worse would be the outcome for anyone found to be entering one of the conventions with a couple or few eggs in their bag. I can just imagine him or her being pounced upon, detained, questioned, and embarrassed. I can also see the eggs being seized and examined, x-rayed, sniffed by bomb sniffing dogs, and finally wolfed down by some blob from event security. Perhaps this will transfer to TSA as well and hard boiled eggs will become verboten on airline flights (if not so already).
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/22/feds-warn-anarchists-could-blockade-roads-use-acid-filled-eggs-to-protest/
All the best,
Glenn B
I can just imagine some poor slob, sitting down in a public area near the convention, who pulls a couple of hard boiled ones out of his day pack only to be swarmed by SWAT. Even worse would be the outcome for anyone found to be entering one of the conventions with a couple or few eggs in their bag. I can just imagine him or her being pounced upon, detained, questioned, and embarrassed. I can also see the eggs being seized and examined, x-rayed, sniffed by bomb sniffing dogs, and finally wolfed down by some blob from event security. Perhaps this will transfer to TSA as well and hard boiled eggs will become verboten on airline flights (if not so already).
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/22/feds-warn-anarchists-could-blockade-roads-use-acid-filled-eggs-to-protest/
All the best,
Glenn B
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
Our President Not Forgetting Wounded Warriors
Well, really it was our previous president.Would you expect President Obama to ever do something like this?
All the best,
GB
All the best,
GB
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)