When it comes to bad people doing bad things, everyone has an opinion. Usually it's some form of: "I don't understand why someone would do something like that. It's terrible. I feel so bad for the victims. Something should be done to stop this from happening." Generally, I would agree with the sentiment.
But here's where a problem comes up..... when an airplane goes down, it's terrible. There is often a staggering loss of life and the public is sad and wishes it to not happen again. But I have heard no relative of a crash victim go back to school for aerospace engineering and try to help solve whatever problem happened. The on the scene reporter does not approach someone and start discussing the issues involved with solving problems of fatigue wear on metal/composite rivets, the vibrational harmonics of semi-rigid bodies, or multi-layered redundancy programming of instrument control systems. Why? Because the general public know absolutely zilch, zero, and zip about these things. A victims brother who perviously worked at a sporting goods store does not testify to Congress about the need for tighter thermal process control for ceramic turbine fabrication.
So why is it that violence seems to initiate the exact opposite response? Joe-Bob down the street says he wishes how was there so he could have blown the bad guys head off with "Thumper". Someone who knew the victim says the perpetrator was "disturbed. Relatives of the perpetrator can't believe such a nice guy would do something like this. A slightly narcissistic busybody decides they are going to tackle the social issue. Even more people write their senator with draft legislation to make killing people illegal. Self promoting, professional activists show up like flies to shit and hold rallies and pass out signs. In short, everyone is now an expert on what happened, how it happened, and what needs to be done to solve it. And often it's (coincidentally) so simple that the evening news even screws up the "facts" and the average person can understand it.
When someone dies on the operating table, it's sad and I feel bad the person and their family. Even worse when it is a young person. And even if I have a suspicion about what happened, I keep my trap shut. Outside of discussions with friends, I have no place to make any opinions known or take any action unless I waddle my ass down to John Hopkins University and emerge many years later with a lot of debt and a small piece of paper saying I do.
As a society, we will understand what happens when un-knowledgeable people start making important decisions. Disaster. So when it comes to violence, why do we allow novices to impact the decision making process. The forefront of the issue, being highlighted recently by the tragic case of a 3-year old find an unsecured, loaded gun, and accidentally killing his 1-year old brother. There is a cry to make guns safe.
So what happens? Everybody and their brother is crying for safe guns. Others want to help but only understand one small part of the issue. So their solutions (while well intentioned) are nearly worthless. Here's the take away: It's a futile effort. Know how you stop all freeway collisions? Take all the engines out of cars. That would undoubtably save lives. Now "cars" are safer.... but not really "cars" anymore.
The same is true for guns: A gun is specially designed to be dangerous. It's is not designed to be safe. A firearms' entire purpose is to effectively and efficiently cause as much massive and catastrophic damage to organs and tissue as quickly as possible. In fact, "safe" guns have been invented and I posses many of them and keep them close by at all times: a cell phone, coffee mug, table cloth, hot dog bun, TV remote, my pet rock, a pair of socks, double bacon cheeseburger (one of my favorite firearms), etc.
Friday, April 17, 2015
Tuesday, February 17, 2015
Warning Shots and Missiles
The point is simple: Warning shots are not missiles.
We'll leave the discussion about whether or not one should even fire warning shots for another time (you shouldn't by the way.... ever).
A lot of the arguments about why you shouldn't is that if you fire up into the air, it will come down and kill some innocent little honor student who's personal story amounts to something that should have been featured on the cover of the next Times. And the finger of blame will be pointed straight at you for ripping that life away from the world. You start sounding like a liberal at that point when you get mired in the what if's and ignore factual input.
Here are some things to consider:
1. Bullets do not correct their trajectory in any way, shape, or form once they leave your barrel. If you listen to alarmists, that bullet fired up in the air will begin to fall back to the Earth and orient itself point first, directly at little Susie's brain with full intent to ruin her day. In what world on non-Newtonian physics are you living in? Newton's first law states: When viewed in an inertial reference frame, an object either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by an external force. in plain English that means that if something is moving, it will continue on it's course unless something pushes it. The only two forces acting on a bullet after leaving the barrel are wind resistance and gravity. Neither of those have any particular attraction to Susie. Bullets will travel in a ballistic trajectory governed by classical mechanics.
2. Statistically, the odds of hitting a person with a bullet fired up into the air (We must assume a non trivial angle) are very slim. Perhaps better than winning the lottery but still very low. Think about what percentage of the earth is covered by bodies. Even when you correct the impact plane to account for angle of impact, it's still not very big.
3. Velocity will be substantially limited (we'll assume a shot fired will be relatively close to normal.... say given a variation of +/-20 degrees). The entire vertical component of velocity will disappear and the return to earth will be the cause of gravity and subject to gravitational acceleration. We've all heard the story about how dropping a penny from the observation deck of the Empire State Building would get falling so fast it would kill someone if it hit them on the sidewalk. Less common is the realization that the math of that claim fails to consider two very important concepts: Terminal Velocity and Free Fall. Terminal velocity governs the maximum speed a falling object will achieve, and Free Fall speaks to the absence of orientation. Just like the penny could never travel fast enough or be oriented the correct way to put a hole in someone's skull, a free falling bullet could not kill somebody. Ruin their day, and probably give them a nasty headache? Yes. But not kill them.
So come off it. Stop being alarmist about bullets fired into the air. It's not going to kill someone. Leave that out of the discussion and instead talk about the legal, ethical, and logical arguments of warning shots. Stop using false statements to justify your position... you just end up looking like an idiot.
We'll leave the discussion about whether or not one should even fire warning shots for another time (you shouldn't by the way.... ever).
A lot of the arguments about why you shouldn't is that if you fire up into the air, it will come down and kill some innocent little honor student who's personal story amounts to something that should have been featured on the cover of the next Times. And the finger of blame will be pointed straight at you for ripping that life away from the world. You start sounding like a liberal at that point when you get mired in the what if's and ignore factual input.
Here are some things to consider:
1. Bullets do not correct their trajectory in any way, shape, or form once they leave your barrel. If you listen to alarmists, that bullet fired up in the air will begin to fall back to the Earth and orient itself point first, directly at little Susie's brain with full intent to ruin her day. In what world on non-Newtonian physics are you living in? Newton's first law states: When viewed in an inertial reference frame, an object either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by an external force. in plain English that means that if something is moving, it will continue on it's course unless something pushes it. The only two forces acting on a bullet after leaving the barrel are wind resistance and gravity. Neither of those have any particular attraction to Susie. Bullets will travel in a ballistic trajectory governed by classical mechanics.
2. Statistically, the odds of hitting a person with a bullet fired up into the air (We must assume a non trivial angle) are very slim. Perhaps better than winning the lottery but still very low. Think about what percentage of the earth is covered by bodies. Even when you correct the impact plane to account for angle of impact, it's still not very big.
3. Velocity will be substantially limited (we'll assume a shot fired will be relatively close to normal.... say given a variation of +/-20 degrees). The entire vertical component of velocity will disappear and the return to earth will be the cause of gravity and subject to gravitational acceleration. We've all heard the story about how dropping a penny from the observation deck of the Empire State Building would get falling so fast it would kill someone if it hit them on the sidewalk. Less common is the realization that the math of that claim fails to consider two very important concepts: Terminal Velocity and Free Fall. Terminal velocity governs the maximum speed a falling object will achieve, and Free Fall speaks to the absence of orientation. Just like the penny could never travel fast enough or be oriented the correct way to put a hole in someone's skull, a free falling bullet could not kill somebody. Ruin their day, and probably give them a nasty headache? Yes. But not kill them.
So come off it. Stop being alarmist about bullets fired into the air. It's not going to kill someone. Leave that out of the discussion and instead talk about the legal, ethical, and logical arguments of warning shots. Stop using false statements to justify your position... you just end up looking like an idiot.
Monday, February 9, 2015
Vaccination Troubles
Vaccines have been getting a lot of press recently. The reason is not as important as the flood of information that comes across the news-wire. Aside from it being a slow news day and the need to present sensational news that doesn't come from the other side of the globe, the action word is "informed". People need to be informed.
There is a disturbing trend in vaccination. Fewer and fewer parents are opting to have their children vaccinated because of the belief that vaccines are harmful to health. The claims take a variety of forms but the most prevalent is the idea that vaccination causes autism.
The current generation of new parents grew up in a world of vaccination and therefore do not remember what life was like before the common vaccinations became available. The scourge of polio, measles, smallpox, rubella, etc. They do not have memories of the kid down the street falling prey to one of these diseases. They cannot imagine a world where Suzi just stopped showing up to school and finding out a week later that she had smallpox. They may never see Suzi again. This is unheard of in developed countries. The danger, if any, was far outweighed by the benefits of not having to worry if your child was going to contract a serious disease.
Let's examine the ":dangers" of vaccines:
Where did the original claim of vaccination danger come from? It was first supposed in a 19998 paper published in "The Lancet" by Andrew Wakefield. The paper suggested a link between the MMR (Mumps, Measles, Rubella) vaccine and a condition called autistic enterocolitis and other gastrointestinal pathologies. The paper recommended further study on the link between the vaccine and these conditions which were supposedly linked to autism. That's were it all started.
It turns out that the paper was utterly fraudulent. Autistic enterocolitis is not real condition and was invented by Mr. Wakefield to support the data. The paper was completely discredited and Mr. Wakefield was placed under investigation for ethics violations, professional misconduct, fraud, and conflict of interest. This ultimately led to the revocation of his ability to practice medicine. You would think that the issue would have been put to rest there, but it didn't die with the original fake paper.
There are so many conditions, diseases, complications said to have been caused by some form of vaccination that I could not possibly list all of them. They run the spectrum from Autism, to arthritis, cancer, and death. Pick a condition and someone has probably blamed it on a vaccination. Many times the articles or research links to things that the lay person would have no idea about. I know of no one (including myself) outside of a medical professional who knows what Acute Encephalopathy, Thrombocytopenia, Febrile Seizures, or Brachial Neuritis is without looking it up. And even then, the definitions are often presented in even more medical jargon making a full understanding of the condition very difficult. Take into account that a full understanding of a disease includes more than the definition. It would include things like pathology, transmission, prognosis, treatment, etc. However.... they all sound scary and that is enough.
What of the credentials of the people making the claims? Firstly, anyone who says something causes a disease should be a medical professional. They are the only people who have the knowledge base to understand the complexity of the human body enough to come to reasonable conclusions. And these people must have degrees from accredited universities with proper graduate degree programs. Bob's School of Medicine doesn't count despite the fact that every graduate puts "Dr." before their name and "MD" after it on their business cards and letterhead.
Secondly, it takes much more than medical expertise to determine cause; most notably, statisticians. I don't know of many MDs who have their medical PhD and a doctorate degree in statistics. You need people to design the experiment, those who can carry it out, and people who can interpret the data and form conclusions. Then, it must be subjected to peer review and repeat-ability trials. This cannot be accomplished in a matter of months, it must be done over the course of years.
It comes down to a few well known claims:
There is a disturbing trend in vaccination. Fewer and fewer parents are opting to have their children vaccinated because of the belief that vaccines are harmful to health. The claims take a variety of forms but the most prevalent is the idea that vaccination causes autism.
The current generation of new parents grew up in a world of vaccination and therefore do not remember what life was like before the common vaccinations became available. The scourge of polio, measles, smallpox, rubella, etc. They do not have memories of the kid down the street falling prey to one of these diseases. They cannot imagine a world where Suzi just stopped showing up to school and finding out a week later that she had smallpox. They may never see Suzi again. This is unheard of in developed countries. The danger, if any, was far outweighed by the benefits of not having to worry if your child was going to contract a serious disease.
Let's examine the ":dangers" of vaccines:
Where did the original claim of vaccination danger come from? It was first supposed in a 19998 paper published in "The Lancet" by Andrew Wakefield. The paper suggested a link between the MMR (Mumps, Measles, Rubella) vaccine and a condition called autistic enterocolitis and other gastrointestinal pathologies. The paper recommended further study on the link between the vaccine and these conditions which were supposedly linked to autism. That's were it all started.
It turns out that the paper was utterly fraudulent. Autistic enterocolitis is not real condition and was invented by Mr. Wakefield to support the data. The paper was completely discredited and Mr. Wakefield was placed under investigation for ethics violations, professional misconduct, fraud, and conflict of interest. This ultimately led to the revocation of his ability to practice medicine. You would think that the issue would have been put to rest there, but it didn't die with the original fake paper.
There are so many conditions, diseases, complications said to have been caused by some form of vaccination that I could not possibly list all of them. They run the spectrum from Autism, to arthritis, cancer, and death. Pick a condition and someone has probably blamed it on a vaccination. Many times the articles or research links to things that the lay person would have no idea about. I know of no one (including myself) outside of a medical professional who knows what Acute Encephalopathy, Thrombocytopenia, Febrile Seizures, or Brachial Neuritis is without looking it up. And even then, the definitions are often presented in even more medical jargon making a full understanding of the condition very difficult. Take into account that a full understanding of a disease includes more than the definition. It would include things like pathology, transmission, prognosis, treatment, etc. However.... they all sound scary and that is enough.
What of the credentials of the people making the claims? Firstly, anyone who says something causes a disease should be a medical professional. They are the only people who have the knowledge base to understand the complexity of the human body enough to come to reasonable conclusions. And these people must have degrees from accredited universities with proper graduate degree programs. Bob's School of Medicine doesn't count despite the fact that every graduate puts "Dr." before their name and "MD" after it on their business cards and letterhead.
Secondly, it takes much more than medical expertise to determine cause; most notably, statisticians. I don't know of many MDs who have their medical PhD and a doctorate degree in statistics. You need people to design the experiment, those who can carry it out, and people who can interpret the data and form conclusions. Then, it must be subjected to peer review and repeat-ability trials. This cannot be accomplished in a matter of months, it must be done over the course of years.
It comes down to a few well known claims:
- Vaccines cause diseases, including autism and autoimmune diseases.
- Vaccines contain toxins, which can harm the body in unknown ways.
- Too many vaccines given together can overwhelm the immune system.
- Vaccines are unnecessary, and/or do not work.
None of these claims have been supported by medical research that meets the standard above. The claims have been refuted at length by people a whole lot smarter than me. The catch-all logically fallacious defense amounts to some form of conspiracy theory. The claims resort to fear, uncertainty, and doubt.... a common tool for those who wish to influence someone else's behavior.
So who cares? What difference does it make if you choose not to vaccinate? Many claim the same answer when challenged about other dubious health practices such as gluten free diet, organic floods, etc. It's "well it's my choice and this is what I'm choosing." Yes, a reasonable, although childish, defense. But there is a big difference here: You not eating gluten has no potential impact on my life. Failure to immunize can. There is a concept called "herd immunity" which refers to the percent of immune individuals that must be resent in a herd to establish immunity of the whole group. It's the main reason people are encouraged to get the flu vaccine.... it's not that the flu will kill you (although I know it can lead to fatal complications in people who have compromised immune systems), it's that immunization will prevent everyone from getting it. We are rapidly approaching the herd immunity threshold for some of the diseases that are unheard of in developed countries.
The current trend of ignorance and the idea that they are somehow smarter than the whole of the scientific community will drag us back to the days of applying the same treatments as were done for the plague. If anyone can show me credible research, I am open to changing my opinion. But I am confident in my stance that such research does not exist.
Tuesday, December 30, 2014
Officer Friendly Does Not Exist
As much as I advocate for law enforcement, there are things that civilians must always remember. I will explain why the "protect and serve" slogan is laughable at best.
Firstly, police officers are not your friends by definition. By strict interpretation of the term, police officers have one purpose and that is to arrest you. It's as simple as that. When a police officer initiates a non-consensual (and often consensual) interaction, they are looking for a reason to take you to jail.
From Wikipedia: "Law Enforcement" broadly refers to any system by which some members of society act in an organized manner to enforce the law by discovering, deterring, rehabilitating or punishing persons who violate the rules and norms governing that society. This is the generally accepted definition of a law enforcement. Nowhere does that definition say anything about being a nice guy, a friendly person, or even do anything for you other than take you to jail. It's no simpler than that.
Along the same lines, court case after court case has shown that police have absolutely no responsibility to protect you from anything. People have tried to sue law enforcement agencies for failing to respond and protect someone. In some cases, people have been killed because police did not respond. Again and again, the courts have said that the police have no legal obligation to protect you. You could be mugged and stabbed repeatedly in front of a cop and he will not have any legal repercussions if he does nothing to stop it.
Gasp! The Andy Griffith Show vision of a police officer isn't true? There is no Officer Friendly? The words "protect" and "serve" do not appear in any legal mandate or job description? Yes, it's all true.
But what does it matter if most cops are generally good guys? Won't they step up and do the right thing? Well, what keeps you from speeding? Is it because it increases your risk of being involved in an accident? Maybe. Is it more because you will get a hefty fine? More likely. You don't generally do illegal stuff because of the possible legal repercussions. It's why we don't rob banks, launder money, or dodge taxes. What if there were no legal repercussions? There would be a lot more illegal stuff happening whether it's morally right or not. That means that a police officer who does not respond to an assault in progress because he doesn't want his coffee to get cold can sit tight till they feel ready to go. The victim may well be dead by then.
Let me say that this "exemption" is absolutely necessary. It would not be a stretch of the imagination to come up with numerous situations in which police could be held liable for circumstances beyond their control. The issue is that it must be broad in order to be useful. Otherwise every unsatisfactory outcome in which police are involved would be subject to review.... a process that would be costly to the taxpayer and add yet another layer of bureaucracy to the legal system.
I'm not trying to bash police officers as bad guys who don't give a rip. I am just trying to explain at a base level what may and may not be expected. The simple solution for a civilian is to be fully aware of all the rules involved. Don't think that just because it seems to be common knowledge that it's true. There are many fallacies portrayed as truth by people who have ulterior agendas, just don't know any better, or cling to a fairy tale view of reality. Wake up each morning with your eyes wide open, challenge preconceived notions, and constantly strive for the truth no matter how unpleasant it might be.
Firstly, police officers are not your friends by definition. By strict interpretation of the term, police officers have one purpose and that is to arrest you. It's as simple as that. When a police officer initiates a non-consensual (and often consensual) interaction, they are looking for a reason to take you to jail.
From Wikipedia: "Law Enforcement" broadly refers to any system by which some members of society act in an organized manner to enforce the law by discovering, deterring, rehabilitating or punishing persons who violate the rules and norms governing that society. This is the generally accepted definition of a law enforcement. Nowhere does that definition say anything about being a nice guy, a friendly person, or even do anything for you other than take you to jail. It's no simpler than that.
Along the same lines, court case after court case has shown that police have absolutely no responsibility to protect you from anything. People have tried to sue law enforcement agencies for failing to respond and protect someone. In some cases, people have been killed because police did not respond. Again and again, the courts have said that the police have no legal obligation to protect you. You could be mugged and stabbed repeatedly in front of a cop and he will not have any legal repercussions if he does nothing to stop it.
Gasp! The Andy Griffith Show vision of a police officer isn't true? There is no Officer Friendly? The words "protect" and "serve" do not appear in any legal mandate or job description? Yes, it's all true.
But what does it matter if most cops are generally good guys? Won't they step up and do the right thing? Well, what keeps you from speeding? Is it because it increases your risk of being involved in an accident? Maybe. Is it more because you will get a hefty fine? More likely. You don't generally do illegal stuff because of the possible legal repercussions. It's why we don't rob banks, launder money, or dodge taxes. What if there were no legal repercussions? There would be a lot more illegal stuff happening whether it's morally right or not. That means that a police officer who does not respond to an assault in progress because he doesn't want his coffee to get cold can sit tight till they feel ready to go. The victim may well be dead by then.
Let me say that this "exemption" is absolutely necessary. It would not be a stretch of the imagination to come up with numerous situations in which police could be held liable for circumstances beyond their control. The issue is that it must be broad in order to be useful. Otherwise every unsatisfactory outcome in which police are involved would be subject to review.... a process that would be costly to the taxpayer and add yet another layer of bureaucracy to the legal system.
I'm not trying to bash police officers as bad guys who don't give a rip. I am just trying to explain at a base level what may and may not be expected. The simple solution for a civilian is to be fully aware of all the rules involved. Don't think that just because it seems to be common knowledge that it's true. There are many fallacies portrayed as truth by people who have ulterior agendas, just don't know any better, or cling to a fairy tale view of reality. Wake up each morning with your eyes wide open, challenge preconceived notions, and constantly strive for the truth no matter how unpleasant it might be.
Thursday, December 18, 2014
I Can't Breathe!
I can't breathe! Like the shock of lumping into ice cold water, I am having some trouble here. It is quite distressing. Yes, I am referring to the current hysteria over the death of Eric Garner but not in the way you might think.
By now, just about everyone in the United States has heard of this case from New York where Mr. Garner was being arrested. One police officer put him in a choke hold or a head lock (The masses are mostly familiar with only one choke hold: the rear naked choke. There are in fact, many different choke holds). Mr. Garner was taken to the ground and began to yell "I can't breathe" as other officers cuffed him. He lost consciousness at some point and later died. The majority of the incident was caught on multiple cell phone cameras.
The controversy stems from the fact that Mr. Garner was black and the cop who applied the choke hold was white. In addition to him yelling that he could not breathe and that the NYPD (the department involved) had barred the use of choke holds and that there will be no charges against the officer involved. Then there are several other point being brought up to add sympathy points: Mr. Garner was a father and common opinion of him was good and that he was originally being arrested for selling un-taxed cigarettes. Lust like in Ferguson, people are calling foul on the grounds of racism.
Let's take the reactionary emotion out of the picture for a moment and examine some other ideas or facts surrounding the incident.
Fact: Mr Garner was no stranger to the law and had a criminal record that included more than 30 arrests going back almost 30 years and include resisting arrest, grand larceny, and assault. At the time of the incident, he was out on probation for selling un-taxed cigarettes, driving without a license, marijuana possession, and false impersonation. I can't speak to the notion that he was a great guy and father.... he certainly may well have been but he tended to break the law.
Fact: Member of the NYPD cannot use choke holds. Plain and simple. The officer (Daniel Pantaleo) violated policy when he was attempting to subdue Mr. Garner.
Fact: Mr. Garner had heart failure, asthma, and was overweight. All factors included in the official cause of death from an autopsy. He was also 6'3" and weighed 350 lbs.
Fact: The police were contacting Mr. Garner on suspicion that he was again selling un-taxed cigarettes and he became agitated and resisted arrest when an officer tried to take a physical hold.
Fact: The death was ruled as a homicide by the New York Medical Examiner but noted that there was no damage to the windpipe or neck bones.
Fact: A grand jury was convened and after hearing evidence in the case, decided not to indict Officer Pantaleo.
Now let's have a but of discourse on the event. It is a sad day when anyone looses their life. Even sadder when that life didn't have to be lost. My condolences go out to his family and that I am sorry for their loss. I hope they can grieve and heal as best as can be expected after experiencing such devastation. The police officers claim they witnessed Mr. Garner selling cigarettes illegally and that was why there were going to arrest him. I wont argue about the decision to arrest him or whether or not it was the "right" thing to do. The fact of the matter is that they were going to arrest him and any law enforcement officer will tell you that once you have made that decision and communicated it, you must follow through.
Mr. Garner immediately resisted arrest and that was wrong. No one should resist a lawful arrest.... even an unlawful one should only be resisted under a very extreme and precise set of circumstances. Mr. Garner is a huge guy. Those familiar with combatives will attest to the fact that size makes a big difference in a physical encounter even when training and experience does not favor the bigger guy. Guys like that can be very hard to control and can inflict severe damage quickly should they decide to. Officers know that when a suspect is resisting, they must get control quickly because the longer the struggle, the more likely someone will get hurt. At the end of the day, all the officers want to do is go home alive and that thought is foremost in their minds. Grabbing the neck serves two purposes: It can be the target of submission holds and it is a point of leverage on a body. When subjects resist, officers generally take them to the ground where control is easier. If a guy is that tall, pulling him down will be hard especially if he is that heavy and doesn't want to.
I can sympathize with the officers decision to do what he did but don't let that be understood as a claim the he did the right thing. The technique was barred and he should not have done it if only for the reason that he wasn't supposed to. Applied incorrectly, holds of that type can cause internal damage to the neck. He should not have done it. Should he be reprimanded? yes. Should he be punished? Yes. Should he go down for murder? No. Murder has a definition in every state and it varies slightly in it's wording but the concept is the same: Murder is the unlawful killing of a human by another human with malice aforethought. Premeditation is the element missing here. Depending on which definitions, perhaps involuntary homicide would be an appropriate indictment.
Both men made mistakes that day and unfortunately it culminated in Mr. Garners death. If Mr. Garner hadn't resisted arrest, he would probably still be alive today. By the same token if Officer Pantaleo had not used a banned take-down Mr. Garner might still be alive. Both are, in some part, responsible for the death. How much and where is not my place to say. Neither is it the place of protesters, Jesse Jackson, or politicians. It was the place of the grand jury and even though I do not agree with their decision, it is their decision. We must move forward.
To the protesters: Get a grip! Every time someone who is not white dies during a police encounter it is clearly racism. And when the racism card can't be played, its corruption, prejudice, or a culture of violence. As if only blacks, or Latinos know what prejudice feels like. You arrogant, self-important, egotistical, victim playing jackass! Everyone knows what it feels like to be the subject of prejudice. Maybe not because of your race but maybe by your gender, religion, political beliefs, or social status. Please! You are not a member of some poor persecuted group of helplessly innocent and oppressed sufferers. You are American citizens afforded the same rights and responsibilities as anyone else. Yes, there are some bigoted people and life isn't fair; but the system is not out to get you. You should be ashamed of yourselves for making such quick judgement even while the body is still warm. It's morbid but it's the truth.
You want oppression? There are places in this world where people are being hacked apart with machetes because they live in the wrong place, associate with the wrong people, or get accused of crimes such as witchcraft. There are places in this world where children are beat to death, shot, or burned alive because someone wants revenge for perceived wrongdoing by others. There are places in this world where loved ones can be arrested and never seen or heard from again. Never knowing if they are alive or dead. There are places in this world where your genetics or family history could doom you to a life of starvation and poverty. These things are happening now in all corners of the globe.
What you see are the hysterical idiots screaming of injustice without acknowledging any responsibility on the part of the deceased. You see the activists seizing any opportunity to further their cause. You see the political figures making speeches and demands for press coverage and to further their carriers.
What you don't see are the families of officers who were killed because they hesitated, or tried to prevent a dangerous criminal from doing more harm, or by just being in the wrong spot at the wrong time. You don't see the officers that break down weeping because the victim they rendered first aid to and rode with on the ambulance died in the emergency room. You don't see the grief when responding to a fatal wreck caused by a drunk driver. You don't see the look of fear and helplessness in they eyes of a spouse when their world walks out the front door every morning and the prayer that they come back safe. You don't see hurt when officers must walk away from situations they know will turn bad but there is not enough evidence or cause to intervene.
You want to be a victim? Fine. I will not be a victim. I will not blame others for my circumstance. I will not jump to conclusions and then stick to them with the fervor of a Southern Baptist preacher even in the face of incontrovertible facts. Being a victim is the cowards way out.
On the lighter side of things: Chris Rock has a hilarious Educational Video
By now, just about everyone in the United States has heard of this case from New York where Mr. Garner was being arrested. One police officer put him in a choke hold or a head lock (The masses are mostly familiar with only one choke hold: the rear naked choke. There are in fact, many different choke holds). Mr. Garner was taken to the ground and began to yell "I can't breathe" as other officers cuffed him. He lost consciousness at some point and later died. The majority of the incident was caught on multiple cell phone cameras.
The controversy stems from the fact that Mr. Garner was black and the cop who applied the choke hold was white. In addition to him yelling that he could not breathe and that the NYPD (the department involved) had barred the use of choke holds and that there will be no charges against the officer involved. Then there are several other point being brought up to add sympathy points: Mr. Garner was a father and common opinion of him was good and that he was originally being arrested for selling un-taxed cigarettes. Lust like in Ferguson, people are calling foul on the grounds of racism.
Let's take the reactionary emotion out of the picture for a moment and examine some other ideas or facts surrounding the incident.
Fact: Mr Garner was no stranger to the law and had a criminal record that included more than 30 arrests going back almost 30 years and include resisting arrest, grand larceny, and assault. At the time of the incident, he was out on probation for selling un-taxed cigarettes, driving without a license, marijuana possession, and false impersonation. I can't speak to the notion that he was a great guy and father.... he certainly may well have been but he tended to break the law.
Fact: Member of the NYPD cannot use choke holds. Plain and simple. The officer (Daniel Pantaleo) violated policy when he was attempting to subdue Mr. Garner.
Fact: Mr. Garner had heart failure, asthma, and was overweight. All factors included in the official cause of death from an autopsy. He was also 6'3" and weighed 350 lbs.
Fact: The police were contacting Mr. Garner on suspicion that he was again selling un-taxed cigarettes and he became agitated and resisted arrest when an officer tried to take a physical hold.
Fact: The death was ruled as a homicide by the New York Medical Examiner but noted that there was no damage to the windpipe or neck bones.
Fact: A grand jury was convened and after hearing evidence in the case, decided not to indict Officer Pantaleo.
Now let's have a but of discourse on the event. It is a sad day when anyone looses their life. Even sadder when that life didn't have to be lost. My condolences go out to his family and that I am sorry for their loss. I hope they can grieve and heal as best as can be expected after experiencing such devastation. The police officers claim they witnessed Mr. Garner selling cigarettes illegally and that was why there were going to arrest him. I wont argue about the decision to arrest him or whether or not it was the "right" thing to do. The fact of the matter is that they were going to arrest him and any law enforcement officer will tell you that once you have made that decision and communicated it, you must follow through.
Mr. Garner immediately resisted arrest and that was wrong. No one should resist a lawful arrest.... even an unlawful one should only be resisted under a very extreme and precise set of circumstances. Mr. Garner is a huge guy. Those familiar with combatives will attest to the fact that size makes a big difference in a physical encounter even when training and experience does not favor the bigger guy. Guys like that can be very hard to control and can inflict severe damage quickly should they decide to. Officers know that when a suspect is resisting, they must get control quickly because the longer the struggle, the more likely someone will get hurt. At the end of the day, all the officers want to do is go home alive and that thought is foremost in their minds. Grabbing the neck serves two purposes: It can be the target of submission holds and it is a point of leverage on a body. When subjects resist, officers generally take them to the ground where control is easier. If a guy is that tall, pulling him down will be hard especially if he is that heavy and doesn't want to.
I can sympathize with the officers decision to do what he did but don't let that be understood as a claim the he did the right thing. The technique was barred and he should not have done it if only for the reason that he wasn't supposed to. Applied incorrectly, holds of that type can cause internal damage to the neck. He should not have done it. Should he be reprimanded? yes. Should he be punished? Yes. Should he go down for murder? No. Murder has a definition in every state and it varies slightly in it's wording but the concept is the same: Murder is the unlawful killing of a human by another human with malice aforethought. Premeditation is the element missing here. Depending on which definitions, perhaps involuntary homicide would be an appropriate indictment.
Both men made mistakes that day and unfortunately it culminated in Mr. Garners death. If Mr. Garner hadn't resisted arrest, he would probably still be alive today. By the same token if Officer Pantaleo had not used a banned take-down Mr. Garner might still be alive. Both are, in some part, responsible for the death. How much and where is not my place to say. Neither is it the place of protesters, Jesse Jackson, or politicians. It was the place of the grand jury and even though I do not agree with their decision, it is their decision. We must move forward.
To the protesters: Get a grip! Every time someone who is not white dies during a police encounter it is clearly racism. And when the racism card can't be played, its corruption, prejudice, or a culture of violence. As if only blacks, or Latinos know what prejudice feels like. You arrogant, self-important, egotistical, victim playing jackass! Everyone knows what it feels like to be the subject of prejudice. Maybe not because of your race but maybe by your gender, religion, political beliefs, or social status. Please! You are not a member of some poor persecuted group of helplessly innocent and oppressed sufferers. You are American citizens afforded the same rights and responsibilities as anyone else. Yes, there are some bigoted people and life isn't fair; but the system is not out to get you. You should be ashamed of yourselves for making such quick judgement even while the body is still warm. It's morbid but it's the truth.
You want oppression? There are places in this world where people are being hacked apart with machetes because they live in the wrong place, associate with the wrong people, or get accused of crimes such as witchcraft. There are places in this world where children are beat to death, shot, or burned alive because someone wants revenge for perceived wrongdoing by others. There are places in this world where loved ones can be arrested and never seen or heard from again. Never knowing if they are alive or dead. There are places in this world where your genetics or family history could doom you to a life of starvation and poverty. These things are happening now in all corners of the globe.
What you see are the hysterical idiots screaming of injustice without acknowledging any responsibility on the part of the deceased. You see the activists seizing any opportunity to further their cause. You see the political figures making speeches and demands for press coverage and to further their carriers.
What you don't see are the families of officers who were killed because they hesitated, or tried to prevent a dangerous criminal from doing more harm, or by just being in the wrong spot at the wrong time. You don't see the officers that break down weeping because the victim they rendered first aid to and rode with on the ambulance died in the emergency room. You don't see the grief when responding to a fatal wreck caused by a drunk driver. You don't see the look of fear and helplessness in they eyes of a spouse when their world walks out the front door every morning and the prayer that they come back safe. You don't see hurt when officers must walk away from situations they know will turn bad but there is not enough evidence or cause to intervene.
You want to be a victim? Fine. I will not be a victim. I will not blame others for my circumstance. I will not jump to conclusions and then stick to them with the fervor of a Southern Baptist preacher even in the face of incontrovertible facts. Being a victim is the cowards way out.
On the lighter side of things: Chris Rock has a hilarious Educational Video
Friday, December 12, 2014
Are You Kidding Me?
This is an image that has been causing some uproar. Here are the facts: Yes, that is a police officer pointing a gun at protesters in Oakland, California. Clearly he is part of a group of violent, racist, government supported, thugs..... also called Law Enforcement. One reaction on Twitter stated that this image is the perfect example of why citizens and off duty police officers should not be allowed to carry guns. Harsh words indeed. A picture may be worth a thousand words but what those words are is the question.
Allow me to enlighten on the totality of circumstance here. All of what was said above is true. But allow me to add some more detail to what is going on. Two plainclothes police officers were with a group of protesters. It's a common tactic to place plainclothes officers among protesting crowds to keep an eye on things and to get a heads up if the group decides they want to go shut down a freeway. Someone in the crowd recognized one of them as cops. In the moments that followed one of them was struck in the back of the head and began wrestling with the attacker (notice the two guys on the ground? The one on top is the cop trying to subdue the assaulter). As the crowd circles and begins to advance, the other officer produces his baton and show his badge, ordering the crowd to stop. One woman runs forward and kicks the downed officer in the head. The officer then draws his firearm and points it at the crowd and again orders them to stop. This time it works. The crowd backs up and mostly disperses. The man who hit the officer is charged with assault and the woman was not caught.
One caption accompanying this picture on Twitter was "In Oakland, cop pulls gun (not badge) on crowd after being exposed." Really? Are you kidding me? People are buying this shit? Maybe if his badge could shoot laser beams he would have pulled his badge. You can clearly see the baton he drew first in his left hand.... showing his escalation of force. This was not a case of "I don't like these people looking at me so I think I'll threaten them with my trusty, scary gun." Anyone with half a brain would tell you that he should have feared for his life or the life of his partner. The mob mentality is a very dangerous thing. They had already been attacked, the attack was continuing and if not gotten under control, they both could have ended up dead. It happens in other parts of the world on a regular basis.
It seems that there are two sins here that justify the mob: 1. they were cops (clearly not human beings only interested in doing their job and going home to their families). 2. They had guns (we know only evil people carry guns like a talisman channeling orders directly from the devil or their evil corporate masters to kill anyone they can). The only sin I see is the omission of facts by people so blinded with an agenda that every incident is support for their position. Never let facts get in the way of a good story. This sentiment should apply to your glorious college days or the one that got away, not to life and death.
Monday, November 24, 2014
Reality Based Training
When you train for something, you want your training to be as close to the real thing as possible. We can think of many occasions where people actually engage in their activity of choice for practice. People play basketball to practice basketball. Drill alone will not make them a better player. Musicians practice by actually playing their instruments... not simply reading music and imagining their movements. The same can be said for dancer, painters, carpenters, etc... just about any skill.
Then what about those of us who train to engage in deadly situations? You can't exactly practice a gunfight. Or can you? It's true that there are some amazing technologies and installations that allow great training. Kill houses and Simunition being at the top of that list. Where the threat gets as real as it can without actually throwing real ouchy, hurty, killy bullets your direction. But why is it so important? Why cant you go to the range, practice drawing, firing your rounds, and re-holstering and call it good? It's because deadly threats will never present themselves as static targets with bulls-eyes painted on their chests. You may be really good at shooting a three inch grouping at 10 yards.... but see how well you do it when there is a criminal bearing down on you with a knife intent on doing you harm.
A day at the range and a home invasion are not even close. If you think so, you are training for failure.
Let's break it down a little farther. Let's take a simple home invasion. Let's assume you have a family, they are asleep, and a bad guy forces a door open and comes in. You grab your gun and intend on ensuring your family's safety. Here are the factors you may not have considered: It's probably a low light situation. Is that a knife or gun in his hand or the steak he was planning on throwing to the family guard dog? that could be the difference between justifiable homicide and murder. You may be in an unconventional shooting position. Peering around corners with feet dodging furniture and other obstacles, it's going to be pretty hard to keep that weaver stance. You have to think about where your bullets could go if you miss... or if the bad guy misses. We all know the "Know your target, and what's behind it rule", but how often do you consciously review that before you press the trigger? I can safely say that pretty much no one at a range ever consciously thought about where the bullets go after punching a neat little hole in your paper target. Your rounds can go through walls and injure sleeping family members. And yes, I hear the cries of "That's why I use hollow point or frangible ammunition". Sure, that works for you.... but what about Mr. Badguy? I'm sure that when he got his bullets, he was thinking about shooting through walls accidentally. Are you inviting stray pullets to go past you and injure a family member? Then there is the mental and physical trauma associated with coming face to face with someone who may try to kill you. Oh and the tunnel vision that may not allow you to see Badguy's buddy.
What happens when all this is put together? The heart rate increases to levels that under any other circumstances would warrant a visit to the ER. Your thinking brain gets hijacked by your instinctive brain. Logical thinking and fine motor skills go out the window. You actually revert to a neanderthal like state of physical and mental ability. As crazy as it sounds, it's well documented. It's the reason police officers in gunfights miss 80% of the time. It's all about your body trying to preserve itself. And it does that by increasing the heart rate, releasing chemicals that cause faster blood clotting, blocking the pain senses, eliminating complex thought, tightening muscles ( your body actually hardens your muscles to create a kind of armor that harder to penetrate), and increasing cellular energy production. Put all that together, and you become a very different person. How do we overcome this to be effective in life-threatening situations?
Reality based training is the answer. You will interact with situations that artificially create those body fight responses and your thinking brain and start to adapt. Think of the first skydive with the one-thousandth. How different would they feel from a physiological perspective. You would go from being out of your mind scared to calm, cool, and collected. A place where you could deal with a chute failure or other malfunction. Something you could not have done your first time around. Don't let your first gunfight be your first gunfight.
Master the fundamentals with good practice and technique. Think beyond the tangible. You will fight how you train... so train how you want to fight. A static caveman with a bulls-eye painted on his chest? Or a mobile, thinking warrior?
Reality based training is the answer. You will interact with situations that artificially create those body fight responses and your thinking brain and start to adapt. Think of the first skydive with the one-thousandth. How different would they feel from a physiological perspective. You would go from being out of your mind scared to calm, cool, and collected. A place where you could deal with a chute failure or other malfunction. Something you could not have done your first time around. Don't let your first gunfight be your first gunfight.
Master the fundamentals with good practice and technique. Think beyond the tangible. You will fight how you train... so train how you want to fight. A static caveman with a bulls-eye painted on his chest? Or a mobile, thinking warrior?
Stay Low, Move Fast
Kill First, Die Last
One Shot, One Kill
No Luck, All Skill
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)