Right to Opine

In a hit piece, William Grigg trashes the entire police profession for the misdeeds of a few, concluding:

it’s difficult to see how things would be noticeably worse if we simply did away with it outright.

Let’s look at each incident he cites individually.

In the first case, the officer’s punch was arguably excessive, but…what he did was legal; what the girl did was not. She was interfering with a lawful (if stupid) arrest. Should he have handled it better? No question. But you can’t just shove a cop because you don’t like the fact that he’s enforcing a law you and your friend have just broken, no matter how silly you think the law (jaywalking in this case) may be. (What this officer really needs is a complete refresher in restraint techniques. If that girl had been more savvy she’d have taken him out. His performance was truly pitiful.) Both the officer and the girls acted stupidly.

In the second case, Wright should have pulled over immediately and explained the situation. It’s very likely Daves would have assisted by loading Wright’s wife into his squad car and getting her to the hospital even more quickly than Wright could. What Wright did was illegal and dangerous. He’s lucky Daves didn’t get more squad cars involved. A blockaded street or spike strips would have slowed him down a lot more—and critically endangered his wife—and would have been completely justified. Once at the hospital did Daves act stupidly? Yes. He obviously should have gotten the woman into the ER and sorted out the details later.

Third case…completely indefensible, really. The head EMT even asked the officer to escort them to the hospital first, then take whatever actions he thought necessary. What was he going to do? Evade a police cruiser in an ambulance? The officer shouldn’t just be canned but criminally prosecuted if at all possible. The only question I have is why the ambulance wasn’t running its lights and siren if it was a critical transport. It wouldn’t even have been an issue then.

In addition to a weak analysis of the incidents, Grigg’s article is, unfortunately, also sprinkled with outright fallacies. For example, the notion that police are no different than other citizens—they’re just paid to do what all good citizens should do—doesn’t hold up in any society on the planet. When I’m allowed to carry a handgun in courtrooms, federal buildings, public schools,…I’ll begin to buy that argument. And to quote a (19th century) Brit regarding police authority? Please. The recent shooting spree in the UK could have been stopped by no less than three police officers…if they had been armed. Instead, they were no better than eye witnesses, helpless to stop the killings. If you read the BBC web site, you’ll find examples of UK police futility and uselessness every week. The truth is that our police are, and must be, allowed to do things everyday civilians can’t because they are asked to do things we don’t.

It’s obvious Grigg isn’t a big fan of the police, but cherry-picking a few examples of “Cops Gone Wild” isn’t exactly fair. Even a hundred such examples would not be representative of the thousands of officers who do take their job—with the accompanying ethical and moral imperatives—very seriously. The unlawful or excessive use of force by police should not be tolerated at all, but smearing the entire profession with the abuses of a few, as his conclusion does, is patently dishonest.

From the only-in-California file, the state’s legislature has passed a law banning violent felons from owning body armor. Not surprisingly, the Gubernator signed it yesterday:

“Violent felons wearing body armor pose a dangerous threat to our communities and especially to our men and women in law enforcement,” Schwarzenegger said.

You know, Arnie, the real problem ain’t the body armor…it’s the violent felons. The law was apparently inspired by the infamous North Hollywood bank robbery of 1997.

In 1997, two bank robbers wearing body armor exchanged hundreds of rounds of gunfire with LAPD officers in a takeover robbery at a Bank of America in North Hollywood. Some of the bullets fired by police were deflected by the body armor worn by the robbers. The battle left 11 officers and seven civilians wounded. The two robbers were eventually killed by police during the shoot-out.

Let’s see here. Robbing a bank is already illegal. Robbing a bank with guns is, um, armed robbery, which is double-illegal. Now robbing a bank with guns and body armor will be triple-illegal. So the nutjobs who run CA believe that criminals who are willing to commit an armed felony are going to hear about this law and think, “Yeah, I’m all for using my rifle to rob a bank, but, gosh! I can’t wear body armor, ’cause it’s illegal. Guess I’ll skip the body armor today.”

This is what happens when you hand over your legislature to the far left—a bankrupt state that’s drowning in red ink, unemployment, and punitive taxes (all three of which are very closely related) wherein law-abiding citizens find it almost impossible to arm themselves for protection but have representatives whose idea of keeping them safe is passing yet another law that criminals are going to ignore.

In a townhall meeting with NJ Governor Christie, a teacher whined that, “You’re not compensating me for my education, and you’re not compensating me for my experience.” His response was simply sublime: “You know what? Then you don’t have to do it.”

Ma’am, step away from the left and join us in the real world.

You see, out here in the real world, we don’t get automatic pay increases based on the number of years we’ve worked, how many degrees we hold, or the number of initials and acronyms that follow our names. We get paid based on two things: perceived value and scarcity of skill. Until there are more teacher openings than applicants, the law of supply-and-demand is going to hold your salary down. And until the taxpayers believe you are providing something of increased value, they aren’t going to pony up more of their hard-earned cash.

Like those of us in the real world, you—along with the rest of us who haven’t had pay raises in years—have two basic options: find a higher-paying career, or quit whining and be thankful that in an economy running 10% unemployment you still have a job. Me? I live here in the real world. I choose the latter.

Good news! Obama has announced his administration’s national security strategy. We’re in for a rough ride.

The Obama administration has unveiled a new national security strategy, saying armed conflict should be a last resort when diplomacy is exhausted.

Newsflash: this isn’t a new policy. America’s policy has always been “diplomacy first, war last.” The Democrats’ favorite whipping boy didn’t just decide one day to roll over Iraq. Saddam Hussein spent the decade after the end of the first Gulf War violating the very conditions that ended the war and refusing to comply with U.N. WMD inspections. I probably shouldn’t bother mentioning the latter, as the U.N. is a uselessly corrupt entity, but it only added to the justification of war prompted by the former. Years of diplomacy by the U.S. and other nations had zero effect. War was, in fact, the last and necessary resort.

The document also advocates innovation, economic stability and prosperity as essential to America’s wider security aims.

The left always comes back to economics as the cause of all evil. There is a massive failure to recognize that the leaders and planners—as well as most of the terrorists themselves—of the 9/11 were the product of Saudi Arabian wealth, not poverty. Osama Bin Laden himself is from a very wealthy royal family—the son of privilege, not hardship. The threat of radical Islamic terrorism, which the administration has a wee bit of a problem acknowledging, has nothing whatsoever to do with poverty. “Economic stability and prosperity” are not going to make al Qaeda go away.

“To succeed, we must face the world as it is,” says the document, in what is seen as a formal break from the go-it-alone Bush era.

“The world as it is” is endangered by violent, radical Islam, against which only America and a few of her closest and bravest allies have stood tall. Please face it.

As for “go-it-alone,” the left appears to forget the many nations which joined America in both the Afghan and Iraqi wars, among them some of the best friends and staunchest allies any country could be honored to have. A president who has consistently insulted and mistreated our friends while cozying up to our critics would do well to remember that.

The Obama administration’s new doctrine also reiterates the Obama’s determination to try to engage with countries like Iran and North Korea, but warns that they face deepening isolation if they do not respond to international pressure to come clean on their controversial nuclear programmes.

Translation: he’s going to do a lot of talking and precious little else, while Iran—the world’s largest exporter and supporter of terrorism—forges ahead with its nuclear program. Diplomacy, diplomacy, diplomacy…BOOM!

Other key initiatives outlined in Mr Obama’s strategy include the dismantling of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Not new.

The document describes the security of Israel and peaceful Israeli and Palestinian states living side by side as among the main interests of the US.

Not new, though largely contradicted by his shameful treatment of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu.

“We are shifting from mostly direct exercise and application of power to a more sophisticated and difficult mix of indirect power and influence,” America’s top diplomat [Secretary of State Hillary Clinton] said.

Translation: he’s going to do a lot of talking and precious little else, while Iran—the world’s largest exporter and supporter of terrorism—forges ahead with its nuclear program. Diplomacy, diplomacy, diplomacy…BOOM!

In her speech, Mrs Clinton also reiterated that democracy, human rights and development remained central to American foreign policy.

Yes, while we continue to prop up the U.N. with billions of our hard-earned tax dollars while they elect terrorist states and egregious human rights violators to the Human Rights Council.

Earlier, John Brennan, Mr Obama’s counter-terrorism adviser, said the new strategy also explicitly recognised the threat posed by “individuals radicalised here at home”.

“We’ve seen individuals, including US citizens, armed with their US passport, travel easily to terrorist safe havens and return to America, their deadly plans disrupted by co-ordinated intelligence and law enforcement,” Mr Brennan added.

First, anyone who travels to a “terrorist safe haven” for training and indoctrination is not “radicalised here at home.” This is not home-grown terrorism, but evil imported from the radical Islamic world. But you can’t acknowledge that, can you?

Second, the thwarted plans of the most recent terrorists was not “disrupted by co-ordinated intelligence and law enforcement” in any way, shape, or form. Fort Hood? Successful attack by a radical Muslim. The Fruit-of-Kaboom bomber? Couldn’t get his panties to light. Times Square? A fortunate case of incompetence.

Bill Clinton did not mention the domestic terrorism issue in his 1998 strategy, despite the Oklahoma City bombing three years earlier, while George W Bush made only passing reference to the issue in his 2006 document.

That would be because the bombing of the A.P. Murrah Building in Oklahoma City was the act of a lone nutjob. It was a completely isolated event rather than an ongoing existential threat.

In May this year, New York City police defused a car bomb parked in Times Square, one of the city’s busiest tourist areas.

Yes, but only because Shahzad screwed up and bought the wrong ingredients for his bomb.

The truth is that over the past year we’ve been very, very lucky. Hope that luck holds, because Obama’s new strategy is a recipe for disaster.

Armed thug invades home. Armed 80-year-old homeowner shoots and kills said thug. The perp probably thought he’d have an easier time of it, not just because of the occupants’ ages, but because…this happened in Chicago, where the homeowner wasn’t supposed to possess the handgun that saved his and his wife’s lives.

No charges have been filed against the homeowner, but Chicago currently has a statute outlawing the possession of handguns. Its legality is currently being decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

A high-profile Chicago attorney has already stepped forward offering to represent the man pro bono if he faces charges for possessing a weapon.

“Self-defense isn’t just a right, it’s a duty,” said attorney Joel Brodsky. “If this man is prosecuted for saving his own life it’s not just a travesty, it’s justice turned inside out.”

Chicago’s Mayor Daley—and the rest of his gun-grabbing ilk—would rather have two innocent, elderly victims dead than allow them the ability to defend themselves in their own home.

A woman stabbed four people at a Target store in LA before an off-duty sheriff’s deputy stopped her. I, for one, am sick and tired of reading stories about people being stabbed by knives. It’s high time we banned private ownership of knives. All knives. They kill people.

The stabbing set off a stampede among customers, authorities said.

Well, duh. California has made it impossible for its residents to legally carry virtually any kind of weapon for self-defense. What do you expect? Of course they’re going to run in panic. Here in AZ, there’d have been at least five people within the next two aisles who’d have stopped her with their concealed handguns before that deputy even showed up.

…with liberty and justice for all.

So ends the American Pledge of Allegiance. The concept of justice is deeply ingrained within the American mindset. We have always been, or aspired to be, a nation of just and fair law. Our Constitution guarantees equal treatment under the law and we strive, though imperfectly at times, to live up to that ideal. So important is this principle that it is enshrined in the form of Lady Justice—blind to the individual—at countless courthouses throughout the nation, including the very Supreme Court itself.

We are also, however, a deeply religious people. While the principle of justice can certainly be found in our Judaeo-Christian heritage and philosophy, there are other important ideals to be found therein as well. One in particular is at odds with justice: compassion. Christians in particular often struggle with this apparent dichotomy. Christ embodied compassion—feeding the hungry, healing the sick, forgiving sins. His was an example we must emulate. Too often forgotten, or simply ignored, is the fact that He also personally meted out punishment—most famously when He violently drove swindlers out of the temple. How can we then, as a society, reconcile compassion and justice?

This debate rages fiercely today in the arena of illegal immigration. Many argue that the majority of illegal immigrants are simply desparately poor people who see no hope in their homelands and are attracted to America by the prospect of a better life—and are willing to work hard for it. Personally, I believe this to be true. Despite its flaws, America is still the greatest land of opportunity on the planet—a refuge from tyranny, persecution, poverty, and hopelessness. The argument concludes that, because of their plight, we should show compassion and allow them to stay. This, unfortunately, is a fallacious understanding of compassion.

Consider the bigger picture—the larger consequences of such “compassion.” In this instance, to show compassion—as it is depicted—is to necessarily introduce injustice and incompassion. The massive influx of illegal immigrants across our borders places an increasing and unfair burden on taxpayers—our law-abiding residents—in the form of social services, medical care, and educational expenses. At some point this burden becomes too great, and we see its effects most clearly in overloaded school systems and the growing number of county and municipal hospitals which are closing emergency rooms or declaring bankruptcy. More importantly, allowing illegals to stay creates injustice toward two very important groups: those who have immigrated legally, and those who are waiting—in increasingly long lines—their turn to do so. Why should illegal immigrants be granted the same, or even similar, priviliges as those who follow the law? This is inherently both unjust and incompassionate toward the latter.

Compassion certainly has a valuable place in our society, but it must not come at the expense of justice—of fairness. Our hearts cannot be blind to the individual, but the law must be or it has no meaning. Compassion should justly be shown to the law-abiding rather than the law-breaking.

National media have been in a complete tizzy regarding Arizona’s new illegal immigration law, formally known as SB1070. You can see more about the debate elsewhere. What’s truly relevant is what this law actually does and does not do. (Take the time to read it. Please!)

This law does *not* give state or local police any new legal authority. Local police are already authorized to enforce federal law. If that were not the case, our police forces would not be able to use RICO to go after organized crime. But that happens all the time and noone protests—except people whose last names end in Bonanno. (Yes, they eventually involve the FBI and federal prosecutors, but that’s often only after local actions have already been taken. Oddly, noone is complaining that state laws often overlap federal laws re mob activity, drug trafficking, child pornography, etc.) Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio has been exercising this authority for years, and keeps getting reelected and reelected and…by healthy margins.

This law *does* make enforcement of existing federal law mandatory for local LEOs, whereas until now it was optional. The requirement for foreign nationals to carry documentary identification on their persons is *federal* law. Already there. Gotta have it. When I lived in Germany it was no different. I had to carry ID that showed I was there legally. Those evil, racist Germans. Oh, wait. That might be a legitimate complaint. Never mind. But the left loves France. We had to carry ID to enter France. So there.

This law *does* establish state penalties for both illegal aliens and employers thereof. Why? Federal authorities aren’t enforcing the laws already on the books, and the results are frightening. (Google “Chandler Rapist.” He operated in my neighborhood, attacking girls aged 12-15, and raped three young girls from Andersen Junior High…less than a mile from my home. I have a 12-year-old daughter. Do the math.) If they were, these sections would not be necessary. The entire statute wouldn’t be necessary. It should be noted, however, that the law also provides clear defenses for entrapment in order to protect employers from cooked-up stings. Please read it, Sheriff Joe, and make sure you follow it.

The proof, as they say, will be in the pudding. Jan Brewer has tasked the AZ Peace Officers Standards and Training Board with drafting a training curriculum which will teach officers how to implement the law without violating civil rights. What they come up with in the next 90 days will tell us a lot about how serious we are about enforcing this law. Race is obviously out. But “Mexican” isn’t a race. In case you haven’t noticed, Mexicans come in all shades of color (due primarily to the uneven influx of Spanish, Austrian and French DNA; thank you, colonialism). But someone who, when stopped for speeding, can’t produce a driver’s license and has, say, a funny accent? That’s a choice based on nationality, not race, and would likely stand up in court if argued logically. It remains to be seen whether AZPOST will deliver.

Want to protest? How about protesting a federal government that is more interested in pandering to La Raza than in keeping its own citizens safe?

Two Democratic Representatives from Chicago have asked Illinois Governor Pat Quinn to send in the Illinois National Guard to help fight violent crime in the city. Yep. That handgun ban is working really well, ain’t it?

Disarm the populace then send in the troops. The left’s recipe for “freedom.”

In what can only be described as shoddy journalism, CNN is reporting that there was a shooting at Ohio State University.

A man apparently angry over a poor performance evaluation entered an Ohio State University maintenance building early Tuesday and opened fire, killing a manager before turning the gun on himself, police said.

But we all know this couldn’t have happened because OSU is a gun-free zone.

The university’s response was truly bizarre.

E-mail alerts were sent to students warning them about the shooting, the university said.

Yep. Send ’em an email. That’ll keep the kids safe when the gunfire is already over. At least the students aren’t fooled by the system.

The student newspaper, The Lantern, published an article Sunday saying that students were questioning the effectiveness of such e-mail alerts after three serious crimes last week.

Duh. A system that sends you an email after a shooting or sexual assault (last week’s crimes) isn’t terribly useful in helping you avoid being shot or raped by the criminal. Look how helpful it was to the OSU employee who was killed today.

When will we drop the charade that gun-free zones are either gun-free or safe?